Longshots are the Ticket to Success

[boxcar]

Hi, folks, my name is "Boxcar", and I'm a retired pony player of 30+ years. I haven't posted "over here" (as opposed to "over there" on the Off Topic Forum) for quite a while. But once in a while someone from "over here", out of curiosity, takes a trip "over there" to see what's going on, and is disappointed or even dismayed by what he finds. And sometimes the question is raised as to why so many of us "over there" don't post "over here" since this is a horse racing forum. So, since this is the holiday season and a time for giving, I'm going to give a gift to everyone "over here" that I hope will keep on giving for some time to come.

My personal ticket to success, as a turf investor, involved quite a bit of longshot play. I spent considerable time analyzing and profiling longshot winners to see if there were any common denominators among them. And sure enough, I discovered that the public was a sucker for certain kinds of bets, and shied away from other types of horses. It was on this latter group of ponies that I concentrated my attention. Without any further ado, let's jump right into the first method of play.

This particular method I call the LW or Lowest Weight method. This method actually involves a few trainer maneuvers. And herein lies its strength because as the name of the method implies, the trainer who is going all out today with his charge will have excerised all his "weight off" options, of which there are three. He does this to get his charge in with a very low impost. To qualify on this play, the trainer must have done the following:

1.) Dropped his horse in class or price last start.

2.) Horse's entered price today must be below the top price stipulated in the race conditions.

3.) Horse must have a bug boy aboard.

4.) Horse's impost today must be the lowest in his current chart.

5.) Horse must have at least three races in his current chart.

Very simple rules, and easy to spot as well -- all of which makes for a great spot play, especially if you're playing multiple tracks, as I often did. Now for some clarification points.

There are two reasons why this method can pay off handsomely The astute reader will notice at once that the horse does not have to be dropping in class today. This means he can be entered right back at his last race class or even higher! This maneuver, in and of itself, turns the betting public off a well meant horse. The public loves horses who are dropping in class today. Always remember this. As a turf speculator, however, you need to learn to like horses who aren't dropping today. Do not be surprised or taken aback when you see that this kind of horse is actually moving up a bit today in class. If such a horse qualifies, is reasonably sharp, wasn't overtaxed in its last race, etc., jump in with both hands. :)

The second reason why this play can pull in some hefty winners is because the crowd, generally, shies away from bug boys -- unless they're really hot.
In most cases, however, the trainer will put up a 7 or 10 lb. bug boy, so this will certainly be a price-enhancing move in most cases.

Next, play must be restricted to claiming races or optional claiming. If the latter, then the horse must entered to be claimed.

Players who use this method will soon discover that most of their plays will be found in maiden claiming races conditioned for fillies and mares or just fillies.
This makes sense because trainers are more likely to be more weight-conscious with the girls -- most espeically non-winners.

This is the method. How much will these kinds of horses pay? Usually anywhere from 15-1 up. It's a very good longshot play.

The Best to All,
Boxcar

[dav4463]

Do you have any records on the number of plays per week at four or five tracks per day and results? I love longshot methods!

[boxcar]

Do you have any records on the number of plays per week at four or five tracks per day and results? I love longshot methods!

Hi, Dave, how the heck are ya?

You know, I actually do...but those records aren't in my possession. I had to move things out of my office and into a storage unit due to a strange shrinking disease that caused my space to get smaller and smaller -- if you know what I mean. :) But...going from memory, you can expect about 3 or 4 plays a week, if you play 4 tracks or so a day. You can expect slightly more once the 2 y.o.s start running later in the year.

My betting records, which are also in storage, were based on all my plays, so I don't recall the specific breakdown for each method I employed. Sorry I can't be of more help. But I can tell you that many of the winners were in the $50. to $60. range, especially if they were moving up today in class.

The prudent thing to do is to chart the method for awhile to see how it does. Then go from there.

Take care,
Boxcar

[dav4463]

Doing very well !

When I check my records over a 50 or 100 race segment that shows a profit, the profit almost always is result of two or three big longhots. It seems like 95% of the time I'm just spinning wheels! The normal progression is : Winning....losing....winning...losing...losing.... losing....I was about even, now falling behind...then....LONGSHOT HIT !!! I toy with the idea of only playing longshots, but then I see the solid $6.80 winner I picked on top and want to enjoy cashing a ticket without having to wait a week or so to win something! The exacta bet strategy I'm using depends on longshots so the bankroll is like a roller coaster. Trifectas and superfectas "on paper" are showing solid profits, but I really can't afford the cost of expensive tri/super losing tickets before hitting that solid price. The big hit trifectas and superfectas are still no guarantee even though I hit a few on paper.

[twindouble]

Boxcar; Why the retirement from playing the horses after 30+years? I've been at it for 45 years I've slowed down some but I can't foresee myself hanging it up. From what I read in your post, maybe you shouldn't have quit. I try to steer clear of the 2yo's though, to risky for me.

[Doug3312]

Can someone tell me what impost means?

[Overlay]

Can someone tell me what impost means?

That's the weight the horse is carrying.

[grahors]

Probably a dumb question, but how does one spot a Bug Boy. I use Bris. Are they listed or marked somewhere? Or, just know ones track? :confused:

[GaryG]

Probably a dumb question, but how does one spot a Bug Boy. I use Bris. Are they listed or marked somewhere? Or, just know ones track? :confused:
There is an asterisk next to the weight carried in all pp's, it is standard. That is where the term "bug boy" came from.
Box: Stay away from those atheists "over there"....they will drive you nuts. I guess the Great Commission includes everyone, but those nuts make it hard to be civil. Sure glad I'm not the only old guy around here. The term "impost" dates you pretty good! Keep up the good work:ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

The Daily Racing Form includes a small number next to the jockey's name in the past performances to indicate the amount of any apprentice allowance.

http://www.drf.com/flash/drf_pp_tutorial.html

[BIG RED]

Boxcar, everytime I drop ' over there ' I get yelled at :D

Question on #4. Do you mean it can be tied for the lowest weight in its chart, or has to be a new low? And is this restricted to just the two types of races, claiming and optional?

I have a few boxes of forms I can go thru rather quickly during my free time, I just look for the Bugs. I will check this out after next week-end and post what I found, as long as I do the ' class ' right.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, everytime I drop ' over there ' I get yelled at :D

:D :D I get "yelled at" so often "over there" that the rare times I'm not, I begin to feel unloved, unwanted, unappreciated and ignored. :D

In fact, when I came "over here", I had to remove my avatar, but forgot to remove my tagline from my initial post. After I rememberd and went back to edit my preferences, I was disappointed that PA didn't rake me over the coals in an email for my oversight. :D

Question on #4. Do you mean it can be tied for the lowest weight in its chart, or has to be a new low?

It has to be a new low, hence the name of the angle -- Lowest Weight. Obviously, the strength of the angle lies in the trainer's intentions, since he's done all that he can do to get weight off the animal, and the horse's weight is the lowest in his current chart. In other words, the horse is "in with a feather" compared to his recent races.

And is this restricted to just the two types of races, claiming and optional?

Correcto. Why? Because in non-claiming races, you lose the third option, i.e. either entering the animal below the top price stipulated in a straight claimer, or in the case of optional claiming, getting weight off by entering him to be claimed.

I have a few boxes of forms I can go thru rather quickly during my free time, I just look for the Bugs. I will check this out after next week-end and post what I found, as long as I do the ' class ' right.

Great. I'd be curious as to what you find. This was one of my favorites that I incorporated into a rather comprehensive methodology.

Take care, Big Red, and stay out of trouble "over here". :)

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

Thank you for a very good idea!

[boxcar]

Boxcar; Why the retirement from playing the horses after 30+years?

Change of scenery. Change of diet. Personal growth. Priorities. Better stewardship of my limited time on this planet. Just...time to move on.

Also, I made enough bucks at the game to call it quits. So, why not quit while I'm ahead? Besides, my goal in life was never to die the richest man in the graveyard or the one with the most toys.

And in addition to all this, I left a little legacy behind by personally tutoring a couple of people in my methodology. So, the methodology lives on, and whatever they want to do with it in the future is entirely up to them.

From what I read in your post, maybe you shouldn't have quit.

I have no regrets. It was the right decision for me.

I try to steer clear of the 2yo's though, to risky for me.

I never really had any unusual problems with them. I handicapped them pretty much the same way I did older animals -- "weighting", perhaps, the factors of Form, Trainer Intentions, and my "Pinpoint" Angles, a little more than in other races. But other than that, my approach was fundamentally the same.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Thank you for a very good idea!

You're very welcome. I hope you'll find it profitable.

Of course, handicapping or the application of any handicapping angle or methods work best when they're incorporated into a a more comprehensive approach and some good ol' fashioned common sense is also applied. The core handicapping philosophy that I subscribed to and applied dilgently was: There is no such thing as an isolated handicapping factor -- that all factors are related to one another, especially to the Form Factor.

The moral to this little saga: Use some common sense. See if a method like this makes sense within your own handicapping framework. For example, if a qualified horse is clearly over his head in class, pass on him. Or if he obviously doesnt' enjoy good current form. Take another pass.

Take care,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Doing very well !

When I check my records over a 50 or 100 race segment that shows a profit, the profit almost always is result of two or three big longhots. It seems like 95% of the time I'm just spinning wheels! The normal progression is : Winning....losing....winning...losing...losing.... losing....I was about even, now falling behind...then....LONGSHOT HIT !!! I toy with the idea of only playing longshots, but then I see the solid $6.80 winner I picked on top and want to enjoy cashing a ticket without having to wait a week or so to win something! The exacta bet strategy I'm using depends on longshots so the bankroll is like a roller coaster. Trifectas and superfectas "on paper" are showing solid profits, but I really can't afford the cost of expensive tri/super losing tickets before hitting that solid price. The big hit trifectas and superfectas are still no guarantee even though I hit a few on paper.

Let me clarify something, lest someone get the false impression. I considered myself a "longshot" player because during the course of a month, let's say, I'd back my fair share. (Note: To me a "longshot" was a horse whose post time odds were >= 10-1.). It was very rare that I'd back a favorite -- or even the second public consensus pick in a race. Unless there was very good reason, I would never back a horse going off under 3-1.

So, since most of my selections were below 10-1, but higher than 3-1, the winners from this price range group kept my "hit rate" at a reasonable level. For the most part, I was able to circumvent long, dreaded droughts.

Another important deviation from the norm that I employed was my betting methodology. My goal in handicapping was never to pick winners. My goal was to find viable investment opportunities in any given race. (Note that the term "opportunity" is in the plural!) So, I was not at all adverse to backing 2 or even 3 horses in a race, if the prices were right on them -- and the contenders had good things going for them, from a handicapping perspective .

