Longshots: Speed Improvement

[FakeNameChanged]

For anyone interested, I'd like to share a home grown system I've developed over the last decade. Background: While I'm fairly new to this board, my handicapping days go back about 35 years, more or less. Being a former engineer, numbers and statistics are what attracts me to the races, plus cashing a ticket. I apologize to any of the good handicappers on this board, if you feel my system is too rudimentary in this presentation.

So I made a lengthy study on winners, 4-1 odds or higher to see what factors showed up in their PP's. I included about 15 different factors, and two things stood out. My original study was over 500 winners at tracks all across the country. I've since done about three more follow up studies of 150, 200, and 100 winners and the numbers repeated almost to the exact percentages.

The number one factor hands down was speed improvement in it's last race. Speed improvement(SI) was evident in 65.6% of all winners studied. The number two factor was the horse made a middle move in its last race. MM being defined as a gain in either positions or lengths from any p.o.c to the next p.o.c., not including the stretch. Gains in the stretch were a separate factor. MM's were evident in about 60-61% of all longshot winners. Since SI was easier to quantify, I settled on using this one factor to find a probable longshot play.

My selection method was to quantify the speed number improvement in its last race from its previous race of similar distance. I only used two distance descriptions, either it was a sprint or a route to be similar. So 7f and below were sprints, and 1M and above was a route. If last race was 6f and no other races in the pp's was a sprint, then I used the 2nd last race as the base point, even if it was a route. My preference was to have the last two or three races at the same distance or similar distance. Today's race distance did not matter in identifying where the speed improvement was important. I also prefer the surface to be the same, but speed improvement going from dirt to turf has shown me to be a valid improvement. For speed improvement to be valid, the last race had to be in the last 35 days. I didn't arbitrarily pick that number but let the data show me what was a break before the data was invalid. My original training started with Tom Ainslie handicapping book, where he used 28 or 30 days to decide if a horse was a good play. I think he assigned extra credit for 7 days or less and deducted points if it was over 21 days, but my memory may be wrong.

I also found that you can use Beyers, the old track speed rating and variant, or the Equibase speed numbers to make your speed comparison. They all work equally well. My preference is the Equibase speed numbers but they all work, as long as you're consistent in your comparison. I don't look at times at all. I trust the speed numbers to represent the time and track bias, or variant for the day.

My preferred tracks to use Speed Improvement for longshots are Belmont, Aqueduct, PARX, Penn National, LRL, GP, DEL, and MNR. I've also used and had winners at Tampa, Arlington, GG, and SA. I generally don't use Sp Impr for G1 Stakes, but have had the winner in the Belmont stakes a few years back, and the exacta in the KY Dby or Preakness a couple years back when First Dude ran second. I gave that to a bunch of guys at OTB, and they thought I was gold. To be honest, my record in the Triple crown races sucks. I told them to box First Dude with the top three favorites, whom I couldn't separate.

I show a couple of recent examples so you can look at the PP's for yourself. I will only show horses with any Speed improvement in their last race. This method also id's the favorite. More often than not, the top SI horse is overlooked by the public. My apology for not using screen shots, since I don't subscribe to online PP's.

1st race at MNR(10-9-16)-7f-Turf-Clm 15000-14000:
#1 3-1 ML Red Dart: +21 SI(70 fig) lr.-both sprints
#5 9-5 ML Ship Ahoy +31 SI(62 fig) lr.-both routes
#9 10-1ML Santos Symphony +39 SI(56)-both sprints
This is not my ideal Speed improvement play since all three have very high SI's. I prefer only one or two with min. +5 SI or double digits, but it was still a play. Notice this horse had the lowest last race speed rating, which always gives me pause, but it was still a play.
Results
#9-$74.20-21.20-6.80
#5 - 3.80-2.40
#1 - -2.40
Exacta 307.40, Triple: 756.60

While these results are not normal, I just wanted to show that this method still picks longshots. And to be clear, I often box the SI play with top one or two favorites which both of the place and show horses were. I almost never play the triple, but regularly cash exacta tickets. Mountaineer has produced my biggest winners using this method, but it works quite well at big tracks like Belmont as well.

7th PARX(10-3-16)-10000 CLM-1M70Yd
#7-15-1ML-Big Gally's Answer +20 SI-(76 spd rat)-l.r.route, 2lr-7f.
Results #7 won $27.40-10.40-6.40
After I made this bet at the OTB, I went back to my seat and saw to my dismay that this trainer was 0/40 this year! I swore to myself, but said WTH, let it ride. Big Gally's Answer wired the field and hung onto win. I keep telling myself, that my old handicapping methods would have probably thrown this horse out. The 2nd SI horse at +6, ran 4th. This was a 14 point difference. It's not unusual to have only one SI in a field.

from the same day at PARX:
10th-PARX-10000 Clm-7f.
#3 10-1 ML-Fat Albert-+17 SI (76) p.t. odds 15-1-both races sprints
#6 7-2 ML-Only The Truth +16 SI (75) p.t. odds 7-2-both routes
#9 20-1ML-Thomas Knight +16 SI(88) p.t. odds 21-1-both routes
I dutched the top two odds' SI's to win and place. #9 also had a huge speed rating difference in its last race, which I occasionally use to break ties, since no horse had a +5 differential in SI. I often skip races with several SI with high ratings. (side note: #9's speed number l.r. was highest in race for all).
Results:
#9- $44.00-12.80-8.60; boxing these three didn't give me the exacta. Two nice longshots from one track in a day is very satisfying. This method also picks many horses paying 5.00 to 8.00, so it looks for the improving race horse.

Finally at Belmont:
2nd BEL(10-9-16)-Clm 16000-6-1/2f-
#2 6-1 ML-Sol The Freud +16 SI (93)-both races sprints-pp 6-1
#4 5-2 ML-You Know I Know +11 SI(100)-both races sprints-pp 2-1
#5 15-1ML-Because I'm Happy +19 SI (92)- " " " -pp 22-1
the #5 has +3 differential and +6 with the 2-1 odds #4.
Results
#5 won $46.80-14.80-5.70,
the 7-2 third fav. ran 2nd, and #2 showed at 5.10. I showed these races from yesterday and 10/3, to show it's still current. I have a database where I've recorded upwards of 300 actual winners I've hit over the years. True that many of them paid 7.00, but if they were the only play in the race with Sp Improv. then I played it if odds were 5-2 or higher.

The 64 dollar question will most likely be, what is the hit rate or ROI on this method? I don't have that answer, but the average mutual for all top SI's including low odds was $12.60. When I set the min. at 5-2, it rises considerably. I can't provide that number at the moment, as my old laptop crashed, and my new Chromebook does not have Excel on it, so my database is currently unavailable. I have a cloud on Microsoft, but it's not allowing me to access my Excel files, and I hate paying for something I've already bought. When it comes available, I will share that data.

I realize, many if not all of you probably program your handicapping and running a test is probably no big deal. My programming skills stop at Excel, and all my data crunching was done laboriously with hundreds of Racing Forms done on the kitchen table sometimes into the wee hours of morning. Any questions or criticism's, let me have them.

Let the beatings begin. Thanks for reading. Whosonfirst.

p.s. Sp Improv. is only valid if horse finished within 10 lengths in l.r. If horse was eased, impeded, or had any incident in 2nd l.r. I used the 3rd race back to make speed comparison.

[FakeNameChanged]

More Speed Improv plays at Belmont on 10/9/16:
Race 5-#6 +18/+13 placed to odds-on fav. #5, but the exacta paid $11.20 only six horses.
Race 6-#6 +16 won 14.00-7.00; #4 +13 place 5.60; exacta paid 70.00
3 winners including the two mentioned on previous post.

Belmont 10/10/16
Race 6-#2 +5 Won $4.10(only 4 horses)
Race 7-#11 +11 Won $5.20(again only 4 horses)
day not looking too good, several races with short fields sparse data in Mdns.
Race 10-Turf Mdn Clm 40K-#4 Road to Perfection +19 Won $59.00-18.60-5.70
#4 had a 59 speed rating(equibase), which was 2nd lowest out of 6 total horses. The #8 was also a +10 and finished last. Boxing #4 with five other horses in the exacta paid $290.00.

Here is how the LR speed ratings look for Race 10: #3-74, #4-59, #8-89, #11-84, #12-80, #13-27(comment dull fits), However when I look at the old DRF speed ratings, #4 was third highest at 82. I'm not sure why the equibase ratings don't track better with the old DRF ratings. Comparing speed Improv with the old DRF sp ratings show +16 for #4, so my original study still applies.
(edit): I forgot to mention that Maiden claiming races are some of my favorites to play. Last race top speed ratings win at decent prices in Mdn. claimers. MSW's not so much.

[maddog42]

Thanks for sharing whosonfirst.

[FakeNameChanged]

Thanks for sharing whosonfirst.

You're welcome maddog42. Hopefully it's something you can use with your regular h-capping.

One revision to my earlier edit. I looked back at my records and I still use the SI number even if the horse is 12 lengths from the winner in the last race. I know that seems like a lot, and I prefer it to be 8 lengths or less, but if a big Sp Impr shows and horse is 11-1/2 or even 12 l's from the winner, I use it. Will probably only be a minimal saver bet, "just in case". To be fair, I don't get a lot of +20's SI and 12 lengths behind, but it does happen. I've seen an SI at 17-1/2 lengths win, but that was probably just a random number occurrence than anything meaningful.
I also mostly avoid Stakes, where I said previously only G1. Graded Stakes are fun to watch, but my money usually stays on the sidelines.

[kevb]

How do you define speed improvement?

[maddog42]

You're welcome maddog42. Hopefully it's something you can use with your regular h-capping.

One revision to my earlier edit. I looked back at my records and I still use the SI number even if the horse is 12 lengths from the winner in the last race. I know that seems like a lot, and I prefer it to be 8 lengths or less, but if a big Sp Impr shows and horse is 11-1/2 or even 12 l's from the winner, I use it. Will probably only be a minimal saver bet, "just in case". To be fair, I don't get a lot of +20's SI and 12 lengths behind, but it does happen. I've seen an SI at 17-1/2 lengths win, but that was probably just a random number occurrence than anything meaningful.
I also mostly avoid Stakes, where I said previously only G1. Graded Stakes are fun to watch, but my money usually stays on the sidelines.

With the decline of racing fields, I have been looking for ways to eliminate the favorite. One thing I tested was favorites that had been beaten 6 lengths or more in the previous race regardless of surface or distance. The favorites that had beaten by 6 lengths or more in the previous race fared very well, and in fact had a 2 percent higher win rate. Don't take this as gospel, since it was only a 300 race study, and 2 percent is not significant at all. There were favorites that won despite losing there previous race by 12,17 or even 20 lengths. Usually there was a mitigating factor such as trouble, wrong surface or distance.

[FakeNameChanged]

How do you define speed improvement?
Maybe my explanation above was too obtuse. Let's try it like this.
2nd Race-Belmont(10/9/16)-6-1/2 furlong-Clm 16000

#5 Because I'm Happy
15-1 ML
25Sep16- 5Bel -6-1/2f-Clm12500 - 92 - fin 3 3-3/4 l's
31Jly16 - 5Sar-6-1/2f-Clm20000 - 73 - fin 5 12 l's

Subtract the 73 speed fig from 92 fig in last race and you get +19 Speed Improvement number. Since it was less that 35 days from today's race and it's our highest number within 12 lengths, it's our play. The fact that last race was a class drop from 20 down to 12.5K does not matter to me. And the rise in class this race is actually a plus in my mind. It helps to keep the public off my play, and it's what sharp trainers often do.

[jpjpicks]

It's nice to see some handicappers thinking outside the box !!! whosonfirst like you said reg handicapping would have not got some of the horses. like I have found out horses that run out last race but have good turn time plus late pace tend to run good next time out when you play system you got to take the good an bad
Ps: whosonfirst keep up the thinking an work very nice of you to share your system

[thaskalos]

I don't know if I understand you completely here. What you call "speed improvement" is just a speed rating comparison, right? You just take the last race speed rating, and you compare it to the SECOND-last race speed rating...while looking for a numerical "improvement" in the most recent start.

What if the second-last race is atypically slow for the horse...while his last race was a normal one? Wouldn't that lead to a misleadingly-high "improvement" indicator? What I mean is...what if the last 4 speed ratings for the horse are 78, 61, 74, 80. You would compare the most recent one (78) to the one right before that (61), and you would conclude that there was an improvement of 17 points...while the truth is that the second-last figure is suspiciously low, and the horse ran an even bigger rating in the fourth race back. Is this really an "improvement"? And...what if there are horses in the same race today with much higher speed ratings than the 78 or the 80 that our horse here shows?

IMO...you are placing all your eggs in the speed-rating basket...and I can't call that a good maneuver. A lot of different factors go into the creation of the speed figure...and the speed figure alone is not accurate enough to determine a horse's improvement, or its decline. Speed figures, although important, cannot stand alone in the handicapping process.

[pandy]

Whosonfirst, congratulations on a very good post. You did your homework.

[pandy]

I don't know if I understand you completely here. What you call "speed improvement" is just a speed rating comparison, right? You just take the last race speed rating, and you compare it to the SECOND-last race speed rating...while looking for a numerical "improvement" in the most recent start.

What if the second-last race is atypically slow for the horse...while his last race was a normal one? Wouldn't that lead to a misleadingly-high "improvement" indicator? What I mean is...what if the last 4 speed ratings for the horse are 78, 61, 74, 80. You would compare the most recent one (78) to the one right before that (61), and you would conclude that there was an improvement of 17 points...while the truth is that the second-last figure is suspiciously low, and the horse ran an even bigger rating in the fourth race back. Is this really an "improvement"? And...what if there are horses in the same race today with much higher speed ratings than the 78 or the 80 that our horse here shows?

IMO...you are placing all your eggs in the speed-rating basket...and I can't call that a good maneuver. A lot of different factors go into the creation of the speed figure...and the speed figure alone is not accurate enough to determine a horse's improvement, or its decline. Speed figures, although important, cannot stand alone in the handicapping process.

He's not always using the last two races, because he's only using speed figures from comparative distances. So if a horse raced in a sprint last race, but in a route the race before that, then in a sprint three starts back, he'll use the sprint from three races back...he's looking for improvement from the prior sprint race, or the prior race at a similar distance.

