Dangerous Non-Contenders?

[JustMissed]

:) I have enjoyed the thread about picking contenders but when I got beat at Charlestown last nignt by the only E horse carrying 7lbs less and going wire to wire, I got to thinking that I had better not get too mechanical and go back to looking at every horse to see if there was anything I missed. (I'm very new to the game so I realize most of you guys with experience would pick the E horse anyway).

Anyway, my question is: Do you guys use any sort of checklist(mental or written) to evaluate the non-contenders before you make your final picks?

Also, did anybody ever come up with what exactly is the red-scan qualifying technique?

Any help you can give me will be appreciated. I'm trying to learn to handicap using the TSN PP's only before I move on to computer assistance. It takes a hell of a lot longer to make the picks but I feel like I'm learning more this way.

Thanks

[GameTheory]

A lone E horse should never be considered a non-contender.

In fact, any method of rating horses that doesn't consider pace or running styles AT ALL will often confound you.

The red-scan technique is Jim Lehane's in the new edition of his book. Find it at:

http://www.free-horseracing-info.com

[JustRalph]

I learned from my Father to ask one question:

Why is this horse in this race? When a horse shows up that does not fit at all, or has never shown the speed to contend with the group he is in "today" I ask myself why is he here. At MTR Dale Baird will slip a horse in sometimes that fits this mold. As long as its not the first or second race back from a layoff (using the race as a workout) I give the horse a real hard look. I watched a Dale Baird horse with D. Whitney win the final race of the night at 29-1 once at MTR. He fit this mold exactly and upon further inspection I found that he had been moved to Baird only a month before and this was his 3rd race for Baird in a month. He had never won above a Maiden Claimer at 5k or something like that. He ran a 22k allowance for Baird, a 14k allowance and was in a 6.5 claimer on the night in question. I am not sure of the numbers, but if memory serves me right I am pretty close. The long and short of it is, He ran like crap, slow as hell in the allowance races and came back in only a few days and wired the field at at least 10 points above his best Beyer. I followed him for a short while and he made a marked improvement and actually moved up to win in allowance company. Baird was obviously the difference. I also agree with the "only E in the race". I love it when I see that.

[andicap]

Just,

First, you have to decide what kind of player you are going to be?
Trainer=based like SMF? Intense, one-track based like Karl?
Mainly pace-based with a smattering of other factors thrown in? And pace-based can mean so many different things. It can mean matching up fractions to see which horses can keep up and close or -- as I do, it can mean comparing internal figures and coming up with the best horse at the price.

Form factors and form cycles are important to look at in the context of contenders. A horse may have the figures but what if he hates today's distance? What if he's a money burner, losing at low-odds most of the time? What if he has great speed figures, but his pace numbers don't measure up and there's a ton of speed in the race that will compromise him early?

Here's what I do
First I run my numbers using Equisim: I am testing a new "Formula View" tool in which I can program my formulas and it automatically calcuates them and sorts them according to however I want. I can look at a few printouts and in less than 5 minutes I have my 4-6 contenders. But I'm not done:

1. I check to see if there are any layoff horses, or horses comign 2nd, 3rd off a layoff who have "back figures" that are competitive with today. If so, especially if they are younger horses, I throw them into the mix. Later I'll use a variety of techniques (read: guesses) to see if I should use them. Often, I'll use them as a "hedge" in case they beat my key horse(s).

2. I check the pace scenario to see if there is any lone speed or a dangerous early speed horse or if a plethora of early speed horses could compromise some of my "E" or EP horses. I check the need to lead horses that can't measure up. Can a closer win this race. The closers have to have proved they have gotten there. If the speed horses look weak form wise, I'll lean toward a closer, but often the speed of the speed will win or a stalker who can track a fast pace.

3. Form cycle -- Vitally important. Read Ragozin's "The Odds Must be Crazy" even if you don't use the sheets. Will a top fig horse bounce? Is another horse circling back to a top effort? Etc.

4. Quick check for other excuses, form factors: Who's suited for the distance? Is there a hot trainer i need to be careful of? Is there a horse that should be 6-1 on the board, but is 2-1 because of some factor I can't see? Maybe it's a hot trainer who wins when he's bet (Richard Dutrow in NY for example.)
Quick check on class. Has one horse done well against cheaper and never beatan this type, especially in claimers, or the older allowance types who aren't really improving anymore.

5. Check the favorite. Any glaring defects in his form that makes him either false or vulnerable. I have a checklist of about 20 factors I can look for in 30 seconds. I do this with the top two choices. For example, in yesterday's first race at Belmont, Lorraine's Secret was the top fig horse at 8-5, but was 0-14.
I might take a chance on this horse at 8-1, but not 8-5. She finished third again.

Since I've been doing this a while, I can take the last four steps very quickly.
If i have a longshot on my figs, I've learned that handicapping too much can be costly.
I had some longshots at Belmont on Saturday that I dismissed even tho they came up decent on my figures (I mean 34-1 and 29-1), because of other form factors, etc. Big mistake. the longer the odds, the more you forgive.

[hdcper]

andicap,

Since Nathan is out of town, was wondering if this formula view that you are testing is available in the latest demo on Nathan's site?

Just wondering since I am looking at the previous version of the demo.

Thanks,

Hdcper

[andicap]

Nathan will supply it to anyone who asks him. I am beta testing it for him as its still not finished.
I haven't set up the profiler database yet since I haven't had time to figure out how to use Game Theory's parser so I don't have to download all those .xrd result files, but Equisim has been worth it just for the formula view.
Another advantage of Equisim is if you use internal fractions its PPs will give you the horse's internals to find hidden moves.

[Triple Trio]

Originally posted by andicap
5. Check the favorite. Any glaring defects in his form that makes him either false or vulnerable. I have a checklist of about 20 factors I can look for in 30 seconds.

Andi,

What are those 20 factors? I am always interested in how others identify false/vulnerable favorites.

TT

[John]

Me Too. Especially under 1-1.