Further, in these kind of multiple race investments, I would not only bet them all to win -- but box them in exactas. Naturally, this kind of wagering approach also required a minimum acceptalbe odds policy for both types of wagers. My singular investment goal was to double my money in any given race from each winning investment.

Since you like playing longshots, Dave, then I toss this wagering method out to you for consideration.

Boxcar

[keilan]

D2U will be pleased that you step "over here" :jump: :jump:

[banacek]

Boxcar,

As the one who asked why you (and others) only post on the other side, I must thank you for coming over - your posts are very informative! I really appreciate them.

[boxcar]

D2U will be pleased that you step "over here" :jump: :jump:

Why would he be pleased? Does he expect me to step in horse manure or some other foul smeillin' substance? :D

Boxcar

[twindouble]

Boxcar;

I made reference to your first post prior to getting back into this one, on slyfox's thread, ( betting on horse racing). I think I picked a long shot, not many people get my attention with one post, these other posts just validate my gut was right. Plus for a guy that no longer plays, you didn't come back to tell us we are fools for betting on the horses. :eek: Looking forward to more of the same, as a triditional handicapper it won't feel so lonely here. :)

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

As the one who asked why you (and others) only post on the other side, I must thank you for coming over - your posts are very informative! I really appreciate them.

Thank you! I try hard to keep my promises, and I did promise that I'd come over here to try to contribute something useful to a handicapping discussion.

Besides, this way I can have something to "boast" about the next time someone else from "over here" ponders the reason for the Off-Topic forum "over there". :D

Take care,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

The term "impost" dates you pretty good!

Hey, can those insults! Any more of those, and I'll go right back "over there" to get higher quality ones hurled at me. :D

Boxcar

[andicap]

Boxcar

In using longshots in exactas, would you use low priced horses with longshots since these can pay very well.

Using a low-priced horse I believe has an excellent chance of winning over one of my longshots has been a very profitable policy for me (along with playing the longshot to win.)

For example I just pulled up a chart at random, at HAW last Friday in a 9 horse field a 3-1 horse over a 10-1 horse paid $100. I consider that a decent payoff. At times I'll just blindly play the favorite with my longshots unless the chalk clearly is awful or its an odds on horse where the exacta payouts will be flinty even if my longshot comes in.

And vice versa.
At Laurel a 13-1 shot over a 5-2 paid $129.

[Fastracehorse]

What does impost mean anyways??

Also: I believe the 'bug' is valuable in many different types of events. And,that is very observant of you to notice that trainers utilize even 1 or 2 lb weight breaks.

IMO,the above is a form of trainer intent.

I just get the feeling that you have other handicapping tidbits up your sleeve :)

fffastt

[boxcar]

What does impost mean anyways??

Weight...for the second time. Yeah, yeah, I know...the term "dates" me. :D

Also: I believe the 'bug' is valuable in many different types of events. And,that is very observant of you to notice that trainers utilize even 1 or 2 lb weight breaks.

Actually, I've never seen a horse with a 1 or 1 lb bug rider. Maybe that's because I've always confined my play to major tracks? I don't know.

IMO,the above is a form of trainer intent.

It's all about "trainer intent"! I believe this factor is the second most important, right on the heels of Current Form.

I just get the feeling that you have other handicapping tidbits up your sleeve :)

In terms of the number of raw, positive racing angles, I had nearly 150 of them "up my sleeve" -- and even some hidden up my pants leg for emergency use. :D All these angles, along with the negatives ones, were incorporated into my methodology.

Boxcar

[JackS]

A weekend handicapping story and a lesson for myself and others- CRC Saturday and Sunday. Playing all races both days, Saturday I hit one mid -priced Exacta which was not enough to save the day but was enough to confidently return Sunday with a adiquate bankroll. Sunday playing all races, every one a loser except the last race. Besides the usual woulda, coulda shouldas, the last race was almost the complete neutralizer which brought me back within 40 bucks of my original starting bankroll on Saturday.
The next best thing to winning is losing very little.
The lesson- If your playing a usual winning game there is no need to adjust anything you do. Accept the fact that losing (a race) is much more natural then winning every race(impossible). If your style of play allows for you to be fairly loose concerning a good mix of favorites ,near favorites and longshots you chances of beating the races are very very good.
Despite being only two races away from a minor disaster, these two races turned a weekend of racing into a total neutral experience which gives me great reason to remain opptomistic for the coming week.

[boxcar]

Boxcar

In using longshots in exactas, would you use low priced horses with longshots since these can pay very well.

Using a low-priced horse I believe has an excellent chance of winning over one of my longshots has been a very profitable policy for me (along with playing the longshot to win.)

For example I just pulled up a chart at random, at HAW last Friday in a 9 horse field a 3-1 horse over a 10-1 horse paid $100. I consider that a decent payoff. At times I'll just blindly play the favorite with my longshots unless the chalk clearly is awful or its an odds on horse where the exacta payouts will be flinty even if my longshot comes in.

And vice versa.
At Laurel a 13-1 shot over a 5-2 paid $129.

Yes, indeed! Excellent observatons on your part. For example, let's say that I isolate what I think are the contenders in the race, and they number three. But one of them appears that he could be the legit favorite. What to do? As you essentially said, bet the two longer prices horses straight in the win pool if the win odds permit, and box those two with the low-priced fav. Naturally, your money management plan must include a sensible wagering strategy, so that no matter the outcome, you'll earn a profit that is acceptable to you, if one of your betting strategies should click. So much in this game is just good ol' fashioned common sense.

Or let's take another scenario -- with the same three horses, except all of them are held at lowish odds in the straight betting -- maybe two at 4-1 or so and the fav at 5/2, let's say. What to do? A few minutes before you get ready to plunk down your hard earned do re mi...check the exacta payoffs to see if you can make an acceptable profit when boxing all three and the fav should win it. If so, nix the win bet strategy and simply box all three in the exacta.

My methodology, as well as my wagering strategy was full of paradoxes. I was at once an "aggressive" player, but also a prudent and careful one. This is why I made it a policy (almost always) to box my contenders rather than betting straight exactas or even utilizing the wheeling strategy.

Sorry to see, Andicap, in your post "over there" that you're having 'puter problems. Wish I could help, but a nerd I ain't -- although I have made some progress in the last few years.

Take care,
Boxcar

[JackS]

Here's a P3 stratagy that might have some merit. During the course of your normal handicapping, the three favorites in each leg seem to be worthy of favoritism. If two of the three legs are large fields of ten or more horses, a small hedge with a straight ticket involving only these three horses can produce an overlay. The natural odds of this bet should be about 100to1 if each favorite is assigned natural odds of 2-1.
Due to the large fields the public has too many choices and chances to make mistakes when designing their P3 tickets thus a more than fair price is possible. To attempt this bet, each race must be handicapped and although the odds could be in your favor, the chances of cashing are still pretty slim. You might consider this bet as a hedge only and attempt this only on a limited basis i.e, don't consider this as a prime bet ever but only as an adjunct to regular play. Good luck

[JackS]

Corection- Above post odds should be about 30-1 vice 100-1 sorry.

[John]

BOXCAR, Thanks for your method.It was nice of you to share.

Now if Dave Schwartz can put this in his software. we will all retire soon.

[grahors]

Box,
This is some of the freindliest and best stuff I have read in a long, long time. Thank you so much for your thoughts. You mentioned FORM. I also believe it is one of the pivot points. I like to eliminate horses cofidently. Any ideas in the form area you feel comfortable talking about. The one I like the best recently is any horse running that has an ave $ per start of less than 10% of the purse for today..95% confidence level for me.
FORM...positive or negative ideas more than welcome!
Thanks again,
Cecil

[speculus]

1. Let me clarify something, lest someone get the false impression. I considered myself a "longshot" player because during the course of a month, let's say, I'd back my fair share. (Note: To me a "longshot" was a horse whose post time odds were >= 10-1.).
Boxcar

2. My goal was to find viable investment opportunities in any given race. (Note that the term "opportunity" is in the plural!) So, I was not at all adverse to backing 2 or even 3 horses in a race, if the prices were right on them -- and the contenders had good things going for them, from a handicapping perspective .
Boxcar

3. It was very rare that I'd back a favorite -- or even the second public consensus pick in a race. Unless there was very good reason, I would never back a horse going off under 3-1.

Assuming you back for WIN, and assuming you make same or equal-amount bets, are you aware that when you back two 10-1 horses in a single race, the odds that you are effectively getting are reduced to 4.5 to 1?

Worse, if you back three 10-1 horses in a single race, the effective odds would further drop to 2.67 to 1?

Your genuine belief described as "I would never back a horse going off under 3-1. " might have been illusory at times, don't you think so?

[GameTheory]

Assuming you back for WIN, and assuming you make same or equal-amount bets, are you aware that when you back two 10-1 horses in a single race, the odds that you are effectively getting are reduced to 4.5 to 1?

Worse, if you back three 10-1 horses in a single race, the effective odds would further drop to 2.67 to 1?
You mean if you dutch them so that your amount bet per race remains the same? Why would you assume that?

That wouldn't make sense to do. I have no problem backing multiple longshots in a race, but I would bet the full amount I usually bet on each of them. If I usually bet $20 on a spot play, and there were two such plays in the race, then I'd bet $40 on the race...

[speculus]

You mean if you dutch them so that your amount bet per race remains the same? Why would you assume that?

That wouldn't make sense to do. I have no problem backing multiple longshots in a race, but I would bet the full amount I usually bet on each of them. If I usually bet $20 on a spot play, and there were two such plays in the race, then I'd bet $40 on the race...

Say you make two $20 bets on two horses going out at 10-1 in a race.

Your investment: $20 + $20 = $40
If one of them wins at 10-1, you get $220 in return.
Since your original investment was $40, your net profit from the race is
$(220-40) = $180.

A profit of $180 from a race on a $40 investment in it gives the odds of
180/40 = 4.5 to 1, precisely what I said!

[Tom]

In the long term you do not care what races your winners come from, so the return on any single race is not important. Betting two horses the full amount in the same race has the same long term effect as betting them in seperate races and one of them wins.

[boxcar]

Box,
This is some of the freindliest and best stuff I have read in a long, long time. Thank you so much for your thoughts..

Man! I must have died and gone to heaven. I don't know how much more of all this civility and goodwill I can handle. Geesh...I'm beginnin' to think that when I go back "over there", I'm going to have my head examined to see if they can find a cure for my acute case of masochism. :D

But seriously...thank you, Cecil for your kind words. They are appreciated.