[thaskalos]

He's not always using the last two races, because he's only using speed figures from comparative distances. So if a horse raced in a sprint last race, but in a route the race before that, then in a sprint three starts back, he'll use the sprint from three races back...he's looking for improvement from the prior sprint race, or the prior race at a similar distance.

I understand that...I read his initial post. He is making distinctions between sprints and routes...but he is still depending on the speed figures for the entirety of his handicapping. You can add, subtract, divide, average, or do whatever you want to those speed figures...and they STILL won't lead you to the promised land. The speed figures are only a PART of the handicapping puzzle...they can't be the only thing that the horseplayer is concerned with.

[pandy]

I understand that...I read his initial post. He is making distinctions between sprints and routes...but he is still depending on the speed figures for the entirety of his handicapping. You can add, subtract, divide, average, or do whatever you want to those speed figures...and they STILL won't lead you to the promised land. The speed figures are only a PART of the handicapping puzzle...they can't be the only thing that the horseplayer is concerned with.


He's using this as a spot play longshot method. If I were going to use just one factor, it would be pace figures, but as I've stated before, I think you could just use speed figures if you have a good method of interpreting and analyzing the speed figures. Again, just for spot plays. Obviously, if you just bet all of the top figure horses you will lose. But there are other ways of using the figures.

[ReplayRandall]

The speed figures are only a PART of the handicapping puzzle...they can't be the only thing that the horseplayer is concerned with.

Of course, speed figures are just a part of the handicapping puzzle, Gus. But when a player starts the process, Whosonfirst wrote a well thought plan to at least give him the "improving" contenders, with his methodology. From there, anyone can go in any direction they choose to arrive at possible plays which have long-term positive value......I give whosonfirst credit for a nice starting approach...:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

He's using this as a spot play longshot method. If I were going to use just one factor, it would be pace figures, but as I've stated before, I think you could just use speed figures if you have a good method of interpreting and analyzing the speed figures. Again, just for spot plays. Obviously, if you just bet all of the top figure horses you will lose. But there are other ways of using the figures.
I read his post very carefully...and he never used the term "spot play" even once. Nor does he say that he has "other methods" in his handicapping arsenal. He said that this "home grown system" was his "selection method". As far as I -- or anyone else -- could tell...this might be the OP's only handicapping method. And that's why I responded in the way that I did.

In Andy Beyer's book Beyer on Speed, he talks about the myriad ways that horseplayers have invented in order to properly analyze these numbers. Beyer has tried all these ways too...and so have I. When the Beyer figures first got included in the Racing Times...I thought that I finally had the "key to the mint". For YEARS I sliced and diced these speed figures, looking for that magic combination...and I even considered the "improvement" angle that the OP describes here.

Alas...this game is a little more complicated than that.

[thaskalos]

Of course, speed figures are just a part of the handicapping puzzle, Gus. But when a player starts the process, Whosonfirst wrote a well thought plan to at least give him the "improving" contenders, with his methodology. From there, anyone can go in any direction they choose to arrive at possible plays which have long-term positive value......I give whosonfirst credit for a nice starting approach...:ThmbUp:

"Starting approach"? Whosonfirst said that he has been handicapping for 35 years!

[ReplayRandall]

"Starting approach"? Whosonfirst said that he has been handicapping for 35 years!

Isn't that how long you've been handicapping, and look at you...:p

[AltonKelsey]

I stopped looking for magic bullets 30 years ago. There are none.

The only magic is in your head, if at all.

Extensive knowledge, a database to store and retrieve it , and the skill to analyze what's there. If you have that , you MIGHT beat the takeout.

[lamboguy]

every system is good, but doesn't work if you don't know the proper odds of the horse you like.

in other words in order to win at this game you have to be able to find the mistakes on the tote board, otherwise you are dead meat.

[rsetup]

I find this incredible on two fronts:

This is an engineer
He's at it 35 years.

Absolutely incredible

[NorCalGreg]

I find this incredible on two fronts:

This is an engineer
He's at it 35 years.

Absolutely incredible


Whoseonfirst was kind enough to share his methodology with the board... and you, of all people-- can do is ridicule him?

You got a lot of nerve after you got taken to school once--you want to make it twice?

Didn't they already tell you to get lost?

[pandy]

I read his post very carefully...and he never used the term "spot play" even once. Nor does he say that he has "other methods" in his handicapping arsenal. He said that this "home grown system" was his "selection method". As far as I -- or anyone else -- could tell...this might be the OP's only handicapping method. And that's why I responded in the way that I did.

In Andy Beyer's book Beyer on Speed, he talks about the myriad ways that horseplayers have invented in order to properly analyze these numbers. Beyer has tried all these ways too...and so have I. When the Beyer figures first got included in the Racing Times...I thought that I finally had the "key to the mint". For YEARS I sliced and diced these speed figures, looking for that magic combination...and I even considered the "improvement" angle that the OP describes here.

Alas...this game is a little more complicated than that.


It has to be a spot play method because there will be races where no horse fits his criteria of improvement and the other qualifiers that he mentioned.

I have nothing against a comprehensive approach to handicapping, if that works for you. But I do believe that there are basic pace and speed plays that can generate a profit if the focus is on longshots, and his method focuses on longshots.

[thaskalos]

It has to be a spot play method because there will be races where no horse fits his criteria of improvement and the other qualifiers that he mentioned.

How many races do you think are out there where you can't find a single horse with an improved last race speed figure, when you compare it to the one prior? IMO...your big problem will be that you will usually find too many "improved horses" in the race to choose from.

[thaskalos]

It has to be a spot play method because there will be races where no horse fits his criteria of improvement and the other qualifiers that he mentioned.

I have nothing against a comprehensive approach to handicapping, if that works for you. But I do believe that there are basic pace and speed plays that can generate a profit if the focus is on longshots, and his method focuses on longshots.

I tend to disagree. In a game as competitive as this one...the "basic", one-dimensional methods cannot be relied upon for consistent profits...IMO.

I remember the thorough tests that Barry Meadow conducted using scores of basic "systems and methods" which were declared "big winners" by the Phillips Racing Newsletter. All the methods tested proved to be LOSERS...but these methods continue to be advertised and sold as "winners" to the gullible, even today.

[rsetup]

,Whoseonfirst was kind enough to share his methodology with the board... and you, of all people-- can do is ridicule him?

You got a lot of nerve after you got taken to school once--you want to make it twice?

Didn't they already tell you to get lost?

When/how was I taken to school, Greg?

BTW, do you pay someone to type your messages as well?

[Nitro]

every system is good, but doesn't work if you don't know the proper odds of the horse you like.

in other words in order to win at this game you have to be able to find the mistakes on the tote board, otherwise you are dead meat.I’m not going to get into semantics here and to be honest I’m getting bit weary constantly contradicting old school and current handicapping techniques alike. There are just so many flaws it’s ridiculous!

The main problem is that no matter what handicapping system you’re using it’s never flexible enough to accommodate all of the changing race conditions. Either you focus on specific races or you’re done.

If you think you can find discrepancies between your evaluations and the betting - fine, but keep in mind there’s a lot more going on than just in the Win pool. The only thing I find of use there is the ability to determine if the race is even playable.

Aside from all this, I feel it takes some unique insight into being able to read between the lines (so to speak) and determine the motivation of those entering these horses. As far as I’m concerned if you can’t determine these intentions properly, you’re simply guessing. And of course as some might say taking a gamble. How big a risk is up to you based on how confident you might feel at any given time. ;)

[EMD4ME]

I smell the testosterone flying amuck in this thread. :lol: :lol: :lol:

ISIS thought they had the perfect recipe for a bomb but I see the perfect recipe here.

All we need now is Vic to chime in :lol: :lol: :lol:

[FakeNameChanged]

Whosonfirst, congratulations on a very good post. You did your homework.
Thanks Pandy, I own some of your works. good stuff.

[FakeNameChanged]

I tend to disagree. In a game as competitive as this one...the "basic", one-dimensional methods cannot be relied upon for consistent profits...IMO.

I remember the thorough tests that Barry Meadow conducted using scores of basic "systems and methods" which were declared "big winners" by the Phillips Racing Newsletter. All the methods tested proved to be LOSERS...but these methods continue to be advertised and sold as "winners" to the gullible, even today.
Thaskalos, All your comments are valid as to needing more than one dimensional handicapping. Just for the record, I was a early adopter of Beyer's speed, where I made my own par times, for my main track, and variants for the day according to class. That was before Andy was publishing his fig's in the DRF. I also developed my own multi factors work that involved, pace, speed, class, form, consistency, recency, trainers, and weight. I may have left something out. Used Scott's ability times for a while, had some success, but mostly locked into 1st three favorites. My problem as a working husband and father, all these took too much time away from family, and just plain wore me down from the sheer study. For the record, I have a copyright for a class/form/consistency book, and had some decent success with that also. That was never published, but the approved copyright and material is still sitting in an old briefcase, and old floppy disks. At times I still use all of the above to flavor my handicapping.
And this speed improvement is purely a spot play. You made some comments on other post about just comparing speed numbers which is deadly simple I admit wholeheartedly. The 2nd l.r. may have been a clunker, I attempt to look at how it ran, and look at the race results if it's available. As I mentioned in original post, I often see this spot play have one of the lower l.r. speed numbers(or times) and that occasionally gives me pause. I've had the lowest speed number in l.r. race win twice in the last week, and I don't play every day. My original development for this system, was to get to a good spot play, when I was still working and not spend a lot of time to hcap every race at multiple tracks. I included about 15 factors in my original study, but things like a middle move, or class differential were more difficult to quantify. So I went simple. My days of using about 7 factors in my handicapping, took a LOT of time, and often put me on the best even money horse.
I pretty much expected this reaction, but I welcome all comments constructive or otherwise. I'm here to learn.

(edit): Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board.

[Nitro]

I smell the testosterone flying amuck in this thread. :lol: :lol: :lol:

ISIS thought they had the perfect recipe for a bomb but I see the perfect recipe here.

All we need now is Vic to chime in :lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny I was thinking about how long it would take to attract the hecklers.

What I smell is a troll who apparently has nothing to better offer this conversation than some pathetically rudimentary metaphors which reek of pompous undertones.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, All your comments are valid as to needing more than one dimensional handicapping. Just for the record, I was a early adopter of Beyer's speed, where I made my own par times, for my main track, and variants for the day according to class. That was before Andy was publishing his fig's in the DRF. I also developed my own multi factors work that involved, pace, speed, class, form, consistency, recency, trainers, and weight. I may have left something out. Used Scott's ability times for a while, had some success, but mostly locked into 1st three favorites. My problem as a working husband and father, all these took too much time away from family, and just plain wore me down from the sheer study. For the record, I have a copyright for a class/form/consistency book, and had some decent success with that also. That was never published, but the approved copyright and material is still sitting in an old briefcase, and old floppy disks. At times I still use all of the above to flavor my handicapping.
And this speed improvement is purely a spot play. You made some comments on other post about just comparing speed numbers which is deadly simple I admit wholeheartedly. The 2nd l.r. may have been a clunker, I attempt to look at how it ran, and look at the race results if it's available. As I mentioned in original post, I often see this spot play have one of the lower l.r. speed numbers(or times) and that occasionally gives me pause. I've had the lowest speed number in l.r. race win twice in the last week, and I don't play every day. My original development for this system, was to get to a good spot play, when I was still working and not spend a lot of time to hcap every race at multiple tracks. I included about 15 factors in my original study, but things like a middle move, or class differential were more difficult to quantify. So I went simple. My days of using about 7 factors in my handicapping, took a LOT of time, and often put me on the best even money horse.
I pretty much expected this reaction, but I welcome all comments constructive or otherwise. I'm here to learn.

(edit): Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board.

I hope you didn't take my criticism as anything other than constructive. My motive isn't to dash peoples hopes here...nor do I pretend to know everything. Like you, I too have traveled down many blind alleys in this game...and I have come away from the experience with a healthy dose of respect for the complexity of the game...and of the competition that we face while playing it.

I only state my opinions on this board...and, in my particular opinion, the speed ratings alone cannot be counted upon to perform the tall task that you are asking them to accomplish. Projected improvement (and decline) is a major component of the handicapping process...and it takes more than mere speed figures to come to such determinations.

[NorCalGreg]

"Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board".

Think we would ALL love to read about someone's actual toteboard method--other than Hong Kong Boy's Mystery Method he won't divulge to anyone

[EMD4ME]

"Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board".

Think we would ALL love to read about someone's actual toteboard method--other than Hong Kong Boy's Mystery Method he won't divulge to anyone

I hide / behind crap WITH ambiguous/ let's cover the other side / spin the bs

No tote clues on the longshot method winner

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist :lol:

Last time, I swear. :)

[NorCalGreg]

Seriously though...I really do want to hear about the longshot tote method.

[FakeNameChanged]

Thaskalos. Absolutely agree with what you've said. I learned when playing a lot of tennis when younger, that my game didn't improve until I played people much better than me. Same applies here.

And criticism is always welcome, I'm secure in my knowledge and/or lack of it. I admire those of you who have the time and patience to study all the videos of races at your track(s). To be fair, some of my best handicapping came when I visited the track a couple times a week and watched every race through binoculars. When I'd read the race result commentary and they missed something obvious that I noted in my notebook, I couldn't wait for that horse to run again.

[whodoyoulike]

For anyone interested, ...
The number one factor hands down was speed improvement in it's last race. Speed improvement(SI) was evident in 65.6% of all winners studied. The number two factor was the horse made a middle move in its last race. MM being defined as a gain in either positions or lengths from any p.o.c to the next p.o.c., not including the stretch. Gains in the stretch were a separate factor. MM's were evident in about 60-61% of all longshot winners. Since SI was easier to quantify, I settled on using this one factor to find a probable longshot play. ...

I have my own methods which doesn't use a reported single speed number as you're doing. And, since I don't have access to the other horses I can't really comment on your method(s).

But, I have a question regarding your MM comment.

In your example in post #7 where is the MM in each of the three races selected for Because I'm Happy?

Actually, I ran the horse's pace numbers and I think I have an idea why he may have won.

For each of the 6.5f races per the charts, the horse's BL excl. final .5f were as follows for 2f, 4f and 6f:

10/9 ..........6 ........5 ........ 4

9/25 ..........6.75 ... 6.5 .... 4.5

7/31 .........8.5 .......8.5 ....11

[EMD4ME]

Thaskalos. Absolutely agree with what you've said. I learned when playing a lot of tennis when younger, that my game didn't improve until I played people much better than me. Same applies here.

