ANGLES

[Show Me the Wire]

I purposely started a new thread to discuss two angles currently being discussed on the board, so as not to associate these common angles to anyone sytem, selection method, etc. in particular

The trap:

1. Assuming the trainer knows what he is doing, and

2. Assuming the horse is tractable enough to cooperate with the trainer’s moves.

Work in a Race:

For example for the WIR (Work in Race) means the trainer needs to be knowledgeable enough to use this conditioning method and the horse needs to be tractable enough to benefit from this training method. The significant problem is a large majority of horses are not tractable enough to run early, slow down on cue (rate) and then to run fast again. A majority of horses once asked to slow down, stay slowed down.

In my opinion, it is very difficult for horses to learn this and a large majority of horses never do acquire the technique of rating. However, there are exceptions to every rule and some horses are tractable enough to benefit from this method.

If I used the above angle. I would limit my play to horses exhibiting the ability to win a race from off the pace as well as on the front-end, while setting reasonable front-end fractions.

However, there is a better way for a trainer to get a WIR, but you can not see it in the pps. You have to observe the method in person at the track. It relates to how the jock finishes the race, knowing the horse has no chance of winning. This is the most dangerous WIR as it does not make a difference if the horse is tractable or not.


2 works since last race

Once again you have the problem of the trainer, the economics of the barn, and the horse itself.

Below average trainers take more out of the horse than is needed, if a trainer is economically hindered (lower day rate, than most) more than likely the horse is not getting all the nutrients and better quality products to keep the horse at peak performance. Using energy in works after a race and prior to its next race is wasting energy that will not be replenished due to the economics of care.

Another problem is sex specific. Fillies and mares generally have more difficulty keeping flesh on. Racing and works contribute to this problem. Once again 2 works between races may be a pending sign of deterioration.

If I was looking at the 2 work angle I would want to see it for a male horse, with its prior race to the 2 works being off a freshening layoff and the trainer having shown his ability to score with this type of move in the past.

Of course any horse working regularly between races is demonstrating its racing soundness, i.e. its health. I agree the horse is healthy if it works regularly between races and this is the genesis of the 2 work angle. However, as with most things the angle has to be put in context and not played blindly as some scenario’s would suggest.

I understand most of the informed posters on this board are very knowledgeable on the above subject, and I am not trying to give lessons.

The above is my opinion about certain common angles, currently being discussed on this board, and is no way a criticism of any particular selection process, program or theory advocating use of these angles.

Good luck to all

[46zilzal]

Must be because so much information is offered that creates these angles of peering into what "might" be or what COULD be....

The Follow Up (Sartin magazine) ran a study showing that over a few factors, all this info CONFUSED more than elnlightened handicappers.

[BIG HIT]

Hi very good post and interesting for sure.The angle you speak of here and other angle's that are in jim\jerry book's or any book for that matter are to alert a player that this is a live horse and are not two be played blindly.Jerry state's in his book the best tool you have for wining is the brian.
When you said this could be more of a negative with F\M found very interesting.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm sure you are correct as general statements, but my experience is that most horses have certain training and racing patterns that help them perform best.
Some trainers seem to train most of their stock the same way, some individualize the training.
the most consistent horses (meal tickets) seem to be the ones who can do well under various types of training even when claimed often.
Can you expand on the females keeping flesh on? sounds interesting!

[Show Me the Wire]

Regarding female horses not much really to expand on. Generally, female horses experience more difficulty keeping flesh, i.e weight on their frames. Energy expenditure from racing and works affects the female’s ability to maintain her racing weight resulting in a weaker physical state. Of course, there are exceptions; some females have no difficulty maintaining their optimum racing weight.

This is one of the reasons females are more susceptible to bouncing after a big effort, if you subscribe to the “Bounce” theory.

Regarding authors saying you still need to use your brain, it just sounds good. There is no substance to it and it is an excuse why the angle did not work for this particular race. 2 works since last depends on the competence of the trainer and the physiology of the specific horse.

Kenwoodalpromos, gave us a great insight as to trainer competence. Some trainers train all their horses the same way. To me it shows some trainers do not have a complete understanding of what he is doing for each horse. So the trainer may think 2 works is the best method since sliced bread, but it doesn’t work for every horse in his care, but he does it because two out his twelve horses won after using this method. Even worse he had a high caliber horse sometime in the past that thrived on that regimen.