You mentioned FORM. I also believe it is one of the pivot points. I like to eliminate horses cofidently. Any ideas in the form area you feel comfortable talking about. The one I like the best recently is any horse running that has an ave $ per start of less than 10% of the purse for today..95% confidence level for me. FORM...positive or negative ideas more than welcome!
Thanks again,
Cecil

Form is the most complicated factor of all. So many things to consider. Dates of recent races, form cycles, pace, speed ratings, duration of exertion, recent workouts. And then you have to tie all these together to get a reaonable answer to the "big question", i.e. Is the horse likely to improve or regress today?

In addition to all these sub-factors I just mentioned, you have to consider the TI (Trainer's Intention) Factor because this is so closely related to Form. What you want to find out is what the trainer thinks about his horse's current condition. Is he bumping him up in class today? Why? To give his horse a needed conditioning race? (If so, avoid the animal like the plague.) Or is he dropping his horse today? Why? To shoot with him? Or is he dropping him one level today for a conditioning race so that he doesn't have to drop him again in his next race when he'll ready to shoot for all the marbles and collect a win bet at a nice price? Or is he dropping him today part way down to his basic class level so that he won't have drop him so sharply the next time out? So then, the back class issue looms large when addressing these kinds of trainer maneuvers.

Due to my time constraints, especially at this time of the year, I won't have time to delve into these kinds of questions at any length. However, I will be posting soon another longshot method on this thread that involves a Combination Angle, i.e. Form and TI, and so I'll discuss the former factor a little bit at that time.

Take care,
Boxcar

[BetHorses!]

Boxcar,

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

I find it profitable to have a portfolio of spot play methods that I can memorize and pick out of full dress handicapping. I play them blindly generally, to the spirit of the method, not the letter. Most hits are horses I would not land on normally, so they are always welcome. Nothing like going 0-10 on my prime bets and then finding out I made $20 buck on the day in my spots plays. Or better, caught one of those elusive $50+ winners.

Thanks, Boxcar.

[speculus]

In the long term you do not care what races your winners come from, so the return on any single race is not important. Betting two horses the full amount in the same race has the same long term effect as betting them in seperate races and one of them wins.

If you are talking of only NET profit (which, incidentally, is SHORT TERM view, not LONG TERM), you may say so. But if you are a VALUE player, then you would be settling not only for less odds but also less-than-ideal betting strategy since AT LEAST one of your two bets is a CERTAIN LOSER.

However, after all it's a matter of personal preference and temperament really. But I would believe that recreational players may get away with that attitude, but not professional or value players, especially in the LONG TERM.

[speculus]

.


Form is the most complicated factor of all. So many things to consider. Dates of recent races, form cycles, pace, speed ratings, duration of exertion, recent workouts. And then you have to tie all these together to get a reaonable answer to the "big question", i.e. Is the horse likely to improve or regress today?

In addition to all these sub-factors I just mentioned, you have to consider the TI (Trainer's Intention) Factor because this is so closely related to Form. What you want to find out is what the trainer thinks about his horse's current condition. Is he bumping him up in class today? Why? To give his horse a needed conditioning race? (If so, avoid the animal like the plague.) Or is he dropping his horse today? Why? To shoot with him? Or is he dropping him one level today for a conditioning race so that he doesn't have to drop him again in his next race when he'll ready to shoot for all the marbles and collect a win bet at a nice price? Or is he dropping him today part way down to his basic class level so that he won't have drop him so sharply the next time out? So then, the back class issue looms large when addressing these kinds of trainer maneuvers.


Take care,
Boxcar

Excellent post, BOXCAR.

[boxcar]

1.

2.

3.

Assuming you back for WIN, and assuming you make same or equal-amount bets, are you aware that when you back two 10-1 horses in a single race, the odds that you are effectively getting are reduced to 4.5 to 1?

Worse, if you back three 10-1 horses in a single race, the effective odds would further drop to 2.67 to 1?

Your genuine belief described as "I would never back a horse going off under 3-1. " might have been illusory at times, don't you think so?



Speculus, Tom has hit the nail squarely on the head. It matters not a whit from which race or races your winners come. The all-important thing is that you have enough of them often enough to turn a nice profit. . Period.
No rocket science here.

Moreover, while your math is technically correct, you're looking at the result from the wrong perspetive. Going with a three-horse example, and each going off at 10-1, the result would be perfectly acceptable to me. From your perspective, you appear to be saying that my betting strategy left me with a nearly empty cup (compared to a more conventional strategy) , but from my perspective, since my predetermined goal was to make a minimum of 100% net profit, my cup was overflowing; for I exceeded my goal by more than double!

Where else but in pari-mutuel wagering can one double, triple, quadruple or realize even greater increases than these in a matter of mere minutes!? It was precisely this very powerful and quick money-making potential that drew me to the game to begin with. It might interest you to learn (as some here who have known me for a while can attest to), I was never a "racing fan" in any true sense of this phrase. Never. I learnd to play the game to make money. Period.

Mental myopia in this game can prove to be fatal because it prevents one from looking at the long term. Even the most skilled player will tell you that anything can happen in any given race to affect the outcome adversely. But...in the long term, those unforseen, bad results will even themselves out with the good, expected results.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Say you make two $20 bets on two horses going out at 10-1 in a race.

Your investment: $20 + $20 = $40
If one of them wins at 10-1, you get $220 in return.
Since your original investment was $40, your net profit from the race is
$(220-40) = $180.

A profit of $180 from a race on a $40 investment in it gives the odds of
180/40 = 4.5 to 1, precisely what I said!If you figure it that way, you also have to consider that for that race your chances of winning are double, so the value is not cut in half as you seem to imply. If your spot play is based on historical data where you simply play all qualifiers, even multiple ones per race, this question is not at all important...

[boxcar]

However, after all it's a matter of personal preference and temperament really. But I would believe that recreational players may get away with that attitude, but not professional or value players, especially in the LONG TERM.

I got away with my multiple betting strategy for many years, as a f/t player. If that isn't "long term", I don't know what is. And not only did I get away it with it, but my annual return on investment was pretty obscene. (No, I won't tell you what it was because everyone here would want to stone me, and that would deprive my friends "over there" of that opportunity.) :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If you figure it that way, you also have to consider that for that race your chances of winning are double, so the value is not cut in half as you seem to imply. If your spot play is based on historical data where you simply play all qualifiers, even multiple ones per race, this question is not at all important...

Very well stated! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Zaf]

Awesome thread guys !!! Thanks.

Z

[kenwoodallpromos]

If I back the 3 longshots that are all 10-1 or above, the winner may pay me $60, not $20. Backing all at 15 horses at 20-1 (AND ABOVE) at the 2005 KY Derby returned not $32, but $102. I'll take that 3-1!

[boxcar]

If I back the 3 longshots that are all 10-1 or above, the winner may pay me $60, not $20. Backing all at 15 horses at 20-1 (AND ABOVE) at the 2005 KY Derby returned not $32, but $102. I'll take that 3-1!

I like your realistic attitude. You appear to have both feet touching the planet.
:)

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

I find some ineresting multiples at GGF and BM. I find Sunday's cheaper routes especially fun!
I'm interested in the possibilities at Turfway since in England they supposedly finish closer together on polytrack. Beyer says he is personally doing those speed figures. I will be looking closely at ITM closers and droppers, even if they are longshots. As long as they are assertive and fit.

[speculus]

If you figure it that way, you also have to consider that for that race your chances of winning are double, so the value is not cut in half as you seem to imply.

boxcar was talking about the odds, not value. And the maths I presented deals with odds, not value.

Value, by definition, is purely subjective, and you and I and boxcar can argue about it ad infinitum and still not reach any conclusion.

[speculus]

Shouldn't we be keeping our little personal egos out of the discussions here and talk only about matters that have handicapping relevance?

Think it over.;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

I find those with a "little ego" good to learn from. The figment of an idea is often all I need to concieve a new idea to use.
"settling not only for less odds but also less-than-ideal betting strategy".
Sounds like trainers who couple horses!
If I think the race is unpredictable enough due to either false fav, indecisive public, or "chaos" variables and race conditions, I much prefer backing my longshot bet with 4 other longshots in a 10 horse field to betting a low-odds horse across-the-board in a "safe" race where favs may win 40% of the time!
Despite the short number of years I have been 'capping, I have seen more than enough of the 3-5 overworked type fall flat on their faces. I have seen enough underlays in $4,000 1 1/16 mile claimers on a slow track to know there are overlays somewhere in the race.
I have also seen many horses at 20-1 who have won 15% of their races; 50-1 shots who have 3 wins in 30 career starts to recognize an overlay according to mathing the odds.
What are the true odds of an even money horse winning in the mud in a 10 horse route 2nd race back from a 4-month layoff? Find me a favorite who is bet down to half its' true odds and I will find you several longshot overlays.
I do not mind betting 30 horses over 6 or 7 races to get a $70 winner; But usually I get the $38 winner by betting 10 horses in 2 races if I bet the correct races. (I do not like longshots in races of over $20,000 unless they are handicaps or graded stakes).

[boxcar]

Shouldn't we be keeping our little personal egos out of the discussions here and talk only about matters that have handicapping relevance?

Think it over.;)

Sure, I can do that for you. No problema. But can you quit making dogmatic statements about what professional players (as I was) do and don't do in terms of wagering strategies? After all, sir, the ability to think outside the box of conventional wisdom is certainly one of the big "secrets" to success in this game, is it not? Think about it. ;)

And,oh yeah, one more thing: Strictly speaking, money management plans or betting strategies -- whatever label you wish to assign to such -- have little "relevance" to handicapping horse races. Predicting the winner or assessing the chances of the entrants or contenders in a race is one thing; but devising and applying a money management scheme upon completion of the handicapping phase is something else. Being proficient at both is absolutely necessary for long term gains in the context of turf speculation; however I have known my fair share of pretty darn good handicappers who could never realize long term profits from their 'capping efforts because they lacked the discipline or the ability to put together a money management plan that would have complemented their handicappping skills. More brain food to chew on. ;)

[boxcar]

I find those with a "little ego" good to learn from. The figment of an idea is often all I need to concieve a new idea to use.
"settling not only for less odds but also less-than-ideal betting strategy".
Sounds like trainers who couple horses!
If I think the race is unpredictable enough due to either false fav, indecisive public, or "chaos" variables and race conditions, I much prefer backing my longshot bet with 4 other longshots in a 10 horse field to betting a low-odds horse across-the-board in a "safe" race where favs may win 40% of the time!
Despite the short number of years I have been 'capping, I have seen more than enough of the 3-5 overworked type fall flat on their faces. I have seen enough underlays in $4,000 1 1/16 mile claimers on a slow track to know there are overlays somewhere in the race.
I have also seen many horses at 20-1 who have won 15% of their races; 50-1 shots who have 3 wins in 30 career starts to recognize an overlay according to mathing the odds.
What are the true odds of an even money horse winning in the mud in a 10 horse route 2nd race back from a 4-month layoff? Find me a favorite who is bet down to half its' true odds and I will find you several longshot overlays.
I do not mind betting 30 horses over 6 or 7 races to get a $70 winner; But usually I get the $38 winner by betting 10 horses in 2 races if I bet the correct races. (I do not like longshots in races of over $20,000 unless they are handicaps or graded stakes).