And criticism is always welcome, I'm secure in my knowledge and/or lack of it. I admire those of you who have the time and patience to study all the videos of races at your track(s). To be fair, some of my best handicapping came when I visited the track a couple times a week and watched every race through binoculars. When I'd read the race result commentary and they missed something obvious that I noted in my notebook, I couldn't wait for that horse to run again.

As a relative newbie here, I thank you for your post, your demeanor and outlook.

Not my place to say but nice to see you posting!

Keep those thoughts a coming! :ThmbUp:

Thaskalos always stretches our minds and is an excellent inspirer of thought. Glad you took it that way :ThmbUp:

As for replays, yup! I love Equibase. Keep hiring $10 hour employees. You make my life better!

[Nitro]

"Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board".

Think we would ALL love to read about someone's actual toteboard method--other than Hong Kong Boy's Mystery Method he won't divulge to anyone
Well what do you know?! Another troll!

Making things up as we go along now? Are we?
Where did you ever pull that quote out from? I can only imagine! I hope you pulled your pants back up!

Who’s “We”??? I know you’re personally chomping on the bit to take your so-called game to the next level. (Beyond the Pace myth). But take it for what it's worth friend, other then seeing my selections you’ll never get a hint of how I recognize Insider intentions.

[FakeNameChanged]

I have my own methods which doesn't use a reported single speed number as you're doing. And, since I don't have access to the other horses I can't really comment on your method(s).

But, I have a question regarding your MM comment.

In your example in post #7 where is the MM in each of the three races selected for Because I'm Happy?

Actually, I ran the horse's pace numbers and I think I have an idea why he may have won.

For each of the 6.5f races per the charts, the horse's BL excl. final .5f were as follows for 2f, 4f and 6f:

10/9 ..........6 ........5 ........ 4

9/25 ..........6.75 ... 6.5 .... 4.5

7/31 .........8.5 .......8.5 ....11
Hello Whodoyoulike,

#5 Because I'm Happy

25Sep16- 5Bel -6-1/2f- 92 -7 6-3/4 7 6-1/2 6 4-1/2 3 3-3/4
In his last race before he won, his 2nd poc was 7 and 6-1/2 l's to the 3rd poc was 6 and 4-1/2 l's. That's a gain or middle move of 1 horse and 2 lengths. Remember I said that l.s. winners in my study showed evidence of that move approx. 60% of the time in the race prior to today's race. I still look at that, but don't attempt to quantify it in any way.

[NorCalGreg]

Well what do you know?! Another troll!

Making things up as we go along now? Are we?
Where did you ever pull that quote out from? I can only imagine! I hope you pulled your pants back up!

Who’s “We”??? I know you’re personally chomping on the bit to take your so-called game to the next level. (Beyond the Pace myth). But take it for what it's worth friend, other then seeing my selections you’ll never get a hint of how I recognize Insider intentions.

Making things up? whaaa...he just said it. Read the thread man. And for the record---"Hong Kong Boy" was in reference-- Not to you, Nitro---but to a guy named Numbnuts. Easy mistake to make---my humble apologies.

Have a value packed evening ---watch out for that clueless placer!

-NCG

[JJMartin]

Hello Whodoyoulike,

#5 Because I'm Happy

25Sep16- 5Bel -6-1/2f- 92 -7 6-3/4 7 6-1/2 6 4-1/2 3 3-3/4
In his last race before he won, his 2nd poc was 7 and 6-1/2 l's to the 3rd poc was 6 and 4-1/2 l's. That's a gain or middle move of 1 horse and 2 lengths. Remember I said that l.s. winners in my study showed evidence of that move approx. 60% of the time in the race prior to today's race. I still look at that, but don't attempt to quantify it in any way.

Hi, I am going to attempt to program all of your parameters into my database and run it. It will be ready in a few minutes.
So far I have this in it:
- last 2 races must be either both sprint or route, today's dist irrelevant.
- difference between speed figures minimum of +5
- beaten lengths within 12
- last race within 35 days
- any surface

What else do you want in it?

[FakeNameChanged]

Well what do you know?! Another troll!

Making things up as we go along now? Are we?
Where did you ever pull that quote out from? I can only imagine! I hope you pulled your pants back up!

Who’s “We”??? I know you’re personally chomping on the bit to take your so-called game to the next level. (Beyond the Pace myth). But take it for what it's worth friend, other then seeing my selections you’ll never get a hint of how I recognize Insider intentions.
Nitro, I was being facetious about this forum loving my tote board methods. I know your game is well advanced compared to my own. Like handicapping, tote board work just plain wears me down and my eyes have regressed somewhat in the last few years. A little anecdote on that subject, I was sitting at the OTB talking to a 90 year old WWII vet who plays races at Woodbine purely on jockeys. I've seen him regularly cash nice winners and exactas. This gentleman is probably still 6'5" tall and very spry. Played some pro basketball after the war. Anyway I digress, we were sitting there and waiting for a race to go off, and he was quoting the odds and exactas odds from a screen that was maybe 15 feet away. He doesn't wear glasses, I do but the numbers were a little blurry for me.

[FakeNameChanged]

Hi, I am going to attempt to program all of your parameters into my database and run it. It will be ready in a few minutes.
So far I have this in it:
- last 2 races must be either both sprint or route, today's dist irrelevant.
- difference between speed figures minimum of +5
- beaten lengths within 12
- last race within 35 days
- any surface

What else do you want in it?
Sounds good, If 2nd l.r. isn't similar distance look back to get sim. distance. If none exist, use 2nd last race. No racing incidents in the two comparison races, impeded, lost jockey, eased, etc. if horse hits gate or has something happen right out of the gate, but still recovers and puts in a decent race, I use it. If 2nd last race is from previous year or six months or older, I don't use it or just pass the race. When I have some doubts like 2lr was 30 length's behind, I may use it but also look at 3lr too. That's why, some of examples showed two numbers like +11/+5. I do enter some of my old judgement into the numbers. Thanks for your effort.
p.s. I also list the l.r. speed number next to Sp Improv. number. Use it differentiate between two closely Improved horses. But I will use the highesr SI horse with a much lower Speed rating.

[JJMartin]

Sounds good, If 2nd l.r. isn't similar distance look back to get sim. distance. If none exist, use 2nd last race. No racing incidents in the two comparison races, impeded, lost jockey, eased, etc. if horse hits gate or has something happen right out of the gate, but still recovers and puts in a decent race, I use it. If 2nd last race is from previous year or six months or older, I don't use it or just pass the race. When I have some doubts like 2lr was 30 length's behind, I may use it but also look at 3lr too. That's why, some of examples showed two numbers like +11/+5. I do enter some of my old judgement into the numbers. Thanks for your effort.

Incidents will take longer to program because I will have to develop some formula to interpret the comment line, but I see your point.
Stay tuned, results coming up in a few. I am using MNR 2016.
Any preference to month range?

[rsetup]

Hello Whodoyoulike,

#5 Because I'm Happy

25Sep16- 5Bel -6-1/2f- 92 -7 6-3/4 7 6-1/2 6 4-1/2 3 3-3/4
In his last race before he won, his 2nd poc was 7 and 6-1/2 l's to the 3rd poc was 6 and 4-1/2 l's. That's a gain or middle move of 1 horse and 2 lengths. Remember I said that l.s. winners in my study showed evidence of that move approx. 60% of the time in the race prior to today's race. I still look at that, but don't attempt to quantify it in any way.

I took a look at my charts for this horse's past three races. 7/31 is nothing special; however, nothing really passed in that race and there's nothing negative about it and it was on a sloppy track. The 9/25 race is a lot better: though he came from the same spot as the winner and runner up - he did run, however. The 7/24 race is EXCELLENT and indicates he's able to run against the setup.

It's not about what the horse does individually but, rather, what's happening in the race as he's doing it. As you seem to understand, this is not a trivial point of focus. It's significantly more difficult than just looking at speed figures -- which would be relevant if they were running time trials.

Suggestion: Random Forest

[pandy]

Thaskalos, All your comments are valid as to needing more than one dimensional handicapping. Just for the record, I was a early adopter of Beyer's speed, where I made my own par times, for my main track, and variants for the day according to class. That was before Andy was publishing his fig's in the DRF. I also developed my own multi factors work that involved, pace, speed, class, form, consistency, recency, trainers, and weight. I may have left something out. Used Scott's ability times for a while, had some success, but mostly locked into 1st three favorites. My problem as a working husband and father, all these took too much time away from family, and just plain wore me down from the sheer study. For the record, I have a copyright for a class/form/consistency book, and had some decent success with that also. That was never published, but the approved copyright and material is still sitting in an old briefcase, and old floppy disks. At times I still use all of the above to flavor my handicapping.
And this speed improvement is purely a spot play. You made some comments on other post about just comparing speed numbers which is deadly simple I admit wholeheartedly. The 2nd l.r. may have been a clunker, I attempt to look at how it ran, and look at the race results if it's available. As I mentioned in original post, I often see this spot play have one of the lower l.r. speed numbers(or times) and that occasionally gives me pause. I've had the lowest speed number in l.r. race win twice in the last week, and I don't play every day. My original development for this system, was to get to a good spot play, when I was still working and not spend a lot of time to hcap every race at multiple tracks. I included about 15 factors in my original study, but things like a middle move, or class differential were more difficult to quantify. So I went simple. My days of using about 7 factors in my handicapping, took a LOT of time, and often put me on the best even money horse.
I pretty much expected this reaction, but I welcome all comments constructive or otherwise. I'm here to learn.

(edit): Guess you guys are gonna LOVE my method for spotting longshots via tote board.


A couple of things you mentioned here are so true. First of all, comprehensive handicapping is time consuming, and, often leads us to the more obvious horses (favorites or second choices). Someone who is making that type of handicapping work for him has probably learned that some of the factors that many people take into consideration are not that good. Does it really matter who is riding the horse? It does, if you're going for a high win percentage, but that usually leads to lower returns. Does the horses pedigree really matter? It does, but how many people actually use pedigree analysis in a way that helps them show a profit on their bets? Not many.

Eliminating many of these handicapping factors, that have little to do with how the horse has been running, and focusing on the ability and current form can not only save time, it can help you win.

[EMD4ME]

I had a hefty sum on this horse 2 back. Loved him 2 back.

I followed him back in pick 5s and pick 4s. He made the ticket in Sundays early pick 5.

Wish I bet as much as I did 2 back, in his next start win.

Not an impossible horse to have.

[whodoyoulike]

I took a look at my charts for this horse's past three races. ... The 9/25 race is a lot better: though he came from the same spot as the winner and runner up - he did run, however. ...

It's not about what the horse does individually but, rather, what's happening in the race as he's doing it. As you seem to understand, this is not a trivial point of focus. It's significantly more difficult than just looking at speed figures -- which would be relevant if they were running time trials.

Suggestion: Random Forest

You noticed that too and he came back in 14 days not very common nowadays. Unless that's a common move for this trainer but for me it indicated the horse was fit after the long layoff.

[rsetup]

You noticed that too and he came back in 14 days not very common nowadays. Unless that's a common move for this trainer but for me it indicated the horse was fit after the long layoff.

The win on 10/9 is pretty impressive. He got some help but he also looped the field and ran down horses that had run 2-1 around the track. The 7/24 race shows he's capable of such an effort. But I wanted to look further and went back to the win on 2/12, where he 'wiped-out' (in my sense, not the clueless Fischer's) coming from next to last in a field where they ran 3-4-1 around the track behind him. We have our answer.

[whodoyoulike]

The win on 10/9 is pretty impressive. He got some help but he also looped the field and ran down horses that had run 2-1 around the track. The 7/24 race shows he's capable of such an effort. But I wanted to look further and went back to the win on 2/12, where he 'wiped-out' (in my sense, not the clueless Fischer's) coming from next to last in a field where they ran 3-4-1 around the track behind him. We have our answer.

I just looked at his last 3 races from the charts and I agree about 10/9. So, you noticed the closing .5f finish because I think it was because of the earlier pace during the race which must of helped him a lot.

[JJMartin]

some basic results:
MNR 2015 May-Sep: 783 bets x $2 = $1566, returned $1074 dif = $-492
avg 11.93
MNR 2016 May-Sep: 762 bets x $2 = $1524, returned $1246 dif = $-278
avg 12.22
besides the parameters laid out earlier, I took out all m/l fav and maiden races from the bets.
There were many ties based on the factors therefore some races had multiple bets per race.
2016 win amounts:
6.4 5.8 9.2 17.6 5.2 6.6 5 38.6 13.6 18.4 29.8 31.8 8.2 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.2 8.6 6.6 3.8 3.2 8.2 7.2 10.2 6 6.6 3.2 6.2 26.8 18 9.2 10.6 7.6 11.6 8.8 50 5.8 15 6.8 22.4 15 6.8 42.2 6.8 34.6 13 5.6 12.8 5.6 10.4 5.2 8 26.6 11.6 29.8 13 8.6 13 5.8 6.4 12.2 6.2 7.2 13.4 16.6 4.4 43.6 16 9.4 16.8 8.2 5.8 7.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 5.2 10.4 4.8 5 32.4 8 8.6 29.6 4.2 8.2 7 11 24.8 9.8 16.2 6.4 4.6 11.4 5.6 6.6 14.2 4.8 11.8 17.4 21.6 16

2015 win amounts:
18.4 9.8 9.6 5 5.4 4.4 10.6 5.2 5.6 4.4 10.8 8 9.2 12.8 6.4 3 11.6 6.2 6.2 5.6 6.4 4.2 7 9.8 18 5.4 6 14.2 7 8.2 6.8 17.4 26.4 6.4 3.8 7.6 4.8 8.4 7.2 18.8 25.2 6.6 6.4 12.6 10.6 17.2 11.6 58.2 4.4 4.2 10.2 18.8 19.6 51 14.4 4.8 9.6 5.6 6.4 10.8 8.8 52.2 17.4 5.8 6.2 2.6 13 4.2 7.6 22.4 18.4 7.2 6 4.6 7.6 5.6 23 9.4 12.6 2.8 7.4 28.8 7.6 28.2 42.2 20.6 8.4 13.6 11.2 8.6

[ReplayRandall]

some basic results:
MNR 2015 May-Sep: 783 bets x $2 = $1566, returned $1074 dif = $-492
avg 11.93
MNR 2016 May-Sep: 762 bets x $2 = $1524, returned $1246 dif = $-278
avg 12.22
besides the parameters laid out earlier, I took out all m/l fav and maiden races from the bets.
There were many ties based on the factors therefore some races had multiple bets per race.
2016 win amounts:
6.4 5.8 9.2 17.6 5.2 6.6 5 38.6 13.6 18.4 29.8 31.8 8.2 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.2 8.6 6.6 3.8 3.2 8.2 7.2 10.2 6 6.6 3.2 6.2 26.8 18 9.2 10.6 7.6 11.6 8.8 50 5.8 15 6.8 22.4 15 6.8 42.2 6.8 34.6 13 5.6 12.8 5.6 10.4 5.2 8 26.6 11.6 29.8 13 8.6 13 5.8 6.4 12.2 6.2 7.2 13.4 16.6 4.4 43.6 16 9.4 16.8 8.2 5.8 7.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 5.2 10.4 4.8 5 32.4 8 8.6 29.6 4.2 8.2 7 11 24.8 9.8 16.2 6.4 4.6 11.4 5.6 6.6 14.2 4.8 11.8 17.4 21.6 16

2015 win amounts:
18.4 9.8 9.6 5 5.4 4.4 10.6 5.2 5.6 4.4 10.8 8 9.2 12.8 6.4 3 11.6 6.2 6.2 5.6 6.4 4.2 7 9.8 18 5.4 6 14.2 7 8.2 6.8 17.4 26.4 6.4 3.8 7.6 4.8 8.4 7.2 18.8 25.2 6.6 6.4 12.6 10.6 17.2 11.6 58.2 4.4 4.2 10.2 18.8 19.6 51 14.4 4.8 9.6 5.6 6.4 10.8 8.8 52.2 17.4 5.8 6.2 2.6 13 4.2 7.6 22.4 18.4 7.2 6 4.6 7.6 5.6 23 9.4 12.6 2.8 7.4 28.8 7.6 28.2 42.2 20.6 8.4 13.6 11.2 8.6

You forgot to filter for the following:

"So I made a lengthy study on winners, 4-1 odds or higher to see what factors showed up in their PP's."