BTW Kenwoodallpromos, I agree with your observation “most horses have certain training patterns that help them perform best”, but what does that have to do with the general concept of the angles currently being discussed?

To sum up, 2 works since last race is not necessarily an indicator of a live horse. This pattern is an indicator of soundness and not a reliable indicator of “live” unless the trainer indicates real ability with this method. To understand the trainer’s ability you have to have a little more info than the pps.

.

[ceejay]

SMTW,

I use the angle if it is off a layoff in cases where the (lifetime) PP's shows good second off layoff historical form and the trainer has an acceptable record in 2nd off layoff. It is a significant application for DRF F4. F4 will even give workout patterns for analog horses identified in the trainer profile so the particular hypthesis can be tested.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ceejay:

So DRF Formulator 4, will give you the historical work pattern to determine if a trainer is successfull with this training method?

Good usefull info.

Is the angle profitable for you, within the parameters you described? Like I said if I were to use it, I would use it within the parameters you described with the further restriction of gender, males only.

[BIG HIT]

All angle's have some kinda rule's weather personel or by design and for the people who can go couple time's a week and don't have a computer or time they do help inthe quest for winning.And as far as author's i mention they both mention you will pick more loser then winner's.So don't think they are makeing excuse of why there horse lost the race.
I bought jim bradshaw method long time ago in which you also got his work out of some 250 play's or more to show you he made profit.Which could be true or bull all that really mattered how it work for me.Same with software the thing you don't here people at the track say alot is I PICK WRONG HORSE which is probablysame with software.Sorry little off subject but did like your post no one should use one factor blindly because they will most surely loose.

[ceejay]

SMTW,

I have used the angle, but I don't track my stats by angle, but I can say anectdotally that it is sucessfully. I've never considered gender in it.

In F4, if you go to the trainer profile window and select some criteria (like 2nd off layoff) you will get all starters that qualify. I sort it by odds then finish, and click on the horses name to get full PP's including works.

[Show Me the Wire]

Big Hit:

I agree with you to an extent, but I still maintain the using your brain stuff (subjective input) just makes good fluff.

To me an angle means I do not have to think, use my brain, all I have to do is exploit a set of specific circumstances i.e 2 works since last race.

If I wrote a handicapping book or pushed a method for economic gain, I know I would certainly state the user will pick more winners than losers to cover my you know what. One reason for my disclaimer would be I have no control over how the end user uses my info.

However, as I said before, the purpose of an angle is to recognize and exploit a set of circumstances. Telling me here is a mechanical rule that works, but, I have to be subjective in applying this mechinical rule makes the mechanical rule worthless.

This is where we differ in our opinions about angles. I can't pick the wrong horse if I am following a mechanical rule, if the horse loses it is the mechanical method, not my subjective input.

[Show Me the Wire]

CeeJay:

Thanks for your reply. Personally, I do not use Formulator, but I appreciate the info.

[hurrikane]

Show,

Interesting disclaimer. i wouldn't care how many winners it picked if I made money. I can tell you for the last 4 yrs i have had many more losers (82%) than winners (18%) but have made very good returns every year.

One thing about racing losers forget. Losing races is mandatory. Winning money is optional.

What I am really curious about though is the female issues you discuss. i have found very different results from studies seperating male and female horses and am wondering if this is part of the reason why.

What specific info do you have have on this subject or do you know some where to go get the info.
By specific I mean in data terms that I can say this situation causes this impact this number of times. You know, something quantitative and not just intuitive.

Thanks for the insight and good luck

[Show Me the Wire]

hurrikane:

I can not give you a definitive source of empirical data. It is horse sense (pun intended), female horses' have more difficulty maintaining their optimum weight than males. I suppose you can ask a vet how physiology effects weight, I personally do not know.

I believe Ragozin did a study regarding the percentage of horses that bounce (regress) after running a new life time top race, pairing up races, etc. I believe their findings indicated that female horses and young male horses are more susceptable to the "bounce".

[kenwoodallpromos]

"I agree the horse is healthy if it works regularly between races and this is the genesis of the 2 work angle."