I love your pragmatism. Recognizing "an overlay" is the same as spotting a vulnerable longshot, or better yet... a downright illegitimate one.

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

Of course, if I bet 5 longshots in a race and 1 wins, the other 4 were underlays that time!LOL!
GGF once had a $52.00 winner I missed because I listened to my brother and did not bet it because it came from the cheaper Turf Paradise track. Ths horse had won 3 in a row before it shipped to GGF and had it marked but...

[BIG RED]

In the long term you do not care what races your winners come from, so the return on any single race is not important. Betting two horses the full amount in the same race has the same long term effect as betting them in seperate races and one of them wins.

Tom, the way I see it for your example is, let's say you bet 30 races for the week but had 36 bets ( backed 36 horses ). So each horse would have it's own odds when they win and hopefully you finished ahead. I look at what speculus said, and see him stating the odds for the race ?? I guess :confused:

[Overlay]

In the long term you do not care what races your winners come from, so the return on any single race is not important. Betting two horses the full amount in the same race has the same long term effect as betting them in seperate races and one of them wins.

I'm not saying that it never makes sense to bet more than one horse to win in a race, but (to state the obvious) when you do that, you're guaranteed of having at least one loser which the rest of your wagers or returns have to compensate for, whereas betting one horse in each of two separate races leaves open the chance of having no losers. You just need to assure that your money management scheme takes account of the unavoidable increase in the number of losing wagers from playing multiple horses in the same race.

[twindouble]

I'm not saying that it never makes sense to bet more than one horse to win in a race, but (to state the obvious) when you do that, you're guaranteed of having at least one loser which the rest of your wagers or returns have to compensate for, whereas betting one horse in each of two separate races leaves open the chance of having no losers. You just need to assure that your money management scheme takes account of the unavoidable increase in the number of losing wagers from playing multiple horses in the same race.

I agree Overlay, I don't dilute my wagers to any great degree, only when there's a good chance for good score. For example, key one with two or three with good value in the exacta. Or, I'll go deep if need be in the tri or super same on the picks.

T.D.

[Fastracehorse]

Thanx for the thorough answers.

fffastt

[boxcar]

I'm not saying that it never makes sense to bet more than one horse to win in a race, but (to state the obvious) when you do that, you're guaranteed of having at least one loser which the rest of your wagers or returns have to compensate for, whereas betting one horse in each of two separate races leaves open the chance of having no losers. You just need to assure that your money management scheme takes account of the unavoidable increase in the number of losing wagers from playing multiple horses in the same race.

But you're also guaranteed of having more winners at nice prices -- at least if you're a decent player. The strategy is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways -- not just backing more losers. For example, you could also have two losers in stead of no losers. There's no money management plan out there that will guarantee you a positive return (unless things have evolved that much in the last few years :) ) . The reason my plan worked so well for me is because I was able to hit a sufficient number of good priced winners often enough to keep me well in the black. Stated differently, I was connecting on longshot winners at a better rate than their raw post time odds dictated -- or suggested I should be.

But enough on money management. I didn't come over here to tout my own method or debate other strategies. I just don't have the time to do this. There are lots of ways to skin a cat in this game. What works for one will not work for another for any number of reasons.

Boxcar

[dav4463]

Of course, if I bet 5 longshots in a race and 1 wins, the other 4 were underlays that time!LOL!
GGF once had a $52.00 winner I missed because I listened to my brother and did not bet it because it came from the cheaper Turf Paradise track. Ths horse had won 3 in a row before it shipped to GGF and had it marked but...

Don't read Joe Takach's sucker bet article today! I too, ignored a huge longshot at Lone Star Park who came from the cheaper Sunland Park facing other shippers from much more "prestigious" tracks.

[banacek]

I'm not saying that it never makes sense to bet more than one horse to win in a race, but (to state the obvious) when you do that, you're guaranteed of having at least one loser which the rest of your wagers or returns have to compensate for, whereas betting one horse in each of two separate races leaves open the chance of having no losers. You just need to assure that your money management scheme takes account of the unavoidable increase in the number of losing wagers from playing multiple horses in the same race.

If you have 2 horses who have a 20% chance of winning in one race (say each at 7-1), that means you have a 40% winning that one race and a 60% chance of losing the race. If you win you bet $4 and collect $16. So 40% chance of a profit of $12 and a 60% chance of losing $4.

Expected profit for your $4 wager: $2.40.

If you have 1 horse in each of 2 races that each have a 20% chance of winning (each 7-1), you have a 64% chance of losing both races (-$4), a 4% chance of winning both wagers (assuming independence) (+$28) and a 32% chance of winning exactly one of the bets (+$12).

Expected profit for your $4 wager: $2.40.


Both have the exact same expected return. Yes, you now have a 4% chance of winning both (versus no chance by dutching 2 in one race), but you have increased your probability of winning none(from 60% to 64%) Playing 2 in one race has a 40% chance of collecting, while playing 1 in each of 2 races has a 36% chance of collecting. I'll take the shorter losing streak with the same return.

[boxcar]

Dave, you asked if I had any records. Of course, I do, but not under roof, as stated earlier. However I accidentally stumbled onto an old transfile that I forgot I had and that was tucked away in the back of a closet in one of my spare bedrooms. Lo and behold what's in the sucker? Some old examples of winning angle horses that I used back when I tutored some people in my methodology.

At any rate, I came up with two qualified plays on this particular longshot method that I printed out and kept for tutoring purposes.

The 7th at CRC on Aug 01, 97 was conditioned for 3 y.o. and up going 1-1/16 mi. with a top claiming price of 10K and a bottom price of 9K.

Irish Reality trained by Gabriel Mas was a 7 y.o. In his next to last race (2RB) he was entered at a price of 9K. In his last race (LR) he was dropped down sharply to $6,250. Today the trainer boosted him back up to the class level stated above, but entered him at the bottom price of 9K.

The horse was dropping a ton of weight off his last when he ran with 117, but today he was in at 105 with 10# bug boy. And today's impost was the lowest in his current chart -- being 4 lbs. lower than the lowest in one of his prior races.

The animal was super sharp, having finished a close up 2nd in his last two. His form cycle was excellent. His current year box score, however, wasn't all that impressive, having 14 starts with only 1 win and 2 seconds. And while he did have that one win in his current chart, it was in a really cheap race -- a 5K claimer.

In addition to all this, he had an another excellent trainer maneuver angle in his chart that had to do with today's distance and the recent distances he had been running. (I posted on this distance angle at some length a few years ago, and there are people here who can attest to that method's price-getting potential.

This animal was picture perfect example of what an illegitimate longshot looks like. But even with everything he had going for him, the crowd all but ignored him that day, and he romped home to pay a nice $57.60. Now, one more example.

The 6th at MTH on the very same day (Aug 01, 97) was conditioned for 3 and up going 6 fur. Once again, the top claiming price was 10K and the bottom was 9K.

Chenio, a 4 y.o. colt, was trained by Elaine Ferri, and this gal had him entered at the bottom price of 9K. He, too, was dropping a ton a weight off his last going from 115 in his 2RB to 104 today -- with another 10 lb. bug boy aboard.

He, too, was dropped rather sharply last time out from 12.5k level in his 2RB to 8k in his LR. Today his trainer bumped him up a notch in class.

Unlike the previous example, however, this pony didn't look nearly as sharp as Irish Reality did -- especially off his last two races where he had a combined beaten lengths of 51 lengths! So, right here is a good place to give everyone a little tipoff about these kinds of horses whose current form doesn't appear to be very good. While there are exceptions to this little Form rule I'm about to share, the following will serve you well over the long haul. The big question here is this: How do we know that a horse is well meant who has the Drop in Class Last Start (DCLS) angle in its chart? The answer is very simple:

If the horse improved its speed rating (SR) in it last race off its 2RB, then you can be reasonably confident that the horse is well meant.

In this pony's case, he ran to a 48 in his LR -- a one point improvement over his his 2RB. Now, this wasn't very much of an improvement, if any at all. But Chenio had some other really good angles going for him, also -- over and above the one under discussion.

In fact, this race brings back a flood of memories for me because I actually played it. I considered this animal, due to his low recent SRs, to be a vulnerable longshot. But even so, this was a tough beet to swallow. :) He lost this race -- and I think by a pretty narrow margin. He was sent off at 42-1 and placed, paying $30.80.

However, I bet another bomb in this heat also, who on paper looked a lot sharper than Chenio, despite his recent finish positions and beaten lengths. The winner Katesgenuinhope, trained by Robert S Young, had arguably the best longshot combo angles in the game that revolve almost exclusively around the Form Factor. But it's also a complex method since the these angle horses' form is well "hidden" and the individual subangles themselves can be quite subtle. However, even so...by way of LR speed rating (SR) comparison, this winner earned a 62 last out while running well up the track, whereas Chenio ran to that low 48. Therefore, I was not suprised by the result from a form standpoint -- just disappointed.

In this case, Katesgenuinehope was actually the stronger play because he was an illegitimate longshot, whereas Chenio was just a vulnerable one. Result: Kate returned $35.20 with Chenio right behind. If memory serves me right, the exacta paid off in 4 digits, as it was. (God only knows what it would have paid if the results had been reversed.) :rolleyes:

At any rate, this weight method of play doesn't guarantee winners any more than any another method; however, you will get your share of live contenders at good prices. And I don't think you any reasonable person can ask for much more than this.

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

I always read Joe's column, always keeping in mind that anyone who makes blanket statements are always 100% wrong at some time (even me just now!).
I do not pick winners- I pick positive ROI horses regardless of where they come from or how many at once.
In this year's KY Derby all 15 20-1+ shots combined had odds of what, 2-1? To bet 75% of the field?
I bet a closer ITM at FG who shipped to Calder and won because it was a slower track. Paid me about 4-1.
In racing, everything else being equal, do not bet because you lose the takeout! I only bet when everything is not equal, but is statistically in my favor, whether multiple longshots or favorite early speed. You have to be close on the actual win probabilty on your bet.
Betting multiples, if done correctly by betting the correct minimum odds in the correct race, is more advantageous than betting the same horses each in a seperate race because of trips and pace.
I have won on my share of multiples where the longshots were allowed to go to the front but the low odds horses could not close. I Have also seen where a couple of low odds horses fade badly in the stretch and several longshots are there to pick up the pieces.
For me betting multiples is often just a numbers game in a chaos race. I do not care which of my longshots come in because just as often it is for $60 as for $22. (see this past Sunday's GGF payoffs).