[JJMartin]

You forgot to filter for the following:

"So I made a lengthy study on winners, 4-1 odds or higher to see what factors showed up in their PP's."

is that M/L odds?

[ReplayRandall]

is that M/L odds?

I think because the OP stated "winners, 4-1 or higher", the answer is no....

[JJMartin]

is that M/L odds?

ok, I checked both post time and M/L 4-1, still both negative.

[JJMartin]

June 2016 showed a profit but June 2015 did not.
It is usually the same story with these studies, lack of consistency.
I will look at it again tomorrow.

[Nitro]

Nitro, I was being facetious about this forum loving my tote board methods. I know your game is well advanced compared to my own. Like handicapping, tote board work just plain wears me down and my eyes have regressed somewhat in the last few years. A little anecdote on that subject, I was sitting at the OTB talking to a 90 year old WWII vet who plays races at Woodbine purely on jockeys. I've seen him regularly cash nice winners and exactas. This gentleman is probably still 6'5" tall and very spry. Played some pro basketball after the war. Anyway I digress, we were sitting there and waiting for a race to go off, and he was quoting the odds and exactas odds from a screen that was maybe 15 feet away. He doesn't wear glasses, I do but the numbers were a little blurry for me.
No worries!
It’s normal common courtesy on any forum to identify the source of any quote used in a later post. Our W. Coast Pace specialist apparently could care less about things like that. BTW, anytime there’s even a remote reference to a tote analysis around here some (who will remain nameless) that apparently spend hours digesting and regurgitating PP information take offense and chime in with their ignorance. I know that some just love the idea of dissecting these races to the umpteenth degree and occasionally coming up with a worthwhile long-shot. But realistically how many long shots (% wise) actually win?

I would ask any rational player here that if they had 2 different Long-shot systems to choose from that produced equally well, but one took ½ as much time to use, which one would they select? I don’t know about you, but I’ve got better things to do with my time. Believe it or not, the average time I spend reviewing betting patterns on any given race (in N.A.) before placing a bet is 10 minutes. During that time I can also decide if the race is even playable!

[FakeNameChanged]

some basic results:
MNR 2015 May-Sep: 783 bets x $2 = $1566, returned $1074 dif = $-492
avg 11.93
MNR 2016 May-Sep: 762 bets x $2 = $1524, returned $1246 dif = $-278
avg 12.22
besides the parameters laid out earlier, I took out all m/l fav and maiden races from the bets.
There were many ties based on the factors therefore some races had multiple bets per race.
2016 win amounts:
6.4 5.8 9.2 17.6 5.2 6.6 5 38.6 13.6 18.4 29.8 31.8 8.2 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.2 8.6 6.6 3.8 3.2 8.2 7.2 10.2 6 6.6 3.2 6.2 26.8 18 9.2 10.6 7.6 11.6 8.8 50 5.8 15 6.8 22.4 15 6.8 42.2 6.8 34.6 13 5.6 12.8 5.6 10.4 5.2 8 26.6 11.6 29.8 13 8.6 13 5.8 6.4 12.2 6.2 7.2 13.4 16.6 4.4 43.6 16 9.4 16.8 8.2 5.8 7.2 5.2 4.6 4.6 5.2 10.4 4.8 5 32.4 8 8.6 29.6 4.2 8.2 7 11 24.8 9.8 16.2 6.4 4.6 11.4 5.6 6.6 14.2 4.8 11.8 17.4 21.6 16

2015 win amounts:
18.4 9.8 9.6 5 5.4 4.4 10.6 5.2 5.6 4.4 10.8 8 9.2 12.8 6.4 3 11.6 6.2 6.2 5.6 6.4 4.2 7 9.8 18 5.4 6 14.2 7 8.2 6.8 17.4 26.4 6.4 3.8 7.6 4.8 8.4 7.2 18.8 25.2 6.6 6.4 12.6 10.6 17.2 11.6 58.2 4.4 4.2 10.2 18.8 19.6 51 14.4 4.8 9.6 5.6 6.4 10.8 8.8 52.2 17.4 5.8 6.2 2.6 13 4.2 7.6 22.4 18.4 7.2 6 4.6 7.6 5.6 23 9.4 12.6 2.8 7.4 28.8 7.6 28.2 42.2 20.6 8.4 13.6 11.2 8.6
Thanks JJ! As people and I have said, this is a spot play, and when odds are very low, or too many horses close in the rankings, I will pass. I do use my limited handicapping knowledge to pass or play. I also will play Mdn Claimers, if most entrants have a few races under their belts. Same for MSW. I also pass a lot of stakes, but not all of them. I will continue to use Sp Improv. to identify when a horse is a stand out as to other factors. Contrary to what someone else said, there are many races where only one horse shows any improvement at all, using speed numbers.

Can you possibly tell me how many of these horses in your study ran 2nd? Reason being, I've often "lost" the race and cashed a decent exacta with the favorite or maybe the 2nd Sp Improv horse.

Nothing to see here, move on folks. Nobody in this game expects a purely mechanical system to show a positive return over all races. I will occasionally post SI winners in this thread, and maybe one of you'se guys can tell me what refinement might help.

[pandy]

Thanks JJ! As people and I have said, this is a spot play, and when odds are very low, or too many horses close in the rankings, I will pass. I do use my limited handicapping knowledge to pass or play. I also will play Mdn Claimers, if most entrants have a few races under their belts. Same for MSW. I also pass a lot of stakes, but not all of them. I will continue to use Sp Improv. to identify when a horse is a stand out as to other factors. Contrary to what someone else said, there are many races where only one horse shows any improvement at all, using speed numbers.

Can you possibly tell me how many of these horses in your study ran 2nd? Reason being, I've often "lost" the race and cashed a decent exacta with the favorite or maybe the 2nd Sp Improv horse.

Nothing to see here, move on folks. Nobody in this game expects a purely mechanical system to show a positive return over all races. I will occasionally post SI winners in this thread, and maybe one of you'se guys can tell me what refinement might help.

Too many horses close in the rankings pass, and odds too low pass, both smart.

[JJMartin]

2015 odds all (no m/l fav): 1st = 90, 2nd = 111
odds 4-1+ (no m/l fav): 1st = 35 2nd = 64

2016 odds all (no m/l fav): 1st = 102, 2nd = 111
odds 4-1+ (no m/l fav): 1st = 43, 2nd = 58

[JJMartin]

Was able to squeeze a profit out of both years with some tweaking, will reveal it later today.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Thanks for sharing Whosonfirst. The skepticism around here is a healthy one and will help you sharpen up your methods. I know from experience! But as Pandy said in simply coming up with a spot play method geared towards longshots any point of departure is needed. Every once in a while I still will sit down with a stack of the latest forms and start looking only at winner's lines whose odds are 6-1 or higher and make a few short notations. It amazes me not only that real patterns do emerge but this exercise sharpens your reading of form cycles up bigtime.

[NorCalGreg]

Thanks for sharing Whosonfirst. The skepticism around here is a healthy one and will help you sharpen up your methods. I know from experience! But as Pandy said in simply coming up with a spot play method geared towards longshots any point of departure is needed. Every once in a while I still will sit down with a stack of the latest forms and start looking only at winner's lines whose odds are 6-1 or higher and make a few short notations. It amazes me not only that real patterns do emerge but this exercise sharpens your reading of form cycles up bigtime.

When I use to have printed forms--I would cut out winners that were interesting to me, and clip 'em together. I still have them. Every now and then I take them out and sort through them--like you said Cincy---the patterns are fascinating.

[CincyHorseplayer]

When I use to have printed forms--I would cut out winners that were interesting to me, and clip 'em together. I still have them. Every now and then I take them out and sort through them--like you said Cincy---the patterns are fascinating.

Yeah I get a little of everything these days. Raybo has recreated PP's in Excel in one of his workbooks I use with data files. Use DRF electronic PP's on DRF Bets, and still use the hard copy. Still love the hard copy and am about to pick one up right now! We look at so many races sometimes doing this recharges you ability to process what you are looking at. Like you I work a lot from my own self created speed and pace and compound rankings sheet. But you can get lost in the sea of numbers and when looking at PP's of any kind can clarify a lot of things.

[JJMartin]

Thanks JJ! As people and I have said, this is a spot play, and when odds are very low, or too many horses close in the rankings, I will pass. I do use my limited handicapping knowledge to pass or play. I also will play Mdn Claimers, if most entrants have a few races under their belts. Same for MSW. I also pass a lot of stakes, but not all of them. I will continue to use Sp Improv. to identify when a horse is a stand out as to other factors. Contrary to what someone else said, there are many races where only one horse shows any improvement at all, using speed numbers.

Can you possibly tell me how many of these horses in your study ran 2nd? Reason being, I've often "lost" the race and cashed a decent exacta with the favorite or maybe the 2nd Sp Improv horse.

Nothing to see here, move on folks. Nobody in this game expects a purely mechanical system to show a positive return over all races. I will occasionally post SI winners in this thread, and maybe one of you'se guys can tell me what refinement might help.

How often are your selections on Turf vs Dirt?

[whodoyoulike]

Hello Whodoyoulike,

#5 Because I'm Happy

25Sep16- 5Bel -6-1/2f- 92 -7 6-3/4 7 6-1/2 6 4-1/2 3 3-3/4
In his last race before he won, his 2nd poc was 7 and 6-1/2 l's to the 3rd poc was 6 and 4-1/2 l's. That's a gain or middle move of 1 horse and 2 lengths. Remember I said that l.s. winners in my study showed evidence of that move approx. 60% of the time in the race prior to today's race. I still look at that, but don't attempt to quantify it in any way.

I know you didn't come up with this how many horse length improvements MM a horse makes should be considered a positive because I've also have read about this in a couple of books.

My question is .... Why should this be considered a positive?

In the case above, the horse improves by 1 horse and 2 lengths.

Is the 1 horse improvement (or whatever) really a positive?

Is it worth the extra effort?

The horse could be all alone in 2nd but gain 2 lengths on the leader which I would consider an improvement. Then you can have the horse behind the leader along with 3 others and passing 1 tired (or maybe not) horse with a 2 length gain which is the same improvement. They're the same but one is picked up but the other is not.

Again, I only consider BL as an improvement or regression to the leaders position.

[FakeNameChanged]

How often are your selections on Turf vs Dirt?
I play Turf whenever it occurs, but don't track how many. If you noticed in one of the three examples above, it was a Turf race. I must admit my record on Turf at GP is pretty bad. Familiarity with a track is key, and I just don't know Fla. very well. Used to like Tampa over Gulfstream.
(edit), predominantly dirt though.

[FakeNameChanged]

I know you didn't come up with this how many horse length improvements MM a horse makes should be considered a positive because I've also have read about this in a couple of books.I considered gains a positive. Bill Scott considered gains valid as long as they were within a certain number after the gain and didn't start further back than 8 or 10 lengths. Not sure without checking.

My question is .... Why should this be considered a positive?
In my original study I let the data on winners tell me whether certain factors of improvement were present.

In the case above, the horse improves by 1 horse and 2 lengths.

Is the 1 horse improvement (or whatever) really a positive?I considered a horse moving forward on the leader as positive, and vice versa

Is it worth the extra effort?If you read my original post, I don't use MM at all to quantify my selection, so it's no effort. I may look at it to see if it's present but Speed Improvement was my choice.

The horse could be all alone in 2nd but gain 2 lengths on the leader which I would consider an improvement. Then you can have the horse behind the leader along with 3 others and passing 1 tired (or maybe not) horse with a 2 length gain which is the same improvement. They're the same but one is picked up but the other is not.I agree with what you're saying. That's why for YEARS, I calc. ability times for the improvement to see if it's real.

Again, I only consider BL as an improvement or regression to the leaders What is BL?position.

see above

[whodoyoulike]

see above

Sorry just used to using BL = beaten lengths on here.

[upthecreek]

I found this in the archives Its along the same lines I dont know how old it is, it uses the DRF speed ratings and mentions morning telegraph

[FakeNameChanged]

I found this in the archives Its along the same lines I dont know how old it is, it uses the DRF speed ratings and mentions morning telegraph
Thanks for sharing that upthecreek. Several similarities with my own data. I've noticed many times that SP Improv would often go back three races. His rules are much tighter on BL's, Esp & Str Gn which I included in my Lshot study also. Surprisingly the 35 days is the same with some w/o parameters included.

