Overlooked factors

[Valuist]

In your opinion, what is/are the most overlooked factors in handicapping?

IMO, it would be age. Not just in condition races but in open claiming and stakes. 6 year olds and up just do not have the same recuperate powers as their younger brethren yet these horses are often heavily bet following hard races. Yeah I know John Henry was winning stakes at 9, Grade 1s at 8 (9 also?) but he was a freak.

[kingfin66]

How about large figures helped by an extreme pace scenario. We have all seen the line where a closer runs a huge race off of fractions like 45 flat and 1:08 and 4.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I see only a few factors viewed as important to most people.
Other than my obvious track speed, I say most overlooked is proper level.
For most horses other than stakes and hcp, there is a definite purse barrier above whixh they run poorly regardless of other factors.
Horses at or below their proper level can fail for reasons of competition, track condition, physical condition, or improper training; but the majority do well at their proper level under most all circumstances.
Horses that seem to fail except at the very lowest levels are just failures.
The horses that seem to keep going up the purse scale are likely to be those who can run fractions the most evenly.

[Skanoochies]

The one area I think gets overlooked is when a top rated jockey or trainer is actually in a slump. It happens and seems to go unnoticed particularly in jockeys. When one seems to have lost his confidence it appears to go right thru the reins and affects the horses performance IMO. They keep being bet but are great go against if you can spot it happening.

Skanoochies.:)

[cj]

To me, the most overlooked factor is how competitive most races are. People see a 10 point Beyer advantage and think its a huge margin. Its a second over a mile race. Think how many things can happen over the course of 1 mile that could cost a second!

Most races are decided by considerably less. Look at any race and see how many horses have the ability in their PPs to beat the top last out speed figure, or are competitive with the usual speed figures of the chalk. Usually, it is most.

[SAL]

One factor I've been paying attention to is shippers from daytime tracks to nighttime tracks, and vice versa.

Horses that run at night have a different routine than horses that run during the day. So a runner shipping into CT from a daytime track may be at a disadvantage.

It works the other way also. If a runner runs mainly at CT or PEN and ships into a daytime track he may be at a disadvantage also.

Bad races under these circumstances can be excused sometimes because of this.

[bettheoverlay]

I have made age a big factor recently. I love those 5yo geldings for maintaining form. Sex (or lack thereof) also a big factor. Fillies and mares, except for the real classy, show so many up and down races, if you follow form you are better off looking at the second race back. Older males often follow the up/down cycle as well.

[Vegas Kid]

The most overbet angle in racing is the horse on the turf who saves ground on both turns, gets blocked in the stretch and is running on late. That horse will be overbet because the public believes that if the horse didn't have trouble, it may have won.

The problem is that horses like this who save ground and get covered up, SHOULD have run. They SHOULD be full of run. Saving ground on the turf is everything....so, a horse with run who saved ground isn't all that impressive.

(not that these horses don't win, because they do, but they are overbet because people overrate the trouble trip....if that same horse was 3 wide on both turns and had a clear shot, he wouldn't have had as much run as he did with the ground saving trip)

[betchatoo]

To me the most overlooked factor is a horse returning to his favorite distance or condition. I find this especially true at 6.5 and 7 furlongs. So often you can find a horse with a record at 7 fur that reads something like 7 starts 3W 2Pl. If that horse has looked mediocre running at 6 furlongs the last couple of times out the public expects that form to continue when it returns to 7. I smile and cash a lot of nice priced tickets

[andicap]

Early speed winners still pay lots of money much of the time.
People sometimes assume with 2 or 3 E horses there will be a dual and eliminate the "E". What happens if one doesn't break and the other stays back?

Also positional handicapping.
E horse on the outside (3-wide) in a race with lots of speed is usually doomed unless much the best, but a great horse to come back to with a better scenerio .

S horses on the rail especially with lots of speed who will get buried. 1 horse in 9th at Saratoga yesterday. Was 10th after being shuffled back with all the speed.
I'm looking for this horse next time if he gets a better post and speed in the race.