[dav4463]

What races are most likely to produce longshots? I normally follow a similar "rule of thumb" as Ken. I usually look for longshots in fields of 8 or more horses with claiming prices below $15000, maiden claimers (not mdn sp wt), and stakes races with big fields. It also helps if there are a couple of higher rated horses with a suspicious or negative class move.

[Fastracehorse]

I haven't seen bugs that only are allowed 1 or 2 lb breaks either.

I was talking about the conditions of a claiming race: Where the horseman can get his charge in for 2 lbs less if he lowers the tag by $2500 - an example.

And the above can be a form of trainer intent - hopefully because the horse is doing well.

fffastt

[RaceIsClosed]

What races are most likely to produce longshots?

Races where I tap out on the favorite.

[boxcar]

I haven't seen bugs that only are allowed 1 or 2 lb breaks either.

I was talking about the conditions of a claiming race: Where the horseman can get his charge in for 2 lbs less if he lowers the tag by $2500 - an example.

And the above can be a form of trainer intent - hopefully because the horse is doing well.

fffastt

One of the rules to my method requires that the trainer enter his horse today at a price below the top claiming price stipulated in the conditions. Therefore, the rule guarantees that the horse will get additional weight off.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Before I find the door out of here, I want to take up one more method that also has bomb-catching potiential. It's another method that truly goes against the grain of the public. But before getting into it, I think an explanation behind the rationale would be in order and might actually prove helpful, and even provide a source of encouragement to anyone who might want to condutct his own investigation.

In the last method, we looked at horses that dropped in class last start and either came back at the same level or were bumped up in class or price today. In the one we're going to look at shortly, the opposite manevuer is required. The horse must have been bumped up in class last start, and entered today at the same or higher level. Someone may infer from these two methods alone that I'm a bit biased against horses dropping in class today. In a sense, I am. The majority of my longshot winners over the years have come from non-drop downs today. This doesn't mean that I never bet class drop downs. I would under certain circumstances, providing the price was right.

There was good reason, though, for me giving preference to non-drop downs. In a word: Price. It didn't take me too long to discover, in my researching longshot winners, that the public was a big sucker for class drop downs -- perhaps the Class Factor actually being the Public's Achilles' Heel! If anyone doubts this, all you have to do is pull out a few back issues of the DRF or your favorite verson of online PPs, and spend a few hours focusing on just two columns of data: The Class column and the Eqiv. Odds column. The PP charts contain a veritable wealth of information, if you know what you're looking for! (For one thing, it sure gives you some insight into the public's preferences!)

Starting from the bottom of each horse's chart, work your way up slowly and note carefully every race wherein the horse was dropped down off his previous one, and see how often there is also a corresponding drop in odds.
In fact, many times a horse will have dropped off his prior race, wherein he showed very little in terms of good current form, and the public still bet the horse down sharply! (By "sharply" at least 50% when odds in previous race were >= 10-1.) The only reason I could see for such precipitious price drops was that those horses, in most cases, were also class drop downs. (In fact, this discovery eventually led me to discover some really good odds angles!)

And for those of you who take up my challenge and engage in this little exercise, the next thing you'll want to take note of are horses who had an
in-the-money-finish (IMF) in a race, and observe carefully what trainers will frequently do with these horses the next time out. Very often, they will bump these horses up in class. And then subsequent to this bump up, they will drop the horse in class or price, if they think the horse is ready to run big again. There are a few reasons why this Up & Down Maneuver is commonly employed.

If the trainer thinks the good race might have taken something out of his horse, he'll want to protect the animal from being claimed -- from another trainer quickly cashing in on his hard work, while at the same time giving his horse a needed "tightener".

Another reason, he'll bump his horse up off a good race is to get a better handle on the animal's form by watching him compete against better class horses. However, in such cases, he'll be sure to instruct the jock to not push his horse too hard, if he should feel him weakening. His "winning orders" would be conditional. The last thing a smart trainer wants to do is set his horse back further than what he already may be. If the jock pushes a weakening horse, he could set him back two or three races -- depending on the class level, of course.

Also, it's not uncommon to see trainers switch distances in the "bumped up" race. That is to say, a router will switch to a sprint next race, then back to a route. Or a sprinter will switch to a route, then back to a sprint. In the former scenario,the trainer will want to sharpen the speed of the router; while in the latter situation, the sprinter will have his stamina built up or he'll simply be given an easy route race in order to be "legged up".

Or a trainer could bump up his horse to give him a "test race" (of which there are a few types) in order to get a bead on his charge's conditon. These test races are especially important to a betting stable. In such cases, the jock will not have "winning orders" per se because the trainer is really looking ahead to the next race -- and might even have his sights on a paticular one in the Condition Book, already.

But in any of these scenarios, if the trainer is satisfied and has achived his objective, and his horse comes out this 'bumped up" race in pretty good shape, chances are very good that the trainer will drop him down next start when going for the roses. Again, this Up & Down maneuver is commonly used by trainers for one or even more of the aforementioned reasons. But being the contrarian I am, the maverick I am, we're not going to concern ourselves with this common maneuver. Instead, we'll examine the uncommon and the unorthodox in my next post because when it's all said and done, this, generally, is how we can catch big payoffs -- going against the grain of the public -- thinking outside the public's box.

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

I will definitely read it!

[cj]

One of the rules to my method requires that the trainer enter his horse today at a price below the top claiming price stipulated in the conditions. Therefore, the rule guarantees that the horse will get additional weight off.

Boxcar

Hmmm...in the PA Reading Room, Joe Takach calls these horses one of his ultimate sucker bets.

[andicap]

CJ,
Perhaps its case of, at say under 8-1 or so it's a sucker bet. At 10-1 it's not.
For example we have all been taught to avoid the "Jacques Who" type horses, those who run 2nd and 3rd a lot but never win. A horse with a line like:

25 races 1 win, 7 seconds, 5 thirds.

Often the public will still bet this horse down below 4-1. But if they are in form and meet certain conditions -- or a weak field -- they can be bet at 10-1 or whatever.

[cj]

I never look at the price entered for in claiming races. That is why I remembered reading this just yesterday, then I see this today.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing, just strange to see such opposites in a 24 hour span.

[boxcar]

For lack of a better label, I've called the performance side of this angle the "A" angle. And because the trainer maneuver side of this combination angle is unusual, I've tagged it "special". Let's look are the simple, easy-to-spot rules first, and then expand on them later.

1.) The horse must have a 2RB.IMF w/i the last 60 days or so.

2.) The horse must have a LR.OMF, preferably w/i the last 30 days.

3.) The horse's LR must have been an easy conditioning race.

4.) The horse's form cycle or LR.SR (speed rating) must indicate current sharpness.

5. The horse must have been bumped up in Class or Price last start and must not be dropping in Class or Price today.

Now, let's look at each rule in order:

The horse must have a 2RB.IMF w/i the last 60 days or so.

Since we're concerning ourselves with non-drop downs today, we want some evidence that the horse enjoyed good form in the recent past. A 2RB.IMF of relatively recent date tells us that the horse was sharp -- at least on the date of that good race. For all but genuine Allowance or Stakes grade horses, I made it a policy to stick to the 60 days or so -- maybe on the outside 65 days. But for the better class horses, naturally this rule can be stretched since higher class animals are capable of holding their form for longer periods. Or I might even stretch the date rule for a cheaper horse if he has a workout angle in his chart of recent date, i.e. subsequent to his LR.

How everyone applies any of these depends largely on the degree of your own handicapping expertise -- most especially in the area of the complex, multi-faceted Form Factor. For novices, I would recommend you stick with the rules fairly rigidly until such time you can develop the single most important resource any bettor can have, i.e. sound personal judgment. Others, however, who have developed this kind of judgment over the years and are comfortable making tougher decisions could well find good reason to bend the rules. To these: More power to you.

The horse must have a LR.OMF, preferably w/i the last 30 days.

Everything I just stated above applies with equal force to this rule.

The horse's LR must have been an easy conditioning race.

For the sake of the "apprentices" among us, we must define or clarify what constitutes an "easy" race. For the sake of this particular method, an easy race must have been an out of money finish (OMF), for starters. In many cases the horse will have shown a high turn of early speed (ES) from the 1st Call to the Second (1C to 2C) or sometimes even to the Stretch Call (SC), and then from either the 2C or SC, fading back, usually losing lengths during the stretch run.

Or an easy race could be one wherein the horse really didn't show much of any kind of speed. He just ran an even race, more or less.

Or an easy race could be one wherein the horse ran a nice, smooth gaining race perhaps from the 1C or the 2C down to the wire -- but didn't finish too close up -- being beaten by 5+ lengths or so. This kind of race indicates the horse wasn’t pressed very hard.

But here is what an easy race isn't: An easy race isn't one wherein the horse was battling for the lead all the way around the track, and then just ran out of steam when he reached the 1/8 pole. What you want to pay attention to is the lengths off the leader at every call in order to make this kind of judgment. For example, a horse could have been a length or even less off the leader at the first two calls, then was 2 or 3 lengths behind the leader at the SC, then lost even more ground by the time he reached wire. In such a scenario, the horse qualified on the ES angle -- an angle that is often found in the chart of A angle horses. But his manner of running in this hypothetical situation would indicate that he wasn't overtaxed.

Or a horse could have even been leading at the first two calls, then started to fade thereafter, losing ground all the way to the wire. Again, this is a form of early speed which I call the HW or Hidden Workout angle because the trainer probably instructed the jock to give his horse a stiff workout for 4 or 6f (depending on the distance) within the confines of a race.

But what all these hypothetical scenarios have in common is that the horse was not overtaxed in its LR. And this is a really important rule to understand and apply correctly if you hope to collect on some big mutuels with this method.

The horse's form cycle or LR.SR (speed rating) must indicate current sharpness.

So, not only is the horse's manner of running that LR important, but we want to see further evidence that he still retains some close resemblance to that good form in the 2RB wherein he finished in the money. We can know with a high degree of certainty that the horse is very sharp today and should run a big race whenever his LR.SR is equal to over better yet, greater than his 2RB.SR. It simply doesn't get any better than this from a current form perspective.

But a lot of qualified horses won't have this speed rating element in their chart. This doesn't necessarily mean, though, that they're not sharp and not ready to run big today. The rule of thumb I've used is that whenever a horse's LR.SR is within 10 points of his 2RB.SR, then we can be reasonably sure that he still retains good form. This is especially true whenever a horse's current form cycle indicates progressive improvement from his 4RB to his 2RB, and then earns a slightly lower SR in is LR.