His rule #3 on early speed is almost identical to a neat little pink booklet I purchased many years ago called The Optimo Method. That was one of the ONLY mail order books that ever produced a sizable amount of winners. Optimo says you have to be within 3 lengths at the first and 2nd call and 1 or more lengths behind at the stretch(3rd poc) and lost the race by 8 ls. or less. His theory: horse showing good early speed, but not contesting the race too strenuously in the stretch. Horse can't be rising two or more classes. His longshot Optimo pattern was 1st and 2nd call, same as above, behind at stretch by five or more and lost by 10 or more. This one works too. Class rise or drops don't matter on longshot pattern. I used this often when deciding to visit track on a whim and literally walk in at 5 mins. to post. I've searched for that little pink booklet over the years and sadly it must have been thrown out with my hundreds of old forms. Not that rules are forgotten, just was a good memory from my past. When you read Steve Klein's long study on early speed, it appears to have some validity.
(edit) this will probably go against the grain of a lot of people, but my original study showed changes in weight were statistically not relevant at all.

[timtam]

Race Speed
I found this in the archives Its along the same lines I dont know how old it is, it uses the DRF speed ratings and mentions morning telegraph
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Three+Race+Speed+system.pdf (120.7 KB, 18 views)


This has all the makings of Walt Owens long time horse race system writer

especially the use of the typewriter and results posting. Had to have come

from him as he was a long time contributor to Philips Racing Newsletter

[delayjf]

I think one thing that is overlooked when evaluating a method of play presented by a second party is the experience that individual has using that method. IMO, there is a certain amount of intuition that one develops using any method over a period of time that allows that individual to be able to make better judgments as to when the method in use is applicable or not. That insight is the difference between winning and losing.

An increase in a horses speed figure is also one of Taulbots angles, although I don't believe tried to quantify the increase. It was not a stand alone factor as to when to bet a horse. It was to be considered positive form factor to be considered along other factors as well.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think one thing that is overlooked when evaluating a method of play presented by a second party is the experience that individual has using that method. IMO, there is a certain amount of intuition that one develops using any method over a period of time that allows that individual to be able to make better judgments as to when the method in use is applicable or not. That insight is the difference between winning and losing.

.

Great insight. I agree. Good experience is accumulating enough observations to be able to make the distinction between between the right or wrong of today's reality.

[pandy]

I think one thing that is overlooked when evaluating a method of play presented by a second party is the experience that individual has using that method. IMO, there is a certain amount of intuition that one develops using any method over a period of time that allows that individual to be able to make better judgments as to when the method in use is applicable or not. That insight is the difference between winning and losing.

An increase in a horses speed figure is also one of Taulbots angles, although I don't believe tried to quantify the increase. It was not a stand alone factor as to when to bet a horse. It was to be considered positive form factor to be considered along other factors as well.

Good observation.

[FakeNameChanged]

More SI plays today:10/15/16
2BEL-6f Inner Turf-25K Clm
#3-Ima Wildcat +12 SI(101 lr) 16.40-7.70-7.30 (was 0/3 on turf)
10-Creaky Cricket:No SI(88lr) 5.80-4.00 (good turf record)
9-Special Selecion- +8 SI(87lr) 7.30 (good turf record)
Only two SI's in race with 9 entrants. The 3 has now won 5 in a row.

4BEL-7f Turf-40K Mcl
#1-Peculiar Sensation +8 SI(75lr) 11.60-6.20-3.70 (technically only SI horse)
10-Catapault Jack (+13 SI NQ)82lr 10.20-6.80 (36 days not qualified)
I passed this race because of three +SI horse all at 36 days since last race. A +13, +9, & +9 SI; so I wasn't too excited about the 1 going against them.

So the 1, 6, 7, 8, & 9 races were unplayable. Either maidens with no data, a Stakes race & the 9th was a total cluster of non qual horses on recency or more like declining speed.

On the plus side I managed to hit the 1st Bel using my brand of tote analysis, #6-You're To Blame-$6.00 win; and before leaving I played the 6th BEL with win tickets on the #2 and #1. I also boxed them both with each other and the favorite, #4. #2 won paid 14.20-7.10 pl. The #1 was closing on the stretch and got caught on rail, he finished a close up 4th. The favorite almost got the winner. #2 Plainview hadn't raced in 10 months but I saw several confirming factors telling me he was getting exacta and double action, plus he was 10-1 ML and first flash on board was 4-1, eventually rising to 6-1. I played 2 to win and place and 1 to win at 9-1. Exacta paid 74.50.

One final note: JJMartin on this very board ran some analyses at several tracks and said I'd be better to focus on turf when using Sp Improvement. Thanks JJ.

[FakeNameChanged]

Laurel (10/15/16) Sp Improv plays
4LRL-1-1/16M-Turf-25K Clm
#1 I.C. Lightning +8 SI(93) 21.80-9.00-5.60
5 Captain's Affair (2nd favor) 4.00-3.00
8 Unbridled Giant (no SI-EM$ fav) 2.80
Only one Sp Improv horse in a Turf race. Happens all the time, there was another +5 SI but it was NQ due to finished 6th 17-1/4 l's out; and a +4 NQ that was 5th 13-3/4 l's out.

5LRL-6f-MSW 40K
#6 El Areeb- +13(70) Won 7.20 Only one SI in race, plus top speed last race). If I can get 5-2 on such an obvious play, I take it.

8LRL-1-1/16M Turf-7500 Clm
Just showing types of races I shouldn't play-way too many SI's to separate.
#1 +20 SI (88lr)-20-1 ML : 4-1 PT odds, 2nd favor.
#3 +14 SI (87lr) 10-1 ML : 9-1 PT
#4 +6 SI (60lr) 20-1 ML : 21-1- PT-blah with 60 rating
#6 +17 SI/+10 SI(82lr) 10-1 ML: 9-1 PT, used two diff. races for comparison
#7 +8 SI (83lr) 20-1 ML: 64-1 PT
#8 +5 SI (82lr) 6-1 ML: 9-2 PT
#12 +12/+6 SI (88)5-2 ML: 5-2 PT-favorite-2nd lr. suspect so did a 2nd SI
I did not play this race, but wanted to. LOL. #3 won and paid 20.60. I write these examples in my notes just to retrain myself to pass races like this.

I realize my brand of handicapping is not for everyone. And I still occasionally do pace, ability times, form and class ratings. Will post more of these, even if it's just for my own learning.

[FakeNameChanged]

Belmont Sp Improv picks for 10/16/16
R1-#4 +31 SI (102 lr) 77 drf rtng
3 +22/+9 (100 lr) 86/81drf rtng-do two comp's if 2nd l.r. questionable
1 +19 (85 lr) 77 drf
6 +1 (84 lr) 76 drf

R1-#5 +11 (88 lr) 81 drf rtng
4 +8 (84 lr) 71 drf
7 +9/+2 SI (89 lr) 74
3 +4/+13 SI (75 lr) 87 drf- real longshot

R3- #1 +10 SI (85 lr) 83 drf-+27 pace Improv-more on that later
5 no SI (83 lr) 90 drf (only 1 race)
8 +17 (69 lr) 74 drf- longshot & beaten 9-1/2 l's last race question

R4- #2 +12 SI (94 lr) 89 drf- Only 1 SI in race, but G3 Matron stakes-normally pass stakes, but showing the SI for reference
#2/4-1-3

R5-#6 No SI (86 lr) 79 drf -shows +14 Pace Improv
2 No SI-recency (89 lr) 84 drf-prob favorite
11 No SI (89 lr) 81 drf
7 +31 SI/NQ (75 lr) 84 drf-12-1/4 BL's which DQ Sp Impr.-real LShot
(This race looks to be real crap shoot)

R6-#12 +8 SI (93lr) 83 drf
1 +5 SI (96 lr) 85 drf
14 +14 SI-DQ 37 days (114 lr) 92 drf
3/9 both +3 (94 / 108 l.r. respectively)

R7- #6 +1 SI (78 lr) 83 drf-MSW-lot of 1st time starters=lookout. Good race to
do tote analysis.
#4 No SI-41 days (83 lr) 83 drf-should compete

R8- #4 +9/+18 SI (93 lr) 96 drf-Class ? & 6th track change in 8 races??
6 +10 SI (86 lr) 84drf
2 +4 SI/DQ-37 days (87 lr) 91 drf
9 No SI (90 lr) 94drf-speed figs say it should compete.

R9- #11 +12/+3 SI (83 lr) 85 drf-brief steady 2nd LR, so show 3lr compar too
#5 +11 SI (81 lr) 84 drf-not crazy about comparing 7f with 5-1/2f-real LS
12 +7 SI (84 lr) 85 drf-Sp Improv looks most legit
Having said this, the #1, 1A & 8 will take a lot to beat them.
1-8/5-11-12 for exotics.
No real standouts today. Someone said that the competition goes up on weekends.

[FakeNameChanged]

DEL results 10/16/16-Sp Improv
R7- Alw O.C. -1m70yd
#3- Marrikech +22 SI (102 lr) Won 5.80 also made a middle move(MM) l.r.
8- +15 SI (100 lr) Place 7.20; Esp l.r.-wake up +21 Pace Improv
4- +10 SI (98 lr) Show 3.60 ; MM l.r.
2- +9 SI (98 lr) ran 4th
Exacta 41.20- 124.40 Triple 149.90 Super(granted not high prices, but SI had them in order)-This was certainly not Longshot prices (4-1) but Sp Improv picks out live horses at all prices.

R10-5000 Clm-1M
#9 Sterlings Dolly +22 SI: Won 28.40-16.00-7.60; MM in l.r.
#1A +16 SI ran 4th.
#6 +11 SI 7th-last race was 7th all p.o.c.-questionable Sp Improv

R8-Opt. Clm-1m70yds-Races to avoid playing
Three +11 SI's, one +9 SI, one +7 and one +3 SI. The +9 SI won 18.20, +3 Placed 11.60; & +11 SI showed 2.40.

Thinking of tightening up my qualifying rules in last race. Maybe horse should have either beaten half the field in last race and/or was 8 BL's or less. I think the 35 days still works, but if a high SI shows up at 36 or 37 days, I may include it.

[FakeNameChanged]

Belmont Sp Improv picks for 10/16/16
R1-#4 +31 SI (102 lr) 77 drf rtng
3 +22/+9 (100 lr) 86/81drf rtng-do two comp's if 2nd l.r. questionable
1 +19 (85 lr) 77 drf
6 +1 (84 lr) 76 drf

R1-#5 +11 (88 lr) 81 drf rtng
4 +8 (84 lr) 71 drf
7 +9/+2 SI (89 lr) 74
3 +4/+13 SI (75 lr) 87 drf- real longshot

R3- #1 +10 SI (85 lr) 83 drf-+27 pace Improv-more on that later
5 no SI (83 lr) 90 drf (only 1 race)
8 +17 (69 lr) 74 drf- longshot & beaten 9-1/2 l's last race question

R4- #2 +12 SI (94 lr) 89 drf- Only 1 SI in race, but G3 Matron stakes-normally pass stakes, but showing the SI for reference
#2/4-1-3

R5-#6 No SI (86 lr) 79 drf -shows +14 Pace Improv
2 No SI-recency (89 lr) 84 drf-prob favorite
11 No SI (89 lr) 81 drf
7 +31 SI/NQ (75 lr) 84 drf-12-1/4 BL's which DQ Sp Impr.-real LShot
(This race looks to be real crap shoot)

R6-#12 +8 SI (93lr) 83 drf
1 +5 SI (96 lr) 85 drf
14 +14 SI-DQ 37 days (114 lr) 92 drf
3/9 both +3 (94 / 108 l.r. respectively)

R7- #6 +1 SI (78 lr) 83 drf-MSW-lot of 1st time starters=lookout. Good race to
do tote analysis.
#4 No SI-41 days (83 lr) 83 drf-should compete

R8- #4 +9/+18 SI (93 lr) 96 drf-Class ? & 6th track change in 8 races??
6 +10 SI (86 lr) 84drf
2 +4 SI/DQ-37 days (87 lr) 91 drf
9 No SI (90 lr) 94drf-speed figs say it should compete.

R9- #11 +12/+3 SI (83 lr) 85 drf-brief steady 2nd LR, so show 3lr compar too
#5 +11 SI (81 lr) 84 drf-not crazy about comparing 7f with 5-1/2f-real LS
12 +7 SI (84 lr) 85 drf-Sp Improv looks most legit
Having said this, the #1, 1A & 8 will take a lot to beat them.
1-8/5-11-12 for exotics.
No real standouts today. Someone said that the competition goes up on weekends.
Laurel 10/16/16-Sp Improv plays

R2-10000 Md(10-9) 1-1/16M
#2 Claravoyant +18/+12 SI(64 lr) 2nd race off layoff; MM last race; bug allow.
4 Secondhand Angel +9 SI (62 lr); MM lr
5 Ambling Along +6 SI (64 lr); MM lr; entered 10/14 @ MED
7 Weatherurnot +4 SI (66 lr)-top; Esp pattern l.r.-Class

R3-7500 Clm 5-1/2f Turf(7.5-6.5)
#1 Sally Oh Sally +23 SI (84 lr) MM l.r.
4 Alwaysacontest -No SI, (63 lr) Esp pattern+ getting bug allow(Gasman angle.
6 Stormy Mistress +4 SI (77 lr) good Esp; Checked in stretch l.r.
9 Cracking Good Pins-No SI; (82 lr)-sty 1/2-6w l.r.; turf specialist; entered 10/15

[FakeNameChanged]

Add PARX 10/16/16 to above Picks
R1- 7500 Clm 1M70Yd
#1 Carolina Dreams +11/+8 SI (79 lr) MM l.r.-comp. to 3rd & 4th LR back
12 Outpatient +5 SI (59 lr) spd rating not too inspiring
10 Kathywithak No SI in equibase ratings but +12 using DRF's; MM (61 l.r.)MM
4 Belle of Bowdoin No SI in eq-base rating but +8 " " ; MM (62 lr)

[FakeNameChanged]

Belmont Sp Improv picks for 10/16/16
R1-#4 +31 SI (102 lr) 77 drf rtng Won 12.00-6.50
3 +22/+9 (100 lr) 86/81drf rtng-do two comp's if 2nd l.r. questionable
1 +19 (85 lr) 77 drf
6 +1 (84 lr) 76 drf Place 10.00-4.60
Exacta 89.50

R2-#5 +11 (88 lr) 81 drf rtng Showed 2.50
4 +8 (84 lr) 71 drf
7 +9/+2 SI (89 lr) 74
3 +4/+13 SI (75 lr) 87 drf- real longshot

R3- #1 +10 SI (85 lr) 83 drf-+27 pace Improv-more on that later
5 no SI (83 lr) 90 drf (only 1 race)Placd 4.70
8 +17 (69 lr) 74 drf- longshot & beaten 9-1/2 l's last race question Showed 9.00; 30-1 p.t. odds

R4- #2 +12 SI (94 lr) 89 drf- Only 1 SI in race, but G3 Matron stakes-normally pass stakes, but showing the SI for reference
#2/4-1-3 #3 won, paid 27.20; #4 placed 2.60; Exacta 70.00

R5-#6 No SI (86 lr) 79 drf -shows +14 Pace Improv
2 No SI-recency (89 lr) 84 drf-prob favorite SCRATCHED
11 No SI (89 lr) 81 drf Place 5.00
7 +31 SI/NQ (75 lr) 84 drf-12-1/4 BL's which DQ Sp Impr.-real LShot
(This race looks to be real crap shoot)To top it off, I totally missed the #5 was a +5 Sp Improv last race and only SI in the race. He won and paid 9.60. It still counts as a loss.

