LOOKING for THROW OUTS

[Bruddah]

I have been trying to put together a list of throw outs. Such as, horses wearing Bar shoes and now possibly Blocked shoes. I wonder if you db guys have any stats on what % of horses win two (2) races in a row, three (3) races in a row, four (4) races in a row etc.

I would welcome any other statistical throw outs. This information is quite handy in keying trifectas. Thank you for your response.

Bruddah

[ceejay]

This may help you.

http://betovernet.com/gip/articles/view/311

[ranchwest]

Most odd equipment is a big minus.

Horses who have run 4 or more times at a distance without coming in the money are a huge negative.

You have to watch, though. Trainers somtimes prep horses in ways that look mighty bad, but the results are sometimes huge payoffs.

[Bruddah]

There were one or two useful throw outs in MK's list but I am really loking for something statistically proven. Mark Kramer is a very knowledgable individual and the throw outs he suggests have been garnered through his experience over time. But, there was no definitive percentages. Maybe some of the db guys would take his list and see how it holds up statistically. Thank you for your input and help.

Bruddah

[sq764]

How about horses who haven't raced for 45 days with 0 workouts.. I don't know the exact percentage, but I know its very, very low.


Scott

[ranchwest]

>How about horses who haven't raced for 45 days with 0 workouts.. I don't know the exact percentage, but I know its very, very low. <

Out of 11,264 horses, 99 showed this pattern. 9 won, with the average pay being only $8.56. The average return was $.78, for an ROI of 0.39 (on $1). Surprisingly, none paid $14 or more (my threshhold for a longshot). Not a good investment.

[sq764]

um, we are looking for throwouts, right? This would be one for me...

I also throw out:

1) Maidens with 10 or more losses
2) Horses with 10 or more starts at track with no wins
3) Horses with 5 starts and no ITM at the distance

Not to say they never win, but they are not getting my money..



Scott

[charleslanger]

you're talking for the win spot right? cause for the other spots, especially the third spot there are really no throwouts.
get a sample So cal horses to watch newsletter from joe takach or Its for relevant bar shoe & other equipment stats
eliminate claiming horses that go 28 or more days without a race or workout of 5 or more furlongs(very important: they can work 4 furlongs every 3 days and it still doesn't count!)
same for debuting maidens in 6-furlong races, unless if you know in both cases that horse's not stabled on-track
re comebackers off 4 month or longer layoffs:
eliminate gr. 1 winners in gr. 2 or lower races,
route specialists coming back in a sprint and vice-versa, unless contradicted in both cases by that horse or trainer's stats.
eliminate in 2nd race off 4 or more month layoff if fig was best or second best career # and finished driving(not handily, ridden out, easily, drew off)
a front-runner off a contested and close off-track finish coming back to a dry track
a last-race winner whose jock is riding another horse in same race.
a closer from two-turn races into a one-turn race
closers (5+ lengths back) in sprints stretching out to a route.
Do include in back-end horses ridden by hot bugs or new jockey arrivals, no matter how futile horse's record or how poor its current form or trainer's record.

[Tom]

Originally posted by sq764
um, we are looking for throwouts, right? This would be one for me...

I also throw out:

1) Maidens with 10 or more losses
2) Horses with 10 or more starts at track with no wins
3) Horses with 5 starts and no ITM at the distance

Not to say they never win, but they are not getting my money..



Scott

You won't make many plays at Finger Lakes.
Tom

[so.cal.fan]

I am convinced that every different type of race at every different track has different throw out rules. That is why handicapping is so difficult.
Handicappers tend to handicap all races alike. It just doesn't work.
A maiden claiming race at 6 1/2 furlongs is different from one at 1 mile.
There is a huge difference between short and long races. There is a huge difference between turf and dirt and so on.
Finding the differences is a huge task, but if you are starting with the
premise that all races are the same, you are going to be making a big error.
I don't know the answers to this problem, but I do know that it exists.
On the positive side, I know people who study races with this in mind, and they do MUCH better than people who do not.

[Bruddah]

So. Cal Fan, I tend to agree with you. The handicappers with the best results, seem to be the ones, which eliminate first. I also agree with your track to track and race to race assesment. However, there might be some universal throw outs, such as Bar Shoes and Block shoes etc.

My purpose for this thread was to come up with a list of universal throw outs for the win position. Those producing losers 90% of the time or winners less than 10%, either way. With Mark Cramers list and the throw outs mentioned on this thread, it's a beginning. Now if we can get the db guys to tell us which ones are universal, maybe it will provide all of us with, STOP signs for handicapping.

I have the highest admiration for guys like PA, Que, Larry Hamilton, Fortune Hunter, Handle and Game Theory. I don't want to offend someone by leaving them off my admiration list but this board has so many knowledgable indiviuals, it's impossible to list you all.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your time, skills and information.

Bruddah

[cj]

For me, the most obvious throwout is a horse dropping in claiming price off of a win. Very low ROI.

CJ

[ranchwest]

Below 10% wins? In my database, there are somewhere around nine horses per race, so horses average winning about 11%. Simply getting below 10% does almost nothing. I like getting down to the 3% level, though the important factor is ROI, which should be below .4 (on $1) for a throwout. Even then, I find that there are some trainer plays that are contra-throwouts.