Going from his 4RB, for example, a horse's SR pattern to his LR might look something like this:

73 - 75 - 82 - 78

Here we see the "spike" in his 2RB -- the race with his IMF. Here he earned an 82, and then came back to run a 78 in his LR. Assuming that this LR was an easy one, we can be sure that it contributed positively to the horses's current condition. This form cycle pattern is commonly found with these A angle horses.

Another form cycle pattern that is sometimes found with the A angle involves regression instead of progression, which can make this form cycle a difficult one to evaluate properly. (Hard core Sheeters generally hate this pattern.)

Starting from the 3RB, such a SR pattern would look something like this:

88 - 84 - 77

Sometimes these kinds of horses will even make good when they come back with SRs more than 10 points below their 2RB.SR. This is truly an enigmatic pattern – one I’ve never truly understood. However, there are times when the presence of certain other form angles transforms what appears to be a negative angle into a positive one. For example, whenever a horse also has a 3RB.IMF, this for some reason unbeknownst to me adds a lot of strength to the angle.

Another that puts a positive spin to this pattern is when a horse is coming back to race within 8 days of his LR.

Another is when a horse has a certain workout pattern in his chart, etc.

All I can recommend to the less experienced among us is that you study this pattern for yourself., and when in doubt, pass the race.

The horse must have been bumped up in Class or Price last start and must not be dropping in Class or Price today

In most cases, the horse will have been bumped up in Class his last start. The exception to this rule is when we’re dealing with bottom-rung claimers. For example, many times these bottom class claimers rarely leave their class level. All the trainer will do is maneuver such an animal in price, as we’re going to see in the example race I found.

In summary, what makes this method such a powerful price-getter is that the horse was bumped up last start and is not dropping today. And what can often enhance it’s longshot potential is when the horse is bumped up again today. Why would a trainer do this? In a word: Confidence! The trainer believes his horse is sharp, and will be able to withstand a bump up. If he’s a betting trainer, he’s going to get some bang for his wagering dollars. But if he isn’t, then he’s going to try to garner a share of a larger purse with his kind of move.

This maneuver coupled with the fact that the horse ran out in his LR (and sometimes badly beaten) seem to throw the crowd for a loop. Stated differently: The public misinterprets the trainer maneuver and the poor appearing finish. These two elements often combine to produce great prices on the winners.

In my next and last post dealing with this method, we’ll look at a winning example I dug out of my files.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hmmm...in the PA Reading Room, Joe Takach calls these horses one of his ultimate sucker bets.

Have you ever read, also, that "one man's poison is another's meat"? :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hmmm...in the PA Reading Room, Joe Takach calls these horses one of his ultimate sucker bets.

Oh,yeah, one other thing: The entered price stipulation to the method is only part of the story. Since the trainer is exercising all three of his weight off options, then the logical question becomes: Why? Why is he so concerned (apparently) about the weight issue today? So concerned that he's pulled out all his weight off stops?

I always look at handicapping as solving a puzzle. I brought to the process really only two major questions to bear:

Which horse in this race today is most likely to demonstrate the most improvement? And the next one was: Why has the trainer chosen to enter his horse under today's race conditions?

Naturally, under these two fundamentally important questions, lie a whole host of related, ancillary questions. For example, why is the trainer dropping his chorse in class today? Why is he bumping him today? What's the purpose behind the workouts? Why is he switching jocks today? Why is he stretching the horse out today in distance?

All of these kinds of questions, and many more like them, are all parts of the pieces to the puzzle -- just as the entered price rule forms a part to the tainer's intent picture. To take any single, isolated piece to a puzzle, and draw sweeping conclusions about the relevance, importance or value of this element or that factor, etc. is, in my opinion, a foolish,dangerous and unprofitable practice.

Boxcar

[cj]

Like I said, I wasn't saying he was right. I have no opinion, not a factor I have ever looked at...ever.

[boxcar]

Like I said, I wasn't saying he was right. I have no opinion, not a factor I have ever looked at...ever.

And, of course, Mr. T is entitled to his opinion. And for all I know he could be "right" -- to the extent that he researched the matter. Someone can make truthful statments, insofar as knows the facts; but if he doesn't know all the relevant facts then his version of the truth doesn't represent the whole of the matter. We end up with half-truths. Not a good thing in turf speculation -- when you're putting your money on the line. :)

Boxcar

[wes]

Boxcar

Would you just happen to be Jim on another board?

wes

[boxcar]

The example race in my archives serves another important purpose. It serves to illustrate the importance of exercising some common sense.

The 2nd Race at LRL on Jul 18, '97 was conditioned for 3 y.o. and up going 8-1/2 panels on the main track. The top claiming price was 5K and for each $500. to 4K, 2 lbs.

Knight To A King was conditioned by Joesph Tobin, and his trainer entered him today at the top price of 5K off his 2RB wherein his entered price back on 13Jun97 was $4,500. Here I'll partially reproduce the pertinent data from this horse's last two:

4Jul97 Clm 4500 6-2.5, 7-7.3.75, 7-7, 7-9.25....80
13Jun97 Clm 4000 4-1.5, 4-4, 4-4, 2-2.5............81

Note: The 3RB and 4RB.SRs respectively were 78 and 74; on the progressive form cycle angle discussed in my other post.

While this pony's LR form appears pretty dismal, his last earned SR tells us a different story -- somethihg the public completely overlooked. This cheapster earned an excellent number -- most especially compared to what he earned in his next to last!

His last outing was a very easy one -- and it was run over pretty dull strip (even though it was labeled "fast"), making his performance even more impressive.

Even though this horse wasn't being bumped up in class today, the crowd let this sharp, well meant animal go off at 11-1. He returned $24.20 to his backers that day.

But here's the kicker: 11-1 on these kinds of plays is a relatively modest price. I recall one year at a SAR meet (either in '01 or '02) when the win mutuels on these kinds of horses averaged about $30. or so! If memory serves, there were about 18 selections that year, and 5 of them won. And I think there was one chalkish payoff of about $10. or 12. out of those winners. So, you can only imagine what the rest of those winners paid. I've seen horses like this pay $60. or higher. Not only doesn't crowd like horses who are aren't drop downs today, but they really have an aversion to bump ups!

At any rate, folks, I hope, at the very least, that I have provided some food for thought in terms of how to catch some longshot winners. Perhaps I've managed to add something to your own handicapping arsenal. If so, then my time will have been well spent here.

The Best to Everyone,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar

Would you just happen to be Jim on another board?

wes

Depends on which board and how well liked "Jim" was/is. :D :D

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

One of the rules to my method requires that the trainer enter his horse today at a price below the top claiming price stipulated in the conditions. Therefore, the rule guarantees that the horse will get additional weight off.

Boxcar

You think alot the way I do in evaluating trainer intention - I already assume the horse is in good form - hence, the trainer intent.

Alas,

You should post some races - tabbing your ROI - it would be fun for you.

I'm going to start posting here and DRF Dec, 26 - it's all gooooood :)

fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Hmmm...in the PA Reading Room, Joe Takach calls these horses one of his ultimate sucker bets.

It can lead to a longshot - I'm not saying it always works but whenever a horseman wants a weight break I think it's for a good reason.

I like Takach. He has some fascinating insights.

fffastt

[boxcar]

You think alot the way I do in evaluating trainer intention - I already assume the horse is in good form - hence, the trainer intent.

fffastt

I never assumed anything when I played. I never made decisions about anything until I had exhausted my search of all the closely-related factors in the pp and/or result charts. But that was just ol' tightwad, tightfisted me.
:)

You should post some races - tabbing your ROI - it would be fun for you.

Probably would be fun. But time won't permit.

Take care,
Boxcar

[wes]

Jim that's what I thought, case closed

wes

[Niko]

Boxcar,

Thanks a ton for passing your information along. I'll take a long look at it and see what I can learn/incorporate from your teachings. If it works for me I'll let you know. Seems to make some sense. Maybe I can even add something to it?

[Niko]

If you play multiple longshots in a race did you find your ROI or win percent to drop substantially when betting 3 or more horses in a race. I find if I spot two longshots I'll gladly play them both, however if I see three or more I usually lose my butt. It's because I'm missing something in the race or don't understand it which is why I come up with so many longshots.

What's your opinion or experience betting more than 2 horses in a race?

[boxcar]

Jim that's what I thought, case closed

wes

You certainly are entitled to your thought(s). ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If you play multiple longshots in a race did you find your ROI or win percent to drop substantially when betting 3 or more horses in a race. I find if I spot two longshots I'll gladly play them both, however if I see three or more I usually lose my butt. It's because I'm missing something in the race or don't understand it which is why I come up with so many longshots.

What's your opinion or experience betting more than 2 horses in a race?

Betting multiple contenders in a race that met my minimum odds requirements and minimum ROI per race certainly helped my hit rate and staved off long run outs. My overall ROI didn't suffer either. I was strictly a spot player, and I was particular about what spots I wanted to invest in.

Also, I didn't start out betting the ponies this way. I started out by trying to do what most do, i.e. "picking winners". After several years of doing this, and as my handicapping improved, I discovered how often I was able to successfully isolate the live contenders in a race. It was a natural evolution to go from single straight betting to exacta wagering and betting multiple horses straight, as I became more sosphisticated in my handicapping. I was able to spot more often false and vulnerable longshots. BTW, my average number of horses I bet per race hovered pretty consistently around 2 -- sometime a little under, sometimes slightly over.

As far as what you can bring to the table personally regarding my methods or anyone else's for that matter: Study diligently to become proficient in evaluating the complex Form Factor. You'll gain a big edge over your betting competition, i.e. the public.

Boxcar

[Fastracehorse]

I never assumed anything when I played. I never made decisions about anything until I had exhausted my search of all the closely-related factors in the pp and/or result charts. But that was just ol' tightwad, tightfisted me.
:)



Probably would be fun. But time won't permit.

Take care,
Boxcar

Your right! A$$ume is a strong word. Last night I a$$umed a guy was turning left but I a$$umed wrong - he almost took my front bumper off :eek:

Posting picks can be time consuming - but if the homework is done the night before anyways it's not that bad.

All The Best through the season.

fffastt

[boxcar]

Your right! A$$ume is a strong word. Last night I a$$umed a guy was turning left but I a$$umed wrong - he almost took my front bumper off :eek:

Good grief! Did you give him a piece of your road rage afterwards? :D
But seriously, I'm glad your card and your person escaped, though.

Posting picks can be time consuming - but if the homework is done the night before anyways it's not that bad.

Well, it still consumes time, though, day or night. :) And besides, at this stage of my live I don't have anything to prove. I'm out of the game -- probably for good. Whatever I post here, people can take it or leave it. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

All The Best through the season.