R6-#12 +8 SI (93lr) 83 drf
1 +5 SI (96 lr) 85 drf Place 11.60
14 +14 SI-DQ 37 days (114 lr) 92 drf #14 Scratched
3/9 both +3 (94 / 108 l.r. respectively)#3 won 8.20 & #9 scratched
Only the 12, 1, & 3 left after scratches. Exacta paid 102.50

R7- #6 +1 SI (78 lr) 83 drf-MSW-lot of 1st time starters=lookout. Good race to
do tote analysis.
#4 No SI-41 days (83 lr) 83 drf-should compete Placed 4.80

R8- #4 +9/+18 SI (93 lr) 96 drf-Class ? & 6th track change in 8 races??
6 +10 SI (86 lr) 84drf
2 +4 SI/DQ-37 days (87 lr) 91 drf
9 No SI (90 lr) 94drf-speed figs say it should compete. All four of these were non-competitive

R9- #11 +12/+3 SI (83 lr) 85 drf-brief steady 2nd LR, so show 3lr compar too
#5 +11 SI (81 lr) 84 drf-not crazy about comparing 7f with 5-1/2f-real LSWon and paid 39.20-15.00-9.00
12 +7 SI (84 lr) 85 drf-Sp Improv looks most legit
Having said this, the #1, 1A & 8 will take a lot to beat them.
1-8/5-11-12 for exotics. Playing this exacta box as I showed paid $250.50. The 1 placed 6.20
No real standouts today. Someone said that the competition goes up on weekends. results above

[FakeNameChanged]

Laurel 10/16/16-Sp Improv plays

R2-10000 Md(10-9) 1-1/16M
#2 Claravoyant +18/+12 SI(64 lr) 2nd race off layoff; MM last race; bug allow.Placed 2.60
4 Secondhand Angel +9 SI (62 lr); MM lr
5 Ambling Along +6 SI (64 lr); MM lr; entered 10/14 @ MED
7 Weatherurnot +4 SI (66 lr)-top; Esp pattern l.r.-Class Won 7.60-2.40; I have an old data file for hundreds of Mdn. Claimers where the top LR speed figure wins. Whenever I can get 5-2 on these, I take it. Surprisingly many are double digit. Many more are odds-on to 8/5.

R3-7500 Clm 5-1/2f Turf(7.5-6.5)
#1 Sally Oh Sally +23 SI (84 lr) MM l.r.Won 7.80-3.80
4 Alwaysacontest -No SI, (63 lr) Esp pattern+ getting bug allow(Gasman angle. Scratched
6 Stormy Mistress +4 SI (77 lr) good Esp; Checked in stretch l.r.Was 2nd at head of the stretch, then faded.
9 Cracking Good Pins-No SI; (82 lr)-sty 1/2-6w l.r.; turf specialist; entered 10/15 The 9 was getting unusual double and exacta action, but it didn't materialize. ..

[FakeNameChanged]

Add PARX 10/16/16 to above Picks
R1- 7500 Clm 1M70Yd
#1 Carolina Dreams +11/+8 SI (79 lr) MM l.r.-comp. to 3rd & 4th LR backPlaced 3.20
12 Outpatient +5 SI (59 lr) spd rating not too inspiringWon paid 48.40-14.00-9.00; I downgraded her Sp Improv from+27 l.r. to +5 because 2lr and 3lr looked atrocious.
10 Kathywithak No SI in equibase ratings but +12 using DRF's; MM (61 l.r.)MM
4 Belle of Bowdoin No SI in eq-base rating but +8 " " ; MM (62 lr) Showed 5.40
Exacta paid 167.20, Triple paid 478.30
..results above

[FakeNameChanged]

..results above
Add PARX 10/16/16 to above Picks

R1- 7500 Clm 1M70Yd
#1 Carolina Dreams +11/+8 SI (79 lr) MM l.r.-comp. to 3rd & 4th LR backPlaced 3.20
12 Outpatient +5 SI (59 lr) spd rating not too inspiringWon paid 48.40-14.00-9.00; I downgraded her Sp Improv from+27 l.r. to +5 because 2lr and 3lr looked atrocious.
10 Kathywithak No SI in equibase ratings but +12 using DRF's; MM (61 l.r.)MM
4 Belle of Bowdoin No SI in eq-base rating but +8 " " ; MM (62 lr) Showed 5.40
Exacta paid 167.20, Triple paid 478.30

R3-1-1/2M-MSW
#1 Summer Evening +14-DQ 38 days.
#7 Cape Cod Tide +19 SI (68 lr) MM last race;Won 14.60-6.20-only real SI in race.
#4 8/5 Favor in race ran second. Exacta w/fav 114.15.

R10-6-1/2f -7500 Clm
#9 Chubby Who Who +6 SI (73 lr) MM l.r.-Won 20.80-9.20-6.80
#11 Speed Running Wild +4 SI (67 l.r.) MM l.r.Place 23.60 at 30-1 odds
#10 was +3 SI (62 lr) w/no MM fin. 8th
#8 was +2 SI MM (62 l.r) fin. 10th 3rd at 1/4 mile and dueled to the stretch.
Exacta paid $320.60 with only 3 real SI's in race

[ikeika]

Good Job!

[FakeNameChanged]

2nd race at Parx today(10/18/16) made picks on PARX 2 thread pre race.5000 Clm 1m70y(input from phone at OTB
#6 North Ocean-was purely a tote analysis pick while at OTB-38 days-60 Sp Rtg One note about some of my tote picks, when their PP's don't support the undue tote action, I see that as a big positive. May happen on about 1/6 tote picks that don't jive. He was also 10-1 ML
#10 Nick's Posse-+17 Sp Improv (77 l.r.) & MM l.r.
#8 Favor Factor +9 (80 l.r.) MM l.r.
#2 Andrew L -no SI, 2 mo. layoff, (89 l.r.)-included for his speed.
Results:
6 North Ocean 11.20- 7.00-4.00(WTW)
8 Favor Factor 5.20-3.40
10 Nick's Posse. 7.80
Pay offs: $2.00 Exacta (6-8) Paid: $52.20 , $2.00 Trifecta (6-8-10) Paid: $478.40

I only stayed for 4 races, had to pick up granddaughter at elem. school. Handicapped the rest of program in their parking lot and input from my phone. It showed, if you look at Parx 2 thread. I did bet the 9 in the 10th to win before leaving and a 6-9 ex. box. 9 won paid 8.20, missed exacta.

[FakeNameChanged]

Md. Million Day-Laurel-10/22/16
I'm showing how Speed Improvement would have fared on the Md. Million Day. As I said in my original write-up, Stakes and High priced handicaps aren't my preference for using SI to find a longshot. But I do this mostly for my own entertainment and see if it can modified to improve finding Spot-longshots in higher class races as well the lower levels.

R1: 1-1/16M-Turf; MSW 50K Purse
#3 +14 SI (74 l.r.), MM(middle move)-4th
#6 +5 SI (71 lr) , MM-nada

R2-1M-Hcp-50K
#1 +5 SI (68 lr), MM
#2 +10 SI (74 lr)-Place 4.20
#7 +7 SI (84 lr)-MM
#8 +6 SI (65 lr)-mild MM-4th
(just a note, I prefer to see a +5 difference or only one big SI. Today's card has brought lots of improving horses, which is unusual, but it happens more on weekends)

R3-6f-Name Hcp/Stake-100K
#3 +5 SI (71 lr) MM
#8 +29/-2 SI (62 lr)-MM-2nd l.rc questionable effort. 7-9-8-8 by 25 l's??
#10 +6 SI (60 lr)-MM-8.40 show

R4-6f -name Stk-100K
#4 +44/+8 (73 l.r.) MM, 2nd l.r. 5f & last race 1M. +40's & +50's SI are suspect- very tentative play.
#9 +3 SI (67 lr) MM
#11 +3 SI (60 lr) MM; 8.20 show
I didn't play a Sp Improv. in this race, but had the $15.00 winner based on tote play. Still refining my skills at that game as well. He was a 2nd time starter.

R5- 1-1/8M Tf- Stk-125K
#3 +18 SI (103 lr)-MM, l.r. 1m70: 2n l.r. 6f-T-eye test says filly is imprvng.
#4 +4 SI (84 lr)-MM
#7 +6 SI (81 lr)-MM-35 days

R6-1M-Hcp-50K(14 horses-Wild West)
#3 +4/+5 SI (76 lr) MM-was an SI winner for me back in JUL
#5 +17 SI (84 lr) MM, last 2 rcs both at 7f-good
#6 +22/4 SI (72 lr), last 2 rcs 1M, but 2lr effort ? last x 19ls @ 6250 CLM??
#12 +11 SI (91 lr)-MM looks to be one of fav.s
#13 +16 SI (87 lr)-MM-2nd, 3rd &4th l.r. questionable-went back 5 races?
#14 +11 SI (85 lr)-ESP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _

I Dq'd #6's SI after review He was 11 BL's last race. I've been considering tightening my BL's back to 10 or even 8 l's. but haven't done that yet. The 13 was also questionable. That leaves the 5-12-14-3. In truth I passed this race. Results: Who Stole My Sock, #5 won $83.60-30.60-11.60.....#12 showed. The place horse was 2nd favorite and steadied 3 different times to lose by a neck while racing seven wide.

R7-1M Tf- Stk-125K
#8 +5 SI (91 lr) Esp
#11 +9 SI (101 lr) MM

R8-6f- name Hcp-100K
#2 +11 SI (94 l.r)MM/Esp Won 15.00-3.60
#3 +7 SI (90 lr) MM Show 4.40

R9 7f-name HCP 100K
#1 +18 SI (76 lr) MM
#2 +7 SI (83 lr) MM
#7 +15 SI (81 lr) MM
#8 +15 SI (92 lr) MM
too many closely matched contenders, none of them hit the board.

R10- 1-1/8M Stk-150K
#7 +7 SI (103 lr) MM show 2.40
there were two other SI's both scratched

R11-1-1/16M Tf-MSW 50K
#1 +6 SI (86 lr) MM-2.60 place
#4 +12 SI (71 lr) MM
#8 +13 SI (83 lr) MM
#9 +2 SI (71 lr) MM -6.80 show.
FTS won and paid 62.80

These are primarily spot plays and you can see it's more miss than hit. When they hit it's frequently a double digit payoff. Bombs like Race 6 are unusual, and I laid off that race thinking my judgement was correct. I also want to repeat that during the week days, it's not unusual to have a 6 or 8 horse field and only one Sp Improv horse in the field, and 4-1 odds and higher is not unusual. The best plays like this often finished 4th or 5th in their last race.

[FakeNameChanged]

Here's the type of Speed Improvement SPOT plays that stand out using this method. When you have only one real big SI play in a race, or one with a huge difference compared to other SI's, that are not double digit.

6th @Belmont(10/28/16)-6f(Inner Turf)-Alw 62000N1X

#1-6-1ML-Esther the Queen-no SI, good early speed l.r.
#2/#3-scratch
#4-3-1 ML-Day After Day-2+mo.layoff-1/1 favorite
#5-5-1ML- Ametrine +3 SI,Esp pattern
#6-15-1 ML-Arietta no SI-won l.r.
#7-20-1 ML-Given Fire-4 mo. layoff
#8-8-1 ML-For Later +4 SI -Middle move 8-1/4 BL down to 4-3/4 BL
#9-20-1 ML-Krista Persona +19 SI, Esp pattern-21.7% Trainer win rate
#10-2-1 ML-B Three-no SI-fav. l.r.-good trainer
#11-10-1 ML-Jersey's Kitten +1 SI l.r-MM l.r. 5-1/2 dwn to 3-1/2 BL's

So we have #9 @ +19 SI , and three others at +3, +4, & +1 SI. A +15 difference.
#9- Won paid 70.00-23.60-11.60
#6 placed 20.60
#5 showed 6.80
In all truthfulness, I only put #9 4th in my Bel picks yesterday.

2nd example at Laurel, again yesteday(10/28). This is more typical for ONE spot play in the race.
9th race Laurel-1-1/16M-Turf-Claiming 35000(35-30)

#1 thru #4-No SI,
#5-10-1 ML-How's Your Sugar-+12 SI, MM l.r.-won by 2-1/2 l'r-good trainer
#6, #8, #9-no SI
#10 9-5 ML-Enjoy the Show +1 SI, MM l.r.-2nd l.r. had an incident of broke thru gate pre-race, but horse still ran 3rd by 1-1/4, so I let SI stand. Favorite
#14 3-1 ML-Silver Romeo-no SI, up close all p.o.c. last race, contender
This is the type preferred; only one real Sp Improv horse in the race.
Results: #5 won-13.00-5.60
#10 place 3.80
#2 show 7.60 5/10 exacta with favorite: 66.00

[Boulder]

Good luck Trace.