[Valuist]

Vegas Kid-

I agree 100% on the saving ground. When you hear a broadcast the announcers will often make such a big deal of a horse who mildly steadies at the top of the stretch. The track announcers often overdo the "screaming for running room" line. Horses aren't blind; they're used to running in packs so when one is right in front of them, they know not to run up on another and clip heels. Its amazing how rarely horses clip heels.

[TOOZ]

Early money.

[Valuist]

Lone 3YO in a conditioned race. Scored in the first at the Spa today (Lukelynn).

[emile]

Early mony is the last of relevant factors.That money comes from hasty bettors,gamblers who cannot go to the track.Be at the paddock before the race and that money will come your way.

[Valuist]

Early money also comes from trainers and owners, who want to be in the paddock before the race and don't want to risk getting shut out.

[Equineer]

I think field size may be one of the most overlooked/misunderstood handicapping variables.

When handicappers consider performance data, there seems to be a broad understanding that it is important to evaluate all factors in proper context with respect to tracks, surfaces, distances, age, sex, class levels, race shapes, etc.

However, I seldom see mention of field size, and I often hear horseplayers make comments that suggest they haven't studied the influence of field size.

In fact, field size works contrary to the intuition of "average" players for many of the most powerful handicapping factors.

For the sake of example, consider BRIS Prime Power Ratings, bearing in mind that many of the other highly regarded factors will show the same characteristics if you analyze them within the context of field size.

Here is a Prime Power impact value analysis based on field size. This study ignores races where more than one starter lacks a Prime Power rating. Thus, the I.V. for the lowest ranking measures both actual lows and missing data.

I.V. Analysis Of Non-Maiden Dirt Sprints For 3YOs-&-UP.

Field Prime_Power_Rankings______________________________ _________
Size Races _1st _2nd _3rd _4th _5th _6th _7th _8th _9th 10th 11th 12th
5 1223 1.73 1.26 0.78 0.67 0.55
6 3716 1.88 1.34 1.00 0.81 0.55 0.43
7 5068 2.09 1.44 1.06 0.83 0.62 0.52 0.45
8 4634 2.20 1.56 1.19 0.87 0.67 0.58 0.49 0.45
9 3585 2.15 1.55 1.25 1.03 0.88 0.72 0.52 0.45 0.45
10 3298 2.28 1.65 1.42 1.10 0.91 0.75 0.62 0.46 0.38 0.43
11 1545 2.52 1.75 1.42 1.07 0.96 0.76 0.60 0.53 0.39 0.43 0.55
12 1418 2.56 1.84 1.45 1.24 0.93 0.88 0.79 0.67 0.49 0.39 0.33 0.43

Similar results can be obtained for many of the other popular handicapping factors.

The obvious trend is that top ranked horses tend to outperform random chance by a wider margin as field size increases.

So, unless a player very carefully considers value (odds versus field size), it is easy to fall into a trap.

Too often, I have seen players (desperate for a get-even win), look at their favorite handicapping factor in short fields, totally disregard value considerations, and simply bet the house on the top ranked horse as if their edge was optimized because their short-field selection has fewer competitors to beat.

[thoroughbred]

Looks like it is interesting. Could you define the numbers more clearly please?

[Dave Schwartz]

Form... simply because it is so difficult to understand.

And also, value after the handicapping is done. We are typically proccupied with who is going to win the race.


Dave Schwartz

[Equineer]

I want to correct my previous post in order to give BRIS Prime Powers their just due as a powerful handicapping factor.

In my previous post, I copied the wrong set of I.V. stats from a very large file

I.V. Analysis Of Non-Maiden Dirt Sprints For 3YOs-&-UP.