Thank you very much. And I wish you and yours a very joyous Christmas Season and the Best New Year ever.

Regards,
Boxcar

[BIG RED]

> "Starting from the bottom of each horse's chart, work your way up slowly and note carefully every race wherein the horse was dropped down off his previous one, and see how often there is also a corresponding drop in odds.
In fact, many times a horse will have dropped off his prior race, wherein he showed very little in terms of good current form, and the public still bet the horse down sharply! (By "sharply" at least 50% when odds in previous race were >= 10-1.) The only reason I could see for such precipitious price drops was that those horses, in most cases, were also class drop downs. (In fact, this discovery eventually led me to discover some really good odds angles!)

And for those of you who take up my challenge and engage in this little exercise, the next thing you'll want to take note of are horses who had an
in-the-money-finish (IMF) in a race, and observe carefully what trainers will frequently do with these horses the next time out. Very often, they will bump these horses up in class. And then subsequent to this bump up, they will drop the horse in class or price, if they think the horse is ready to run big again. There are a few reasons why this Up & Down Maneuver is commonly employed."<

This stuck out to me boxcar. I remember back in the mid 90s I went through a bunch of old racing forms, and circled just horses odds that where double figures to single figures, in all of the pps. Had to be a thousand races, by hand. What that showed me was some good price winners. It also showed me a new thing to me, odds patterns . Now, if I can only narrow certain thingdown, I may have my own spotplay. I still today get confident if I have a decent priced contender w/ op. Kind of near what you said.

[boxcar]

Big Red, maybe when I get around to posting on a couple of those odds angles that I alluded to, my posts might bring things into sharper forcus for you -- and jog your memory. :)

I'm really busy right now, but hopefully by this weekend. If you like the unorthodox, the unusual, the obscure stick around.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

As I intimated in one of the “overlay” threads, I consider choice of a handicapping methodology to be of paramount importance. If the handicapping exercise merely consisted of picking winners, then this choice wouldn’t be quite as important. However, once we toss in the element of pari-mutuel wagering, which is to say the element of competition against other handicappers – people who are expressing their opinions through the wagering process -- then this takes the exercise to another level altogether. Our goal, then, shouldn’t be merely to select the solid or logical contender(s) in a race, but to also be able to capitalize on the inevitable handicapping mistakes of the competition. And the only way I knew how to do this with some measure of consistency was to have a methodology that would allow me to analyze race problems through a prism that would provide me with a handicapping perspective substantially and essentially different from that of the public’s. We should, therefore, earnestly desire to find or develop an approach that will allow us to distance ourselves from the “monkey see, monkey do” syndrome as far as possible, if we hope to realize substantial returns on our investment of time, money and effort in our turf speculation activities. By the same token, however, our methodology’s unusual or uncommon interpretative framework should find its ground in the facts contained in horses’ pp charts.

What I’d like to do in the little time I have left to devote to handicapping discussions is to share a couple of unusual racing angles that have provided me in the past with more than a few long shot winners. These “pinpoint-type” angles should be used to supplement your own handicapping approach. Does it not stand to reason that the more positive angles or reasons we can find to retain a horse as a final contender, the better final selection he’ll become, odds permitting? Likewise, wouldn't the more negative reasons we find in a horse’s chart, make it easier to eliminate the animal from any further consideration? (For example, with the Dead Weight Angle I shared on another thread, this could also be used as a negative indicator whenever a horse is switching jocks and picking up a ton of dead weight today. In such cases, it’s only reasonable to conclude that the horse’s trainer might not be all that interested in the outcome of today’s race.)

Therefore, during the course of this discussion, I will necessarily have to discuss in a cursory way other angles that supported the primary one under consideration. But first we must look at the underlying rationale for these two pinpoint angles, which have to do with the odds a qualified horse was held at in his recent races. (They’re dubbed “pinpoint” because they aid the user in pinpointing the logical selection(s) in a race during the final handicapping procedure.)

I think most of us would agree that the public is one tough cookie at the windows. The crowd does a very credible job when expressing its collective knowledge and wisdom of the game through the wagering process. In fact, if it weren’t for the takeout, the public would more or less break even on its top choices. But as good as the public is at narrowing down the main contenders in a field, it excels even more at eliminating the non-contenders! Why is this? Because so few of them win!

For the sake of this discussion, let’s consider a “likely winner” any horse whose post time odds (PTO) are less than 6-1, and a “less likely winner” any horse whose odds range from 6-1 but less than 10-1, and an “unlikely winner” any horse whose odds are 10-1 or greater. And any horse in this latter group we’ll consider a “long shot”. And most of us who have been in the game for any length of time know that horses generally win in proportion to their PTO. But for the sake of a little simplicity, we’ll say that horses at >= 10-1 PTO will lose at least 90% of the time. This is why the public, generally speaking, is an absolute “master handicapper” when it comes to eliminating unlikely winners, which accounts for why so few long shots win. The public does an excellent job in this area. It’s the crowd’s real strength!

(Food for Thought: Since this is, undeniably, the public’s greatest strength, what does this indisputable fact speak to any aspiring turf speculator in terms of what his or her greatest strength should be!? Hint: Go the opposite way of the crowd!)

But having just said all this, we also know, all too well, that the public makes mistakes in the wagering due to handicapping errors, oversights, misjudgments, miscalculations, etc. In fact, many handicappers often try to capitalize on a specific type of recent mistake which the public frequently makes whenever it bets a horse down so low as to make him the post time favorite, and that horse loses. I’d wager that most of have in our own handicapping arsenal a beaten favorite angle in one form or another. And, of course, we get this information from the Equivalent Odds column in our pp charts. But is this “beaten favorite” angle the only useful information contained in this column of data?

What about other types of horses who were “bet down sharply”? Or better yet, horses who the public has been dismissing in the wagering by sending them off a big odds in their recent races, but then “suddenly” get bet down sharply for no apparent reason. We can certainly expect horses to be bet down heavily whenever they have shown something resembling decent form, or whenever they were dropped in class off its previous race. Nothing at all unusual in either or both of these scenarios. (Recall my statements earlier in this thread about the public’s proclivity for unloading heavily on class drop downs, even when in poor form? Thoughtful handicappers would consider this fact alone to be a chink in the mighty public’s armor.)

The next question that must be asked, then, is what accounts for this very unusual betting phenomenon? Who would sharply bet down a “poor form” horse who wasn’t dropped in class off his prior race – the race that preceded the one in which he was bet down? The public? Yes, but everyone who contributes to the betting pools is part of the “public”. But since the public is collectively smart, then I think it would be reasonable to deduce that it’s the not the “smart money” segment in such races. We could just chalk up these anomalous occasions to the proverbial track drunk, an overzealous trainer, or to a hot and widely circulated tip, etc. But there could also be another viable and reasonable explanation. Maybe it was “inside money” – stable money that accounted for the precipitous drop. Maybe the horse’s connections sent the animal out to score at long odds, but for one reason or another the horse failed to make good. (The best laid plans of mice and men…) If this is the case, then knowing human nature, would not the horse’s connections be out for “revenge” today? Would they not want to recoup their losses – and then some?

So, both the beaten favorite angle and the two long shot angles we’ll be looking at have a couple of things in common. In both situations, the qualified horses would have to be “bet down” heavily. And in both situations, there will be opportunistic handicappers who will want to try to take advantage of other people’s mistakes. In the case of the beaten favorite, many players will try to take advantage of the public’s recent obvious misread or miscalculation. But in the case of the beaten long shot, only a handful of knowledgeable, observant bettors will be wanting to capitalize on what might have been the stable’s recent but obscure misfortune.

In my next post, we’ll look at the first of these two angles, which will deal with bet down horses in a recent race prior to today’s. And in the one after that, we’ll look at bet downs in today’s wagering.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

For the purpose of this angle, which I call the FO or “Fifty Off” angle, we’ll never go beyond a horse’s 3RB in his pp chart. The following are the parameters for this angle, and what will follow will be a few examples taken from actual races, which, hopefully, should make everything clear to all.

The Rules

1) Ideally, the horse will have an OMF in all three of its most recent races. However, an IMF in the race in which it was “bet down sharply” is acceptable, providing the odds are decent on the animal today, but in no case should the horse won any of its last three..

2) The horse must have been bet down sharply in either its 2RB or LR.

3) In the race in which the horse was bet down, he must not have been dropping in class off its previous race.

4) In the race in which the horse was bet down, the odds must be at minimum 50% lower than the odds of its previous race.

Again, the rules are simple and straightforward and easy to spot. Now, on to some examples.

The 7th At BEL on Sep12, 97 was as MSW conditioned for 3 y.o. going 1 mile on the main track. 12 started.

Select the Greek was trained by Fred Wilhelm and ridden that day by R. Woodhouse and sported a 10-1 ML. And he was a relatively lightly raced 4 y.o., having only 5 lifetime starts – all in ’97. Here is the pertinent data, which for the sake of brevity will only include the horse’s finish position and beaten lengths:

17Aug, 97 7Pha fst 1-7………MSW…4-6-3/4….26.90
03Aug, 97 6Pha fm 1-1/16 T…MSW…5-8-1/2..14.20
15Jul, 97 10Pha fst 6f………MSW...5-11-3/4…37.30

Today’s PTO were 13-1. Please note the sharp drop off this horse’s 3RB. Also, note his poor appearing recent finishes. Now, it’s possible, I suppose, that one could argue that all races right through to the one on Jul 15th were sprint races, and this horse up to his last race never showed a lick of speed. However, I would have ignored the switch to turf simply because his prior form looked so poor.

In his LR, he showed a good turn of early speed, running to within 3 lengths of the leader to the 2C of that race. He also improved his LR speed rating significantly. He was also cutting back in distance today off his LR in which he lost lengths in the stretch run. And last but not least, he was bet down today another 50% below his LR odds. So, this horse had two odds angles going for him. A “great” bet? No, certainly not. But considering the plusses, I just listed, he was a decent bet at 13-1. His price justified taking a shot. He won and paid $29.20 that day.

And also, the “form horse” Friendly Minister trained by Zito was dangerous that day. He had some good angles going for him, and he was sharp. But as the 7/5 ML fav, he was sent off at EVEN money. No bargain in this field. I would have considered the Greek to be a vulnerable long shot.

The 1st at CRC on Sep21, 97 was another MSW conditioned for 2 y.o. fillies going 7f over the main track. Only six were entered and they all started.

She’s a Rascal was trained by Michael Petro and was ridden by N.J. Petro. Today was the filly’s third lifetime start. Her ML was 6-1. Today’s race was her 3rd lifetime start.