[FakeNameChanged]

Wanted to do an update on Speed Improvement for Belmont's card
Sunday(10/30). Also got to play Parx a few today also at the OTB.
I'll try to focus on races where there is only one Sp Impr. horse or only one with a double digit SI. Hopefully this method isn't taboo on PA, since it's not a pace approach to picking winners. But more on Pace later, as it relates to this method.
10/30/16 Belmont
R1: 6f-Clm 25K
#6-Steve's Image +4 SI, I know this isn't that inspiring a fig. but it's the only one of 6 runners.
#6 won, paid 9.20

R2: 6f-Alw 62K
This is pure chaos. Way too many SI's=Pass
#1 +14 SI Show 5.80
#3 +14 SI Won 14.20
#7 +13 SI
#8 +7 SI
#11 +17 SI

R's 3, 4 & 6 are No Plays
R's 5 & 8 are 100K Stakes-Pass

R7: 6f-Inner Turf-O.C. 40K
#5 +8/+14 SI reviewed 2nd and 3rd LR to get sim. dist./surface
#8 +8 SI
Pass, two tied and both are 46-1 and 45-1=Pass

R9: 6f Turf-Mdn Clm
#10 +8 SI-only play-Lost

Recap: 9 races, passed or no play on 7 races, 2 race plays, 1 won at $9.20.
Just highlights that Speed Improv. is mainly a SPOT PLAY.

Parx 10/31/16-Just a couple races,one involving pace setup.

R1: 5-1/2f-Clm 7500(Okay this race had 7 runners with significant SI out of 8 total horses-Chaos on Steroids) No way this is a play, but it's interesting.
#1 & #8 were +20 SI(one was 12-1 and other was 4/5 favorite, guess which one won)
#5 +18 SI
#2, #3 & #7 were +9,10 & +8 SI.
#6 +2 SI
How did they run? #1 +20 SI won at 26.00-15.00-11.60 ; #5 +18 SI placed at 31.40-13.40; & #6 +2 SI showed at 8.80. Exacta was 650 and the triple was 3917.80. I'm not clever enough to key 7 horses in exotics.

R3: 7f-Clm 20K
#1 Aiken Prep +19 SI, although he was not only SI play, he had +8 difference on next closest, but more interesting was he also had +33 Pace improvement over his last race. Granted his 2nd last race was in slop, but the variants were almost identical at 20 and 21. I've only started to look at Pace Improv. horses, but have caught a few nice l.s. when there's a big Pace Improv. in a race and esp. if no big speed improv horses are evident.
#1 won and paid 28.80- 12.40.
#2 was +11 SI, and placed for 10.60. The exacta paid 145.80.

R5: 6-1/2f-Clm 30K
#2 Thomas Knight +10 SI -only double digit SI in race, the #5 was a +2 SI, but no other SI's in race. I was confident in #2 he won and paid 16.60-7.80. Check link below:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134313

[Elliott Sidewater]

Are you certain of that, because the typewriter looks like the one used by Tom Worth, a system seller of yesteryear. The writing style also seemed like Worth to me. If, in addition, example races came from Naragansett Park, that would have been conclusive. What I bought from Worth has resided for at least 45 years in basement storage with stuff I'm too sentimental to throw away.

But back to the basic idea here, I think it has some merit when the intrarace comparisons are valid. If you have ever heard Len Ragozin talk about his sheets, he often mentioned that horses with improving patterns were those that won most often and paid the best. I know that people tend to pick ideas like this one to pieces here, but the OP has come up with something good that works for him. And he has shared it (and explained it in more detail when pressed) with us for free. If we can't appreciate that, why are we here?

[FakeNameChanged]

Are you certain of that, because the typewriter looks like the one used by Tom Worth, a system seller of yesteryear. The writing style also seemed like Worth to me. If, in addition, example races came from Naragansett Park, that would have been conclusive. What I bought from Worth has resided for at least 45 years in basement storage with stuff I'm too sentimental to throw away.

But back to the basic idea here, I think it has some merit when the intrarace comparisons are valid. If you have ever heard Len Ragozin talk about his sheets, he often mentioned that horses with improving patterns were those that won most often and paid the best. I know that people tend to pick ideas like this one to pieces here, but the OP has come up with something good that works for him. And he has shared it (and explained it in more detail when pressed) with us for free. If we can't appreciate that, why are we here?Elliott, I'm not Tom Worth, nor have I ever bought or heard of his material. I've camped inside hundreds of Racing Forms in my 30's, 40's and 50's much to my wife's chagrin. After reading Scott's IATR, I noticed many times that his Q2 improvement horse would often win a race at decent prices without any other handicapping other than recency. I then refined my method using the old speed numbers that included variants. When Equibase started putting their numbers I changed to their's. Anyway, this "one-dimensional" method is all mine, and I requested permission from the RF to use their pp's in my book. They refused which surprised me after granting me permission on another copyrighted book I've written and never published. So I never published either of these tomes. Who would buy it, just looking at how "well" it's been received here? Have a great day.

[FakeNameChanged]

Elliott, I'm not Tom Worth, nor have I ever bought or heard of his material. I've camped inside hundreds of Racing Forms in my 30's, 40's and 50's much to my wife's chagrin. After reading Scott's IATR, I noticed many times that his Q2 improvement horse would often win a race at decent prices without any other handicapping other than recency. I then refined my method using the old speed numbers that included variants. When Equibase started putting their numbers I changed to their's. Anyway, this "one-dimensional" method is all mine, and I requested permission from the RF to use their pp's in my book. They refused which surprised me after granting me permission on another copyrighted book I've written and never published. So I never published either of these tomes. Who would buy it, just looking at how "well" it's been received here? Have a great day.

Okay, Now I've seen Tom Worth's site. Didn't see anything resembling my play, but much catchier names; like The Super Cluster II Spot Play, or the SC2 for short. Some of my handicapping resembles a Cluster at times.

[FakeNameChanged]

Today at Mahoning Valley, I was pressed for time, so only played two races at MVR. It was the first time I've played that track after reading someone's recommendation on PA. Think it was either EMD or NorCalGreg, but not sure at the moment.
2nd race at 6f-Md Claiming for 10K
None of these Mdn's qualified for a Speed Improvement under the rules. So I did a quick check on how the pace numbers(Equibase) stacked up. The 5-Truly Val was 8-1 ML.
------------------------------- Pc-Sr
23Oct-Kee-1-1/16M-Md30K-71-38 7-5 7-4 10-8.75 10-15.75
8Oct-BtP - 5-1/2f-Md SW--- 12-43 8-12 7-12 7-10 5-8.75

The different distances aren't ideal, but I compare the 71 pace number in l.r. to the 12 pace in previous and also the 43 speed number and it shows a big pace improvement either way you look at it. This is something I've only tried to look at over the last couple of months. To me that looks like the pace number improved dramatically. I haven't done enough study yet to see how to use this routinely, but a few spot plays on this have been fruitful. #5 won and paid $10.60 in what looked like an easy pick to me. The even money #6 finished 4th.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134353

[FakeNameChanged]

Doing a re-cap using Speed Improvement plays for all races at Santa Anita (11/5). As I mentioned in post #1, Sp Improv is not meant for Stakes races, especially at this level, but seeing what happened anyway

Race 1: #10-Kitten's Cat- +13 SI; Won $12.00
#11 Derby Music +12 SI-out

R2: #2 +9 SI-out
#8 +4 SI-out

R3: #8 +8 SI-out
#5 +1 out
#1 +3 out

R4: 1st BC race
#7 +32 SI, questionable dist. comparison to 3rd l.r.-out
#3 +14 SI -Place 9.80(same dist. compar., always best)
#10 & #11 +7 SI
#12 +6 SI-show 4.80

R5: #5 +15 -out
#1 +4 show -out
#4 +2 SI-show

R6: #9 +10 SI- out
#4 +8- out

R7: #3 +15-20 SI(Est. from Timeform to US ratings)-out
#6 +14 SI-out
#8 +5 SI Timeform ratings only-out

R8: #7 +20 SI-out
#8 +17 SI-out
#11 +13 SI-out
#6 +5 SI out

R9: #12 Highland Reel +11 Won 9.60
#3 -+10 Show 3.00

R10: #4 +11 SI out
#7 +11 SIout

R11: #6 Photo Call +25 SI- lost-Beat Tepin in his last race
#8 Tepin +3 SI place 4.60
#10 +5 SI Timeform ratings-out

R12: Classic
#9 +5 out
#5 +2 out
------------------------------------------
So just using the top Sp Improv number for all races, there were 2 winners out of 12 races, $12.00 and 9.60. Just reinforces my thinking not to use it for Stakes races, especially at this level, mostly G1. Will try to do Aqu, Lrl & Parx a little later.

[FakeNameChanged]

Quote: It worked
Originally Posted by dansan
Do all Friday Santa Anita , also do all Golden Gate Friday and I think it was Saturday 8th race Golden Gate I made big $$$$$

Yes I hit the :4: in the 8th it paid $112 at golden gate also just missed the exacta had 4-8 came in 4-3-8.

EIGHTH RACE
Golden Gate
NOVEMBER 5, 2016
1 MILE. ( Turf ) ( 1.33§ ) ALLOWANCE . Purse $27,000 ( plus $8,100 CBOIF - California Bred Owner
Fund ) FOR THREE YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON $10,000 ONCE OTHER
THAN MAIDEN, CLAIMING AND STARTER OR WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES.
OFF AT4:25 StartGood. Won driving. Course good.
TIME :23§, :47¦, 1:11©, 1:24©, 1:37© ( :23.51, :47.37, 1:11.85, 1:24.95, 1:37.95 )
$2 Mutuel Prices:
4 -MANY ROSES 114.00 37.80 16.60
3 -HE'S A PEPPER 5.60 4.00
8 -CACKLE THE CUDA 9.00
$1 EXACTA 4-3 PAID $246.80
$1 TRIFECTA 4-3-8 PAID $4,075.20
$1 SUPERFECTA 4-3-8-6 PAID $13,003.20

MANY ROSES had good speed, dueled from the rail to the stretch, battled gamely when headed in deep stretch and stubbornly held.
I didn't have GG's pp's yesterday, so I can't tell what the speed improvement was. That beats my record at Mountaineer, it was around $104 and $1050 exacta, which I had for a buck.

[NorCalGreg]

Here's a look at the Bris Summary for GGF 8th yesterday Trace--not sure how you handle surface/distance/layoffs yet. Nice score though :ThmbUp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FakeNameChanged]

Greg, sometimes it's better to not read the rules, LOL. Looks like I'd have passed at 56 days off. Oh well, a win is a win good for him.

[NorCalGreg]

Greg, sometimes it's better to not read the rules, LOL. Looks like I'd have passed at 56 days off. Oh well, a win is a win good for him.

LOL....I feel your pain. Trace I have a 50-day rule. I've been burned, but you have to draw the line somewhere and 50 days is quite generous in the long run IMO.

[dansan]

yeah Greg didnt play by the rules just improving speed numbers another thing about layoffs i really dont care about layoffs especially if they"re shipping cost $$$ to ship horses they dont ship them for nothing

[FakeNameChanged]

yeah Greg didnt play by the rules just improving speed numbers another thing about layoffs i really dont care about layoffs especially if they"re shipping cost $$$ to ship horses they dont ship them for nothing
I've used that very cost idea on shippers to pick a couple winners. Posted one in the H-capping Trainer Moves-old locked thread.
When I did my original study on longshots, I also studied layoff horses. And I came up with what I call the Big Three for layoff winners. I studied hundreds of them, and a high percentage of layoff winners had some or all of these factors: 1. Class Drop 2. Jockey Change and 3. Distance change(only 1/2 furlong required. There was a 4th factor, but it's correlation wasn't as important as the Big Three, it was 4. Track change. And if a layoff horse didn't have any of these Three, the win rate was very low, single digit percent, maybe 2 or 3%. If I had only one layoff horse in a race with all Three of them, or even all four, it had a much higher probability of winning.

[NorCalGreg]

True that, Dan....don't go by anything I say, I didn't have a ticket on $114 MANY ROSES--and GGF is my home track.

When I saw your list you compiled Trace--the first thing I thought about concerning layoff horses was WORKOUTS leading up to--as an indicator.

I pulled up Many Roses works--this pattern started 2 weeks after the last race 56 days ago. This is the kind of thing I see AFTERWARDS and say to myself "oh hell yeah I would have bet that horse with both fists".

Truth is--Trainer Ellen Jackson almost never wins off the layoff, despite the works SCREAMING razor sharp and ready---I would have very probably passed, as almost everyone else did

One word to describe this.....DAMN!

[FakeNameChanged]

Greg, Great points. I do look at workouts as well. But I couldn't see workouts when I did my long study including layoff horses. Everyone looks at ftstr's workouts and over bets bullets, imo. I bet a ftstr, The Gemini Man in the 3rd at Parx yesterday and am only now looking at his workouts. He paid 31.80 to win and coupled with the ONLY +Speed Improv. horse in the race was a 74.00 exacta. I managed to control my betting to only two or three exactas yesterday and needed this one to put myself way ahead. Can't that say that happens everyday in my case.

[FakeNameChanged]

Aqu-11/5/16-Recap using Speed Improv plays only:

R1: #2 +28 SI placed 5.20
#1 +4 SI won 8.90
R2: #12 +13 SI-out
R3: #5 +11 won 3.50
#3 +2 show 2.30

R4: 6-1/2f Clm 16000N2L-
No speed improvement horse at all, so I look at Pace Improvement just for fun, didn't play any since there were four big Pace Improvement horses.
#5 Text Me +33 Pace Improv
#6 Zartax +31 PI
#10 House of Friends +40 PI
#12 Vandalize +34 PI
I've not seen this many PI's in one race. Results almost made me sick as I was socializing with couple sitting next to me at OTB on Breeders Cup afternooon.
#5 Won- 72.50-26.00
#6 Place- 6.00
#12 Show- 4.50
Exacta $365.50 Triple 3476.00! I went back and ran their actual pace numbers for last two races, and still have trouble separating them, but probably lean towards the 10 and 6, but final speed leans more towards 6 & 12. Who knows?

R5 #3 +8SI place 3.90
#12 +3 SI show 4.60
R6 four have Sp Improv from +12 to +16-PASS, one +12 placed at 12.60 and +12 showed
R7 #9 +11 SI out
and a +5, 6, & +7 all out
R8-Gr III-pass, a +3 SI won 6.20
R9 -No plays
Not a great day for Spot plays: Using our requirement of a single Sp Improv horse or having at least +5 SI difference, only 1/4 plays won, and it was odds-on favorite at 3.50. There were 3 places at 5.20, 2.50 and 3.90 for 11.60 total.
Next onto Parx and Laurel on same day to see what happens.

