Claimers in 2016

[Ray2000]

Some hard to believe ROI numbers and I'm double checking for errors but...

In my base, 3167 starters were claimed
Won next start . . . . . . . . . 609 (19%) . . 1.17 ROI
Won 2nd start . . . . . . . . . 521 (16%) . . 1.25 ROI
Lost next but won 2nd. . . . 358 (11%) . . 1.05 ROI

Betting a claimed horse is profitable particularly on the 2nd start.

Can anyone out there verify?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

GREAT STUFF!

Can you do this one? It is one of my staples.

First time after a scratch sick (assume very low)
Second race after a scratch sick (assume high ROI -- very high if first or second)

[Ray2000]

The "Lost next but won 2nd" posted above is true but you don't have to bet all claimed on 2nd start back,
just those that lost 1st start off claim. That changes the ROI
2,558 $1 bets returning $3017 or ROI = 1.18


Jess

This is what I have for Scratched Sick performers, sorry, not good.
Man would I like to see someone else's numbers on this. Claimed seems high, Scr-Sick seems low.


Base is 21,000 horses in 2016, 352,000 starters
4309 starters were scratched sick

of those:
396 (9.2%) won next start back
0.47 ROI

465 (10.8%) won 2nd start back
0.60 ROI

Only betting if 1st back was a loss
.65 ROI

[Frost king]

Does anybody have numbers on uncoupled entries?

[Ray2000]

Does anybody have numbers on uncoupled entries?

The coupled/uncoupled isn't in the past performance lines so I don't have anyway to pull the numbers.

Perhaps somebody with set of charts can find it.

[coachv30]

Ray....you do great work!!

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

The "Lost next but won 2nd" posted above is true but you don't have to bet all claimed on 2nd start back,
just those that lost 1st start off claim. That changes the ROI
2,558 $1 bets returning $3017 or ROI = 1.18


Jess

This is what I have for Scratched Sick performers, sorry, not good.
Man would I like to see someone else's numbers on this. Claimed seems high, Scr-Sick seems low.


Base is 21,000 horses in 2016, 352,000 starters
4309 starters were scratched sick

of those:
396 (9.2%) won next start back
0.47 ROI

465 (10.8%) won 2nd start back
0.60 ROI

Only betting if 1st back was a loss
.65 ROI

Interesting stuff. A couple of points on scratched sick.

1) On half-mile tracks, an 8-post scratch sick is a lie. You never throw out a horse in his next start who was scratched-sick from the 8-hole. For that reason, second off an 8-post scratch sick is not a positive angle.
2) For reasons I cannot explain, my scratch-sick angle worked pretty much everywhere EXCEPT Yonkers. Eliminate Yonkers.

Can you adjust for those changes?

[Ray2000]

Jess

One of the problems with statistics is you need a large sample size to have any confidence in the result.
That's why I use 39 tracks to get results on at least 500 bets on query
ACES GEOD MOH RCR
BR GRVR MR RIDC
BTVA HAW MVR SCAR
CALX HOP NFLD SCD
DD LEB NOR STGA
DELA LEX NP TGDN
DOVER LON PCD VD
FHLD M PHL WDB
FLMD MAY PPK YR
FRD MEA PRC

At Yonkers only 28 horses (of 214) won their next start after being scratched the week before.
Returning a measly $108.00 on $214 bet ...the ROI, .50 is meaningless but does show Yonkers scratch returners are horrible.

If I leave out Yonkers from above it doesn't make much of a difference over all tracks.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Here's another angle. If a horse is scratched sick, and the next start is with a new owner/trainer, chances are that the horse was not sick -- and they seem to do well in that new barn. Kinda like your fresh claim angle.