[Lefty]

My personal favorite is a horse dropping more than 50% in cl. price; especially if he is the fav. Mitchell says this type doesn't win fair share and a bet against gets you into overlay country.
This has proven to be true in my betting; just wished they popped up more.

[Handle]

Bruddah,

I appreciate being on your list <g>. Unfortunately, my database stuff isn't rigid enough, or perhaps sophisticated enough, to produce the type of statistics you are looking for. It can tell you the difference between "abilities" given different types of races.
Here's an example from a small database:

In dirt sprints at Sam Houston, the horse with the best speed figure in 81 races appeared 93 times (ties). This ability won 31.18%, placed 51.61%, and showed up 62.37%. The winner's ROI was -13.97%

In maiden special weight dirt sprints at Sam Houston, the horse with the best speed figure in 20 races appeared 22 times. This ability won 45.45%, placed 59.09%, and showed up 77.27%. The winner's ROI was +30%.

So, while these statistics are useful, I don't think that they are geared for developing universal throwout rules. The problem I see in doing a universal throwout rule comes when you need to decide what to do with a horse that has the best speed in a MSW (using the above example), but also has a "throwout" indicator? I also have the ability to do statistics for combinations of abilities, but they tend to get "watery" when you combine strong abilities with weak ones. This tends to be the difficulty with defining rigid rules in horse racing - there are rarely black and white factors that determine who the winner will be among the contenders. As far as throwing out really weak horses -- any horse that has really low speed figures compared to the field is one criteria I use. Or, in general, any horse that has no notable abilities compared to the field. These are pretty obvious spots though.

-Handle

[so.cal.fan]

I know in distance races, any negative drops combined with a gap in works or missed races is usually a very negative factor. However, this can be tricky, if the horse in question is dropping, but was obviously not worth the price to begin with or if a guy claimed a horse too high a price to begin with.
Computer guys out there.......help us out on this.

[GameTheory]

To borrow a line from Dave Schwartz:

"All rules are true, except when they're not."


I make my biggest scores on horses that should be thrown out. That's practically the whole basis of my handicapping. I use rules like you are trying to develop, though not hard & fast ones, to point me to eliminations.

THEN, I look for reasons why TODAY, IN THIS RACE, that rule doesn't apply. THEN, I cash big tickets...


That said, situations like that apply mostly to layoff horses, horses that look in bad form, class droppers, class risers, etc. and the exception usually has something to do with the trainer, but also with bad trips or whatever. The only absolute eliminations I make are observable, physical problems with the horse. Bar shoes would be under this category, as well as the "poor pull-up" stuff we were talking about in another thread.

One key is to compare the horses in today's race on these factors. For instance, in most maiden races, I barely glance at any horse with more than two starts. If you've got nine horses each with a bunch of maiden losses and 1 horse with two starts, both terrible, I'm going with the horse with two starts, terrible or not. He usually wins over the horse with ok speed figures who's come in second the last seven times and he wins at big prices. But if all the horses have lots of starts, then I take a different approach...

So all these rules and exceptions start to drive you mad, right? Can't I apply *anything* universally? Practically no. So you have to decide what is the foundation of your handicapping, and choose rules that are good eliminations *in that context*, knowing that for someone else, your eliminations are their key plays...

GT

(Thanks for putting me on your list, but I don't deserve it. There are some real artists around here -- I'm just a technician.)

[so.cal.fan]

Another angle is DEFENSIVE TRAINERS.
These are the low percentage guys who nearly always run a horse over his head after a good race, afraid to lose the horse.
If they do drop, you can rest assured the horse is finished.
Again, I call on you computer experts, you know the "defensive" trainers on your circuit.
When they put up a horse off a good race, how often do they win?
When they drop down one of their horses, sure to lose it, how often do they
win?
My uneducated guess would be under 10% thereby, a THROW OUT for Bruddah!!!!!

[turfspec]

Horses listed at 30-1 or more on the morning line lose .76 on every dollar wagered. Horses with average earnings per start less than 10% of today's purse win at a 7.9% clip and finish in the money only 27% of the time.

Akin to so. cal. fan's defensive trainer post, the best advice I can give is stay away from ALL no-win trainers & jockeys. Low % trainers & jockeys are money burners of the first order. I'm talking about those that win at less than 8%. Any player who is near the breakeven point can move over to the plus side by avoiding these guys. If, after handicapping a race I like a horse with a no-win trainer or rider I'll pass the race before I'll bet one of these guys. They find ways to lose. Also won't make a prime bet on a 7lb. apprentice no matter how hot.

Rob

[socalsportsbook]

Gordon Pine in his NetCapper articles has a feature on this subject today. Go to http://www.netcapper.com

Also, Barry Meadow cover such subjects in his Newsletter. He frequently has articles on just this subject.

Morgan

[kitts]

One that has helped me. An acquaintance of mine has tracked this stat and he is very thorough. If the horse has one two in a row, the odds of winning a third are 12/1. Granted, they sometimes do win but at a low price. I like playing cheap claimers and this has been good throw out for me.