[NorCalGreg]

Greg, Great points. I do look at workouts as well. But I couldn't see workouts when I did my long study including layoff horses. Everyone looks at ftstr's workouts and over bets bullets, imo. I bet a ftstr, The Gemini Man in the 3rd at Parx yesterday and am only now looking at his workouts. He paid 31.80 to win and coupled with the ONLY +Speed Improv. horse in the race was a 74.00 exacta. I managed to control my betting to only two or three exactas yesterday and needed this one to put myself way ahead. Can't that say that happens everyday in my case.

Great Trace. It's nice to be "comfortably ahead" instead of "hopelessly behind"--I think all horseplayers know both sides very well. ;)

Been meaning to throw this out here--aww hell nevermind. I'm looking for software that rates workouts in conjunction with recent races, but I'll inquire in the software thread. Have a good day all--NCG

[FakeNameChanged]

11/5/16 Parx-using only Speed Improv
R1:#12 Surfer Moon-+15 SI Won 8.60
#1 +12 SI-out
#3 +5 SI-out

R2 #3+28 SI(?? improv looking back at 2LR thru 6LR)
#4 +17 SI legit improv
#9 +13/+8 SI
Full disclosure, I bet the #11 on tote play, he won at 5.80

R3-No play
R4: #7 +7 SI(not inspiring at 10-8-5-5 by 10-1/2 bl's)-out
2lr was 3rd by 7-1/2 l's. d.n. bet this although only SI
R5: No play 2 @ +1 SI
R6: #6 +17 SI-out
#7 +14 SI-out
#4 +2 SI-show
Layoff horse won at 53.20; He had jock change(top jock) and dist chg. to 7f

R7: #9 +16 SI -out
#6 +10 SI Won 15.60
#1a +3-out
R8: #1 +11 SI show 4.00
#3 +20/+16 out
#5 +4 SI -out
-------------------------
1/6 top SI won 8.60
0/4 won with +5 SI difference. I threw out race 2 & 4 over questionable improvement but that's still 0 for 2. Looking at Race 7, it's always wise to at least give some consideration to a double digit speed improvement where the +10 SI won at 15.60.

Onto to Laurel
Race 1: #3 +21 SI 4th
#8 +14 SI- out

#6 +8 SI- Won 116.00-46.20 Place(Guess I should have done a 3-horse dutch) This horse was also a +61 Pace Improvement-wow. Just checked and the 8 was also a +47 PI too. This just illustrates horses that are improving that get totally overlooked by the public.

Race 2:-No Plays(I needed the time to get my thoughts together after last race-haha)

Race 3 #9 +5 SI show 2.80
#3 +16 SI-NQ at 37 days, but these are always dangerous
Race 4: #12 +21 SI-Won 8.00
#3 +11 SI -out
#11 +11 SI -out
#13 +9 SI-4th

Race 5: 6f-Claim 5000-bottom level at Lrl
#10 Speedy Mexican +39 SI-Won 77.20-30.20-14.60
#3 +8 SI-out
#11 +6 SI-out
These are kinds of standouts we like, a +31 difference or only one in a race.

Race 6-two many SI's ; 2@ +22, 1@+17, a +9 & +7-pass race
Race 7-#13 +8 SI out
Race 8 -pass, a +3,2,& +1
Race 9 #3 +23 SI-only one,. Won 12.00

Race 10 #6 +23 SI Show
#3 +16 SI-Won 8.00
#1 +6 out

Race 11: #7 +9-out
#1a +19 SI-out
--------------------------------------------
3 wins in 9 races $97.20

Okay, I've shot my wad, so I'll let this thread die on its own. Thanks for reading. Whosonfirst? I Dunno.

[FakeNameChanged]

Just this 53-1 shot in 4th at Aqu to place #2 river Knight paid 46.00 . He was +32 SI. A +11 beat him. 570 exacta. Only got place. Only two Si s in race

[FakeNameChanged]

Just this 53-1 shot in 4th at Aqu to place #2 river Knight paid 46.00 . He was +32 SI. A +11 beat him. 570 exacta. Only got place. Only two Si s in race
Correction, it was $42.00 to place.

[dansan]

I m shadowing your plays :jump:

[River11]

Your SI plays picked a $31 winner in the 7th at CD Saturday.

Your ideas are based on sound points and can help all, however they handicap.

[FakeNameChanged]

Your SI plays picked a $31 winner in the 7th at CD Saturday.

Your ideas are based on sound points and can help all, however they handicap.
Nice Hit! 31.60 on Marina's Legacy. Wished Ida saw that. Today at Parx, a friend sent me his Speed Improvement picks, and only one Lone speed Improvement play on the whole card. I'm Not Joking in the 9th, crushed them at almost 12 lengths, paid 8.60. NorCalGreg had him as one of his power picks as well.

[NorCalGreg]

Nice Hit! 31.60 on Marina's Legacy. Wished Ida saw that. Today at Parx, a friend sent me his Speed Improvement picks, and only one Lone speed Improvement play on the whole card. I'm Not Joking in the 9th, crushed them at almost 12 lengths, paid 8.60. NorCalGreg had him as one of his power picks as well.

IM NOT JOKING qualified for a spot play, with the "Power Number" acting as a qualifying screen, if you will--and your method singled him out from a different angle. That $8.60 payoff was generous looking at the figures.

Well done, Trace :ThmbUp:

[FakeNameChanged]

A couple of nice Speed Improvement wins today.

4th race at Parx, 1M 20000 Clm-#8-Trulamo a shipper from Laurel appears to be highest class at Alw42000 l.r. and O.C. 45 & 75K prev. two races. #8 also shows a +17 Sp Improvement which was the ONLY one in the field of 8. He won BIG and paid $18.00.

3rd race Parx(again), 1M70Y 5000 Clm- #3 Eton Blue shows only a +7 SP Improv. but there's no other SI's in race, plus he has the good Espeed pattern I prefer. And if you need another confirming factor, he's bet down in exactas and doubles(next race) when coupled with the favorite. He was actually leading and gave the lead by over a length to the 5 on the stretch, then came back to clinch the deal. #3 Won & paid $14.40. Reason he had energy to come back were fractions of 24.0-49.3-1.16.0 , which are about 2 seconds slower than his last race.

9th race Parx, 1M70y MdnClm10000: #8-Shenango Valley was +32 SI, and #10-Thea's Reign +23 SI. Both these horses also showed the good Esp pattern as well. I had to bet them both. The 10-Thea's Reign was also betdown in exactas and doubles with the 1 and 5 who were alternating as favorites. The 10 won and paid 24.40, 8 placed for 6.00 and 110.00 exacta. No other qualified Sp Improv or Esp patterns in the race.

2nd race MVR, 6f-5000 Clm: #2 Carson Pass shows a +32 SI! The favorite, #5 shows a +9SI (I'm Mr. Right), that's 23 point difference. The #7 Piscean Realist also has a +6 SI plus good Esp pattern. I only bet the #2 to win, He paid 7.40 and coupled with the #7 for a 42.00 exacta.

[mistergee]

Would this be an extreme example that would qualify based on this info:
WO-R3

:1: Conquest Swagger, 2 races back ran a 20 (equibase) at 6 1/2 fur came back at 1 1/16 and ran a 76 for a 56 pt improvement. the last race was 17 days ago but prior was 4 months ago and the comment was eased across wire?

[FakeNameChanged]

Would this be an extreme example that would qualify based on this info:
WO-R3

:1: Conquest Swagger, 2 races back ran a 20 (equibase) at 6 1/2 fur came back at 1 1/16 and ran a 76 for a 56 pt improvement. the last race was 17 days ago but prior was 4 months ago and the comment was eased across wire?
MrG-Not a great example with little data in a Maiden, prefer sim distances when avail. but in your case, I'd not use the 2LR because it was eased. Of course previous race wasn't inspiring, finishing 10th by 20 BL's. But it's a play if no other other exists.
I'd prefer the data on the #4-Into the Future showing a +9 SI and good Espeed pattern, or the #6-Greenfield with a good early speed pattern, likely favorite. Often Mdn's don't offer a lot to compare.
While I did initially spell out some rules for qualifying, it's always wise to use your handicapping judgement to see if it's really valid.
Okay, I hadn't notice that the 1-Conquest Swagger also has the Early speed pattern. I'd missed that earlier.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by mistergee
Would this be an extreme example that would qualify based on this info:
WO-R3

Conquest Swagger, 2 races back ran a 20 (equibase) at 6 1/2 fur came back at 1 1/16 and ran a 76 for a 56 pt improvement. the last race was 17 days ago but prior was 4 months ago and the comment was eased across wire?

MrG-Not a great example with little data in a Maiden, prefer sim distances when avail. but in your case, I'd not use the 2LR because it was eased. Of course previous race wasn't inspiring, finishing 10th by 20 BL's. But it's a play if no other other exists.
I'd prefer the data on the #4-Into the Future showing a +9 SI and good Espeed pattern, or the #6-Greenfield with a good early speed pattern, likely favorite. Often Mdn's don't offer a lot to compare.
While I did initially spell out some rules for qualifying, it's always wise to use your handicapping judgement to see if it's really valid.
Okay, I hadn't notice that the 1-Conquest Swagger also has the Early speed pattern. I'd missed that earlier.

Okay MrG, I've come full circle on your #1. He's lightly raced(only 3rs), and shows a huge improvement in his last race, plus that early speed pattern. I'm writing a +21 SI next to his name. So I'd play him along with the 4 being a double qualifer. I'd check his exacta and doubles play to see if he's betdown relative to his ML. Good luck. hope I can watch that race tonight.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by mistergee
Would this be an extreme example that would qualify based on this info:
WO-R3

Conquest Swagger, 2 races back ran a 20 (equibase) at 6 1/2 fur came back at 1 1/16 and ran a 76 for a 56 pt improvement. the last race was 17 days ago but prior was 4 months ago and the comment was eased across wire?



Okay MrG, I've come full circle on your #1. He's lightly raced(only 3rs), and shows a huge improvement in his last race, plus that early speed pattern. I'm writing a +21 SI next to his name. So I'd play him along with the 4 being a double qualifer. I'd check his exacta and doubles play to see if he's betdown relative to his ML. Good luck. hope I can watch that race tonight.

Okay, I'm liking the 1 even more after looking at exactas and doubles. 6MTP I like him a LOT less after the race.

[FakeNameChanged]

Will make this a last post on Speed Improvement thread. If you want to try these plays, focus on races where there's only one Sp Improv in a race, or else one with a huge advantage of +10 or more.

Case in point, just yesterday at my main track in Philly's 3rd race at 6f. for 5000 Claimers-N2Y(these bottom levels seem to be ripe for this play)

#10-Untethered, g,7 y.o. actually won his last race big at 5000 and showed a +10 SI, which always gets my attention. Only one other runner won his l.r., actually 2 in a row, the 2-Discreet Duke with a 90 S.R. The 2's last two SR's were 90, 91.
By comparison, #10 was only showing an 80 SR. I used to throw these out, when my focus was just on Speed numbers.
At first glance the #6-Move Over, a shipper from Woodbine appeared to also have a +6 SI, but on closer look, his 2nd l.r. he was bumped out to 3 wide, so I looked to his 3l.r. and no Speed improvement. That leaves only one. With 3 horses tied for favoritism at 4-1 and another and 9-2, the situation only looked better for the #10.

#10-Untethered was 2nd at 1/4 mile and drew off to win by 4-1/2 lengths. A class dropper, #11, with even lower SR's on all of his last 7 races placed.
#10 paid $33.40-15.00-9.00
I'd also bet the 5-Elevated, a 4-1 Early speed pattern horse, and he forgot to run.

[pondman]

True that, Dan....don't go by anything I say, I didn't have a ticket on $114 MANY ROSES--and GGF is my home track.

When I saw your list you compiled Trace--the first thing I thought about concerning layoff horses was WORKOUTS leading up to--as an indicator.

I pulled up Many Roses works--this pattern started 2 weeks after the last race 56 days ago. This is the kind of thing I see AFTERWARDS and say to myself "oh hell yeah I would have bet that horse with both fists".

Truth is--Trainer Ellen Jackson almost never wins off the layoff, despite the works SCREAMING razor sharp and ready---I would have very probably passed, as almost everyone else did

One word to describe this.....DAMN!

I'd suggest not mixing speed ratings with shippers. I'd also lift the days since last race if you want to make a fortune with shippers.

It occurs to me that the OPs radar is right on, as to where he should be playing, at this time of year. I belong to a group that keeps a beta # for the major ratings, at least the ones we don't have to pay for, on most tracks, similar to an equity beta. We do it for two reasons. 1. We want to know which #s hold up at which track & distance & surface. 2. We want to know how to play slop tracks. When he listed the tracks Mahoning, Parxs, and NY, I started thinking he's in the right park, that is until he mentioned Southern California. PID would be another one for him. GG will play like these if they have a tornado.

[FakeNameChanged]

I'd suggest not mixing speed ratings with shippers. I'd also lift the days since last race if you want to make a fortune with shippers.

It occurs to me that the OPs radar is right on, as to where he should be playing, at this time of year. I belong to a group that keeps a beta # for the major ratings, at least the ones we don't have to pay for, on most tracks, similar to an equity beta. We do it for two reasons. 1. We want to know which #s hold up at which track & distance & surface. 2. We want to know how to play slop tracks. When he listed the tracks Mahoning, Parxs, and NY, I started thinking he's in the right park, that is until he mentioned Southern California. PID would be another one for him. GG will play like these if they have a tornado.
Pondman,
Well in a perfect race to handicap, the SR's to compare are the same distance, surface and track. On these kinds, the improvement always looks legit to me. But I'm often faced with comparing them at different tracks, and that works "reasonably" well. I had a long conversation with my friend on this very subject last evening. BTW, speed comparison gave me the Gr III-Go For Wand Handicap on Sat. at Aqu, paying 17.40. I had to compare SRs at Belmont to his last race at Aqu going from 1M to 7f. To get the same distance of 7f, I had to go back to May at Belmont. Since the 5-Highway Star was the only horse showing speed improvement, he was my play. I said previously I often pass stakes, at least GrI or Gr II.

I've found that comparing 7f and 1 Mile has worked pretty well using SR's. In either case on the above example, they both showed improvement. When I used to try and compare horses going back and forth from Charlestown and Penn, it was apples and oranges. Laurel and Penn didn't track well either.