Field Prime_Power_Rankings________________________
Size Races _1st _2nd _3rd _4th _5th _6th _7th _8th _9th 10th 11th 12th
5 1223 1.97 1.18 0.80 0.65 0.39
6 3716 2.09 1.49 1.00 0.72 0.46 0.24
7 5068 2.35 1.49 1.14 0.77 0.62 0.39 0.25
8 4634 2.55 1.65 1.13 0.96 0.66 0.51 0.32 0.21
9 3585 2.70 1.71 1.29 0.94 0.76 0.64 0.43 0.33 0.20
10 3298 2.66 1.84 1.42 1.15 0.95 0.67 0.45 0.38 0.31 0.16
11 1545 3.24 1.99 1.42 1.07 0.70 0.66 0.61 0.51 0.38 0.22 0.18
12 1418 3.06 2.24 1.59 1.19 1.15 0.74 0.67 0.51 0.31 0.24 0.22 0.08Note that the principle remains the same, so my previous post is a second example of the same observation about field sizes.

[linrom1]

Very good analysis Equineer It's something that I've intuitively suspected by watching East Coast races where in 12 horse fields the favorites would run 1,2,3, conversely small field West Coast races would be more chaotic. That’s why I consider SAR as a P3, P4 money burner because these larger fields do not add anything to value.

[Diamond K]

I believe weight is now overlooked. In the past it was a prime factor.

[azibuck]

I don't think I've ever fully understood Impact Values Is there any way to express that table in percentages? Like, what percentage of top-ranked Prime Power horses win in 5 horse fields vs. what percentage of top-ranked PP win in 6, 7, etc.?

[Equineer]

Azibuck,

Impact Values indicate how a quantifiable attribute compares to random chance probability. By random chance, we should expect left-handed voters to split evenly between Bush and Kerry, each getting 50% of the left-handed vote. In this case, the impact value of left-handedness would be neutral (1.00) for each candidate (.5/.5=1.00). But if Bush gets 70% of the left-handed vote, the impact of left-handedness is 1.40 for Bush (.7/.5=1.40) and is 0.60 for Kerry (.3/.5=0.60).

In my previously posted chart, you can multiply the impact values by random chance to compute winning percentages. So in 5-horse fields, multiply I.V. by .2000 (1/5), and in 12-horse fields, multiply I.V. by .0833 (1/12).

[Equineer]

Also... Azibuck,

You can compute impact values based on something other than random probabilities. Election analysts might be more likely to base impact values on actual results.

So if Bush wins the election 55% to 45% while Kerry gets 66% of left-handed votes, the left-handed impact for Kerry would be 1.48 (.6667/.4500). After such a loss, the Democrats would probably jump on the Stem Cell Research bandwagon, claiming that humanity should be re-engineered to raise the percentage of left-handers to at least 50% (instead of roughly 10%). :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[chickenhead]

If I understand you right then what your IV chart is showing more or less is that the additional horses in large fields are generally weaker types than those filling out short fields...hence the deviation from random results becomes larger as the field grows...since the added horses are mostly "dead weight"....not too sure what useful info IV tells me in that case...if ROI changes as dramatically as IV I'd be interested...

[Bruddah]

If these impact values are indicative of how the Bris Prime numbers have won in various field sizes, therefore giving us a relationship between actual results and expectations of random results, then what are the impact values for odds vs random results? When i.e. winners odds through last place in each field size. Is there a correlation or do they differ significantly. i.e. favorite vs. Prime #1 etc.

If the Bris prime number indicates a particular horse is best in the field and the public makes another the favorite, who has been more accurate? Where does the value fall? Conversely, if the Bris number indicates a particular horse is the worst in the field and the public's odds say another, which is more accurate?

[Equineer]

Bruddah,

Your question reminded me that a while back you started a thread entitled "Question For DB Guys." One of the replies was a study of public favorites that showed the following Win Percentages and I.V.s for field sizes 5 through 12.PUBLIC FAVORITES:

Field Win
Size Pct I.V.
5 .42 3.46
6 .38 3.13
7 .36 2.92
8 .33 2.70
9 .32 2.61
10 .30 2.47
11 .30 2.46
12 .28 2.28At the time, I didn't feel inclined to offend anyone since the Win Percentages appeared reasonable for what was a decently large sample of races. However, since the current thread includes questions about Impact Values, maybe it serves a purpose to point out that the previous list of I.V. figures couldn't have been correct (maybe on account of a copy/paste error).