I understand this as many trainers use 2 works. My only unrelated point was another way of saying it is good to recognize which patterns a horse does well with, including the 2 works method.
I often see a race, then a work 2 weeks later, another work after that, then a race in another week.

[so.cal.fan]

SMTW?
I agree with you on female horses.........even at the top tracks like Santa Anita, we sure see many who just can't hold weight on.
Question.....you mention the Ragozin theory of young male horses likely to bounce? Would this be colts? I would agree with colts.....disagree on geldings.
Just my opinion....can't back it up with stats.
I rarely, if ever bet a three year old or 4 year old colt in a claiming race, especially a maiden claiming race.
That said, when I was briefly following races in Texas.....I noticed they don't geld colts as often as here in Calif. Why is this? Anyone know?

[toetoe]

SoCal,
Wouldn't need to watch for it in person if we published horses' body weight every race, as just about every other continent with racing does.

[so.cal.fan]

:(

I know!

[Show Me the Wire]

so.cal.fan:

Good to hear from you. As far as the Ragozen study, I do not think they made a distinction between colts and geldings, I know it is probably important to the animal, but I do not think the evaluators cared.

You may be right about the colt versus gelding issue. Interesting thought.

I listed the weight issue as my own reason why the study could have found females to be more susceptable to the "Bounce" than older male horses.

[hurrikane]

SoCal,
Wouldn't need to watch for it in person if we published horses' body weight every race, as just about every other continent with racing does.

really? didn't know that. I would imagine what would help with form analysis..eh

[delayjf]

However, there is a better way for a trainer to get a WIR, but you can not see it in the pps. You have to observe the method in person at the track. It relates to how the jock finishes the race, knowing the horse has no chance of winning. This is the most dangerous WIR as it does not make a difference if the horse is tractable or not.

SMTW

Can you describe this WIR?? I think I read an article by clocker bob that described one type of WIR were the horse breaks slow then makes a premature move down the backstretch which ends at either the 1/4 pole or the 5/16th pole.

[Show Me the Wire]

delayjf:

I will PM you

[Tote Master]

ShowMeTheWire, an interesting angle!
Your WIR reminds me of something with similar intent, but very different in application. It was called the old TTO (Trainer Tip Off) angle which has been used successfully for years by many trainers. Other then technique, the major difference is, that it is an obvious move when viewed in the running lines of the PP’s. Some trainers are more successful with it then others, so keep track.

From what I remember the “In Race Workout” goes something like this:
Looking in the running line of the last race,
a) The horse can be in any position, but it has to be within (5) lengths of the leader at both the first (2) calls. (race distance is not an issue, but remember the first 2 calls for a sprint and distance are different)
b) At the 3rd call the horse has to have dropped back at least (4 1/2) lengths or more, and even further at the finish.
c) The race that its entered in today should be within (21) days of the In Race Workout. (The sooner the better, and 28 days is max.)
d) No workouts should appear between the IRW and today’s race. (No need for another workout!)
e) The horse should be entered in a lower classed race then the IRW race. (Although the TTO has been successful when staying at the same class level, especially when dropping back in distance)

Naturally, most people viewing this running line will toss an animal that’s lost its last race by that many lengths. So by carefully watching the tote board, look for any sign of even a slight drop in the odds during the early betting cycle. This is not a necessary requirement, but I’ve found that it enhances the play even more.

Why does it work? Well, from what I was told, when a horse is racing at least that close to the lead during the early stages, it naturally wants to continue. By easing him off a bit in the later stages its only getting an “in race workout”. Not only is the horse getting physically prepped, but its actually being psychologically primed for the next race.

Why isn’t it noticeable during the running of the race? Because the slowing of the animal occurs as its approaching the head of the stretch. This a very poor vantage point for both the naked eye as well as the TV camera. (Next time you view a race, see if you can actually determine the distance between the horses as they begin to head into the stretch) Unless you’re specifically following an individual horse its not an easy thing to do.

In the days when I maintained my own track variants, I would love seeing this move particularly on a track surface that was much slower then Par. Without knowing the actual variant anything slower then an “18” posted in the DRF would basically indicate the same thing. I believe that this would enhance the TTO even more because horses don’t know what kind of track surface they’re racing on. When they go into the gate, the jockey takes over control and must guide the horse properly through its paces. There’s only so much energy a horse has. So if a front-runner (or even a closer) is shot out of the gate and made to run hard early on a sluggish track (or even into the wind) it will certainly expend more energy faster then it would on a lightning fast strip. But in reality, the horse itself doesn’t realize what the conditions are! It just wants to run. So by the time they’ve gone a (1/2) mile in a sprint or (3/4’s) at a distance, its energy is already depleted. Hence, the In Race Workout.

The next time out (today’s race) if properly controlled by the jockey to run at its proper pace (rated), the energy in the horse will be better regulated. If they also happen to be running on a faster then Par track today, it will only help to conserve more energy for a powerful finish. Hence, the Win and usually at a nice price!

Lots of luck!

[hurrikane]

Nice recap Tote

I've heard this philosophy since I started in the 70s.
i'm not so sure i buy into it especially in this day and age with training facilities and practices at such high levels.

But what I am really curious about is this.

By this disciription isn't this type of form 'reversal' exactly what makes everyone cry 'illegal drug use'.
A horse seemingly off form, comes out winning.

So which is it...milkshake or WIR? :D

(you know this is a little tongue in cheek don't you)

[Tote Master]

Well hurrikane, you might not want to buy into it right away, but it’s as valid today as it was then. I would think the best place to get ready for the real deal is in another race. Like a prep race maybe? Or in football, a pre-season game, or in baseball, spring training, etc, etc.

It very well may be a reversal in form. Many times I’ve seen the TTO used on horses that had no form at all! As I see it, you might consider it reversal in form if the horse could never get as close as (5) lengths during the first (2) calls in many previous races!

Regarding the drugs, keep in mind that they can also be used to slow them down. From what I read on this forum, the so-called “milkshake” doesn’t speed them up. It simply allows them to have more energy to carry their speed further.

Whatever device they employ, I’ll read about it on the tote board.
Because if they think its going to work, then so do I.

Good Luck!

[hurrikane]

don't misunderstand me.

I'm not saying trainers don't race horses in races to work them out. probably half the horses in any given race are there just for exercise.

I'm just saying that this meihod - WIR - does not produce a profitable segment of winners nor point you to a winner the next time out, nor mean the trainer is working a horse within a race, nor do the assumptions made about a horses past running line hold true.

The primary assumption is that the trainer has control of the horse and the race from start to finish. I don't think that is always true...or even mostly true.

[Tote Master]

The WIR angle (mentioned by ShowMeTheWire) may or may not produce, I wouldn't know, but the TTO angle I mentioned (above) really does, especially if you know which trainers are successful with it. I believe they use it as kind of a last resort method for getting a horse back into a winning situation. From what I’ve seen this approach is primarily used when a horse has gone way off form or is coming back off a long layoff. In either case, when viewing the running line of the TTO race in the PP’s, it appears that the horse has not improved what so ever, hence the big odds when it runs again.

As far as the trainer having control goes, you’re right. He doesn’t, but don’t kid yourself, his jockey certainly does, and is told explicitly what to do. I don’t believe that any trainer would simply tell his jock, “When the gate opens, just hang on, go for the ride and hope for the best”!

Believe it or not there are many players out there who still think that every animal entered in a race is out there to win. Personally, when I discovered the reality of racing, I found myself in a real dilemma. As a traditional and avid speed and pace handicapper for (30) years, I realized that trying to predict how a race would play out could not be accurately determined for many types of races. This is only because if you don’t know who’s really trying to run their race, then how could you possibly assume where the horses would be during the actual running of the race. I would compare it to, lets say the examination of a (10) horse field, where suddenly (2) key players in the field are late scratches. Well, you certainly can’t assume the race is going to play out the same way without those (2) involved.

I firmly believe that by combining traditional capping with the knowledge of intention, the player has everything going for him. There’s no reason then why a player’s game can’t dramatically improve. I know first hand because my own experience proves it.

Best of Luck!

[Show Me the Wire]

Tote Master:

There are several types of WIRs. You are saying you find the TTO angle workable, based on using certain trainers and the tote action. If that is what you are saying, I have no quarrel with your assertion.