Since that study was by field size and included Win Percentages, corrected Impact Values can be calculated by dividing random chance for each field size into the corresponding Win Percentages.PUBLIC FAVORITES:
Field Win
Size Pct I.V.
5 .42 2.10
6 .38 2.28
7 .36 2.52
8 .33 2.64
9 .32 2.88
10 .30 3.00
11 .30 3.30
12 .28 3.36I hesitate to compare my ladder of Prime Power I.V.s to this ladder for public favorites because my figures were specifically for Non-Maiden Dirt Sprints For 3YOs&Up.

[Bruddah]

I appreciate your explanation and work. I am trying to find methods to eliminate the bottom horses. I primarily play trifectas and take a contrarian approach by trying to find the horses which have a remote chance of winning or hitting the board.

If you db guys have any information on contrarian views, it would be appreciated.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by Bruddah
I primarily play trifectas and take a contrarian approach by trying to find the horses which have a remote chance of winning or hitting the board.

You and me too, Bruddah. Sometimes go awhile between hits, but then it doesn't take too many scores to get well and then some.

[LARRY GEORGE]

ONE OF MY FACTORS ARE AS FOLLOW BETTING PROVEN SPRINTERS GOING AGAINST ROUTE HORSES DROPPING INTO A SPRINT RACE. JUST BECAUSE AZERI AND CONGAREE ARE FRONT RUNNING TYPES THAT SOME TIMES WILL NOT TRANSFER TO SPRINT FRACTIONS

[Light]

Most overlooked factor is that nothing is for certain.

[Valuist]

Extreme outside posts that draw in. Two examples today: Pletcher had a horse from the 14 hole that was MTO and drew in when a 2YO race came off the turf. The horse ended up winning. About a half hour later at Delaware, another #14 MTO, Jazz Legend was an obvious choice and won easily at $4. But the Pic 3 that sandwiched the Jazz Legend race was a 2-1, even, and 2-1 and paid a surprising $113 per $2. These types will get bet in the regular pools but get overlooked in the multi-race wagers.

[gaston]

How about late money.large amount of money bet on a horse just before post.smart or wise guy money.i have cashed in on horses like this but it is hard to be near a teller or sam machine at the right time.:D

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by gaston
How about late money.large amount of money bet on a horse just before post.smart or wise guy money.i have cashed in on horses like this but it is hard to be near a teller or sam machine at the right time.:D

And the corollary to that. Horse is 15-20/1 ML. PP's nothing to shout about, but maybe he showed some signs of life two or three back. Opens at 4/1. Over the next 15 minutes drifts back up to 13/1. To bet or not to bet? Hmmm....

[Jed]

Distance

[WJ47]

I think trainers! Some trainers are volume winners and win 25 -35% of their races. But other trainers have a lower percentage of wins and at first glance look like they are poor trainers, but if you actually follow some of them, you will see that they seem to win races when their horses are at long odds. Sometimes you will find a pattern in the PP and get a little "hint" as to their intentions with the horse.

Form is also overlooked because it is hard to understand. I've read many books on form and I'm still a poor judge of a horse's condition.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
And the corollary to that. Horse is 15-20/1 ML. PP's nothing to shout about, but maybe he showed some signs of life two or three back. Opens at 4/1. Over the next 15 minutes drifts back up to 13/1. To bet or not to bet? Hmmm....

An opposing trainer with a live horse will bet barn money on someone else's horse to get the public's attention.

Opposing barn later cancels those bets and slowly put money in the pool on their live horse in order to disguise the support.

Opposing barn then might get for example 7-1 on their live horse because they drew,by trickery,dumb money to the 13-1 shot.

Amazing how much of a pool is made up with bets made by tote board watchers.

JM:)

[Tuffmug]

WJ47,

You'll get a better handle on form if you will corelate trainer moves and intent with your form analysis. Horses aner't "in form" until the trainer wants them to be!