I agree trainer intent can be found through use of certain training patterns and the trainer's success with that method. Additionally, the tote can tip the hand of intent if it is a betting stable.

Not every stable is a betting stable. The business of racing is a myriad of types, which means you have to be specific in the application of intent rules, as you seem to do.

[so.cal.fan]

One of the most successful bettors here at the So. Cal. tracks is an absolute expert on knowing the methods of trainers.....owners......owners/breeders.
He uses this knowledge almost on a daily basis to hit good scores.
He knows who is defense and who is not and uses it to his advantage.
Example......one of our leading trainers starts a first time maiden cal bred in a 40K claimer for maidens.........the horse won easy, despite this guys rather average results with FTS. The man's reasoning? If this horse couldn't run or was average.....it would have been in for maiden claiming 32K or more likely maiden claiming 25K.
I once nearly won a handicapping tourney in Vegas, due to remembering something this man told me about a breeder/owner from No. Cal. running a first time starter in So. Cal.
Interesting stuff, and can't really be found in books or articles......takes many years of close study and really knowing these horseman like you would know your own brother.

[Show Me the Wire]

so.cal.fan:

Bingo. Very wise words.

[Tote Master]

Show Me The Wire
There are several types of WIRs. You are saying you find the TTO angle workable, based on using certain trainers and the tote action. If that is what you are saying, I have no quarrel with your assertion.

I agree trainer intent can be found through use of certain training patterns and the trainer's success with that method. Additionally, the tote can tip the hand of intent if it is a betting stable.

Not every stable is a betting stable. The business of racing is a myriad of types, which means you have to be specific in the application of intent rules, as you seem to do.
I would have to agree that trainers use various WIR’s to prep their charges. I’m aware of one other called the “Z” angle. Its name is derived from how it appears in the running line of the PP’s. Unfortunately, I don’t recall all the specifics of that one.

I know for a fact that the TTO works (and has worked over the last (4) decades). Some trainers are more successful with it then others, in terms of how many times it has worked for them. As I mentioned, Tote action is not a requirement for this angle, but from my perspective, it only supports the connections intentions.

I personally do not measure their intentions by “training patterns”. Race preparation and conditioning (behind the scenes or in a race) are basic training functions. I would agree that each trainer has his or her own preferences. I believe the only way to measure "true intent" is through the results of a thorough and valid tote analysis. That’s my only rule and I will use it for as long as I continue playing this game.

Best of Luck!

[hurrikane]

I know for a fact that the TTO works (and has worked over the last (4) decades).

Best of Luck!


ok,
over the short period of jan 27 - 29 there were 28 plays that meet the criteria mr Tote spells out.
0 wins 2 place 3 show.

of those

e) The horse should be entered in a lower classed race then the IRW race. (Although the TTO has been successful when staying at the same class level, especially when dropping back in distance)


10 were racing back at the same level - none hit the board.

15 dropped in class
2 places total 12.20
3 shows total 15.00
(this is a little better ROI than you do picking 5 horses a race..things are looking up)

3 were same class but shorter dist
none hit the board.

so..i know this is a small sample but tell me exactly what are the numbers over the
LAST 4 DECADES that prove this is a winner.


Nothing I have seen in over 35 yrs at this has ever proven that any WIR is a viable consistant system that shows trainer intent or a link to the horses performance in the next race. I follow trainers extensively and i have looked at endless patterns. It's just not there.

please, prove me wrong..i'd love to see it work.

[Pace Cap'n]

As I see it, the WIR is no better and perhaps worse than any other stand-alone angle. I would never make a wagering decision based on that angle alone.

However, it can indicate that the horse does have a pulse. It can induce one to take a closer look at what may at first glance appear to be a non-contedner. It may turn out to be a poor win contender but an excellent exotic ticket filler.

Overall, just another angle among many.

[hurrikane]

I have no problem with that Pace,

in fact I like to see a horse show brief early speed, as in this TTO bs, in the last race espcially if they have not shown that in any recent races. Good indicator a horse is coming into form at the cheaper tracks.

but as a play showing trainer intent? IMO this is nonsense. It may happen but to say 'if you see this then that trainer is doing this on purpose' is a lot of bs.

If you haven't studied the trainer or don't know the trainer personally you have no idea what the hell he is doing or not doing by looking at the running line of the horse.

[Tom]

OK, we have a 3 day sample that shows this to be a loser. Assuming it has worked for over 40 years, it should be quick and easy to show us a larger sample where it is profitable. How about a month's worth of data.
'Kane, what tracks did you use...all that ran?

[hurrikane]

yes tom, all tracks.

[Tote Master]

It amazes me that when something is simply posted as being related to the discussion at hand, that right away it becomes etched in stone (in some peoples minds anway). I personally do not use any angles as a final determining factor for a play. In describing the TTO angle, I also mentioned the following little conditions in (2) separate posts on this thread.
Some trainers are more successful with it then others, so keep track.

Some trainers are more successful with it then others, in terms of how many times it has worked for them.
….but the TTO angle I mentioned (above) really does, especially if you know which trainers are successful with it.
Perhaps these little gems were overlooked. Should I repeat them again? As far as I’m concerned any 3-day sampling, a 3-year, or a 30-year study of this angle is conpletely worthless without knowing which trainers have used it successfully. (There, its been repeated)

hurrikane
Nothing I have seen in over 35 yrs at this has ever proven that any WIR is a viable consistant system that shows trainer intent or a link to the horses performance in the next race. I follow trainers extensively and i have looked at endless patterns. It's just not there.

but as a play showing trainer intent? IMO this is nonsense.
I’m wondering what you’re reading, and how you read that into my comments?
Perhaps you also missed my other comment:
I personally do not measure their (trainers) intentions by “training patterns”. Race preparation and conditioning (behind the scenes or in a race) are basic training functions.
I really find it kind of amusing the way things can be so easily misconstrued on these forums. It seems people read what they want to read and comprehend (or try to comprehend) only that. I could certainly take this a lot further, but you know what, it’s really not worth it. My purpose for posting is not to offend anyone! However, when things are obviously overlooked or misinterpreted then clarification should be made. Sometimes people just don't get it the first time. (and that's a general statement and not pointed in any particular direction)

Have a Great Day!

[hurrikane]

Tote,
keeping it civil. It seems to me that you have implied that the system works, has worked for 40 years, and if you want to take the time it works better if you know what trainers have success with it.

no requirement about trainers



Looking in the running line of the last race,
a) The horse can be in any position, but it has to be within (5) lengths of the leader at both the first (2) calls. (race distance is not an issue, but remember the first 2 calls for a sprint and distance are different)
b) At the 3rd call the horse has to have dropped back at least (4 1/2) lengths or more, and even further at the finish.
c) The race that its entered in today should be within (21) days of the In Race Workout. (The sooner the better, and 28 days is max.)
d) No workouts should appear between the IRW and today’s race. (No need for another workout!)
e) The horse should be entered in a lower classed race then the IRW race. (Although the TTO has been successful when staying at the same class level, especially when dropping back in distance)


At no time did you imply that you have to study trainers to make it work. Only that it will work better.


I know for a fact that the TTO works (and has worked over the last (4) decades). Some trainers are more successful with it then others, in terms of how many times it has worked for them. As I mentioned, Tote action is not a requirement for this angle, but from my perspective, it only supports the connections intentions.




My point was I have heard all this before and it doesnt' work. You said it did. I looked at the last 3 days and nothing.
People spew out this stuff with no information what so ever. just a casual, 'it's works now and has worked for the last 4 decades."

every time i hear this I have to put on my bullshit boots.

What trainer have you seen use this successfully over the last 4 decades. Hell..over the last 4 months.

just show me...one friggin trainer..that's all.

I have no problem with being wrong. happens every day. Just show me.

IMO this is mostly voodoo bs, and that's all.
The good thing is every time this crap gets put out there someone throws money at it. I shouldn't complain..just fills the pools.

[Show Me the Wire]

hurrikane:

Add me to the Tote's miscommunication list. At first I understood this TTo pattern works with specific trainers, their training patterns, and the tote action. I summarized this point and was corrected by Tote that training patterns and the tote were not necessary.

Did not understand his point so I left it at that.