22Aug97…4Mth….fst 1……MSW…..9-37-1/4………9.30
12Jun97….6Mth….fst 5f……MSW….8-9-1/4………..36.10

As you can see, she was bet down very sharply in her LR. Today, she’s switching back to a sprint race, so she qualifies on the Switch in Distance angle. What you don’t see in her running line was that she showed good early speed to the 1C – probably carrying that speed to the ½ mi. pole. Also, she had legit excuse for failing to make good on the day she was dumped on in the betting by “someone”. The trouble line reads: “Ducked out sharply 1st turn.” She did finish dead last in that race. So, her odds angle, the distance switch angle and even the change of jockey to trainer’s son (I believe it was) indicated that today would probably be a “go”.

Another great reason for betting this race, insofar as I was concerned was that there really wasn’t much of anything else in the race – except for the proverbial hot “form” horse. Shesabull was trained by a popular trainer at the track Danny Hurtak and was ridden by J.C. Ferrer. Everything about this filly was “hot”, except for her odds-on price in this short field. She finished a close up 2nd in her LR, gaining ground in the stretch run at 6f. So, even today’s added distance looked to be in her favor. In fact, everything appeared to be in this animal’s favor. She finished 2nd today also, paying a paltry $2.10. But our angle horse won and paid $24.60.

Personally, I loved these kinds of race situations. In terms of the racing angles, which counted the most for me, she really didn’t have any. She was “angle-poor” in my book. Yet, the public went heads over heels on her. Became fixated on her. Became obsessed with what appeared to be a “sure thing”. (This is the kind of the race phenomenon Overlay talked about briefly in another thread.)

One more example. The 6th at BEL on Oct01, 97 was also a MSW race conditioned for 2 y.o. fillies going 8-1/2 panels over the weeds. 15 were entered and 12 started.

Catch a Warning was trained by Philip G. Johnson and was ridden by J. L. Samyn.
Her ML was 10-1. And today she was making her 4th lifetime start.

10Sep97…6BEL……fst 1………MSW……6-29-1/4………..15.20
18Aug97…3SAR……gd 8.5f T…MSW…….6-7……………..56.50
5Jul97……2BEL…….fm 6f T…..MSW…….10-9-1/4………..49.00

The TI angles were strong on this horse, plus he had a very subtle workout angle in his chart that indicated that he was probably sharper than what he appeared on paper. But first the TI factor. This filly not only was bet heavily in her LR, but today’s odds were even lower – plus she was sent off at a price again that more than 50% below the highest odds in her last three. This indicated to me that this filly’s connections weren’t backing off of her. To the contrary!

Sometimes when “poor form” horses like this one finish out of the money in their last two, the trainer will give the horse “test” workouts. In the case of this filly, she was given a 5f work on 8/11 at SAR that she ran in 1:06-2/5. This was her last workout just prior to her 2RB. (This is an important detail to understand.) Then she was given a 4f workout on Sep22 at BEL that she ran in 49 flat. This was her first workout subsequent to her LR. (Another important detail.) Both were breezing works. It doesn’t take a math major to see which workout demonstrated marked improvement.

Once again, this was another race with not a whole lot in it. However, it did have one “form” horse Glamorous Dancer who was trained by James Toner and ridden by Bailey. This filly finished a close up 3rd in her LR, getting beat by only 2 lengths at 27-1 odds, I might add. Nonetheless, this was, yet, another angle-poor horse. But our odds angle horse was sent off today at 13-1, and she made good paying $29.00.

In the next post, we’ll take up the second version to this angle. And then tie up some loose ends in my final post dealing with long shot angles.

Boxcar

[John]

BOXCAR, Good Job.

There is a lot here to be digested. So don't be in an hurry to post the next angle. This is good stuff.

John

[boxcar]

BOXCAR, Good Job.

There is a lot here to be digested. So don't be in an hurry to post the next angle. This is good stuff.

John

Thanks, John. And don't worry about not having the time to absorb everything. You can always print out these posts to peruse them at your leisure, if you feel so inclined.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This last angle we’ll take up is a spin-off on the one I just shared with everyone. Essentially, the only difference between the two is that the horse’s odds today are at least 50% lower than the horse’s highest odds within its last three races. Therefore, I call this the Fifty Off Today (FOT) angle.

The reason why I use any of the last three is because sometimes a horse will be dropped in class in its 2RB or LR, and we’ll usually find a corresponding drop in price (often quite sharp) on such occasions. Also, as we have already seen, a horse can qualify on both odds angles! This was the case with all three of the examples we looked at in my last post!

But let’s look at an example.

The 1st at AQU on Dec 10, 97 was a MC conditioned for 2 y.o. fillies running for a tag of $25,000., and going 6f on the main track.

Arctic Gold was trained by Luis Barrera and ridden that day by F. Leon. His ML was 20-1. Ten started. And AG’s PTO were 33-1.

03Dec97…….2Aqu…..fst 1.70…….Md25000………4-12-1/2……63.00
19Nov97…….2Aqu….fst 1………...Md35000..7-18-1/2…114.50
06Nov97…….1Aqu….6f…………...Md35000..8-19-3/4…..98.25

This was a very interesting filly, and here I’m gong to reproduce her LR running line in full.

7-9, 5-8, 4-6, 4-12-1/2

Several things are noteworthy about this angle horse. This filly had 7 lifetime starts up to today’s race. All her finishes were horrendous. To give you an idea: Here lowest odds in her chart prior to today’s race were 43-1! In short, the crowd had no regard for this animal. But to a student of racing angles, this filly had several things going for her leading up to today’s race!

You’ll note that she was dropped in class last start (also note, please, the 45% drop in odds in her LR when she was dropped in class!). But more than this, she qualified on the strong version to this trainer maneuver angle, which I call the Before Winning (BW) Angle. Please note carefully that she didn’t win any of her last three, and her class level today is lower than the class level of her 2nd and 3rd races back. These two enhancements make for a stronger version of the DCLS angle.

As stated previously, I like to see these dropped last start horses improve their SRs in their last outing. She did! By one point! Not much. But she wasn’t regressing. She did “improve” if we accept our SRs at face value.

Now, look at her running line. She qualified on a “shaded” version of one of my test race angles, which I call the Hidden Condition (HC) angle. Note carefully the subtle move she made between the pre-stretch and stretch calls. She passed one horse and gained 2 lengths between those two points. (To qualify fully on the angle, there would have been no gain in lengths between the 1C and 2C).

Additionally, she lost ground in both her route races but today is cutting back to a sprint race. Probably a plus, even though she never showed much in the way of early speed.

Next, she was coming back to race within 8 days! This is almost always a positive angle whenever the horse wasn’t overtaxed in its last race or hasn’t over-raced, and is likely to its improve performance today.

And finally, of course, this filly was bet down to 33-1 – representing a very sharp drop for no apparent reason off her odds in the 2RB. The public overlooked all the good things she had going for her, let her go off at the price she did, and she paid $69.00.

A great bet? No, not great; but certainly one worth making at the prevailing odds. As usual, there were the obvious “form” horses in the race. Fit N Happy trained by Jorge Romero and ridden by the hot jock O Castillo was bet down to 3-2. This filly was making her 4th lifetime start and also qualified on another version of the BW angle. (In fact, the class grades in her 2RB & 3RB were even higher than Arctic Gold’s!) She, too, was dropped in class last start, but was also dropping in class today off her LR, also qualifying her on the Double Drop (DD) maneuver. But as stated previously, I was pretty biased when it came to horses [i]not[/i dropping in class today. (And that preference paid off well for me in the long run.)

Also, FNH enjoyed quite a form edge – being at least 10 points sharper on paper in terms of speed ratings. However, this filly had one possible negative going against her. She fought a tough duel in her LR, leading from start to SC, then fading to 3rd , losing by a little more than 3 lengths. The big question becomes then: Did that race contribute to or detract from her good form back then? Would she improve or regress today? At her low odds, I wasn’t willing to bet on her to find out! It was that simple.

I could post several other examples, all of them, coincidentally, coming from maiden races. Some of the prices on the other winners were astonishingly low! For example, a 2nd time starter was bet down today to 5-1 off his LR odds of 23-1. He won.

A 4th time starter, coming off a 5+ month layoff was bet down to 3-1 off his LR odds of 31-1. He won.

Another 2nd time starter with more workout angles than Bayer has aspirins , and coming off a layoff of nearly year was bet down to 7/2 off his LR odds of 7-1. He won.

These are the kinds of situations where the proverbial betting “coups” were being attempted. Any of us who have been around the game for any length of time have witnessed our fair share of these – both the ones that have succeeded and the ones that have failed. I tended to shy away from these particular low-priced angle horses. I wanted bigger prices because in most cases, they’re not “great” selections. What makes them, however, acceptable wagers are their big prices when you can get them. Great odds make the risk-taking acceptable!

In my next post, I'll tie up some loose ends.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

It’s important to understand regarding these “bet down” horses that they can qualify on both odds angles, i.e. the FO and the FOT. Whenever we come across a situation where a horse qualifies on both, then we have an exceptionally strong play. Or whenever we encounter a situation where an FO angle horse’s odds today are merely lower than his LR odds, this makes him a better wager, providing the odds are right.

In all these examples, the races involved were maiden claimers of MSW events. Indeed, a large percentage of these angle horses will come from these kinds of contests. I believe the reason for this is because these horses, for the most part, are unknown quantities. In very many cases, these maidens are lightly-raced. The public really doesn’t have much of a handle on these kinds of horses -- doesn’t have much to go on, especially since the Class Factor is difficult to assess in these kinds of races. The only people who have some idea of what is going on with a lightly-raced maiden is its connections (a/k/a “inside money”). These facts account for why these odds angles are frequently found in maiden races, and why the public is prone to “blow an assignment” in these kinds of races.

One could conceivably make one or both of these angles into a method of play when encountering lightly-raced maidens, which for me really meant, for purposes of wagering, any horse with at least one start but no more than three. But usually, I insisted on the presence of at least a couple of other angles and, of course, a good price. I will even bet first time starters with no fewer than three workout angles and minimum odds of 10-1.
But let’s quickly move to other things before I take my leave.

I can’t stress this enough: The DCLS or its stronger version the BW-1 (type 1, since there two versions to the Before Winning angle) is can become a pretty powerful, price-getting maneuver whenever:

a) the horse is dropping weight today off its LR
b) the horse is entered today at the same or higher class/price level
c) the horse improved its LR SR over its 2RB SR
d) the horse in its LR showed early speed (ES) to at least the 2C, or better yet to SC
e) or the horse gained ground in the stretch run its LR

And, of course, whenever such angle horses also meet some of your own personal handicapping criteria, then so much the better.

A quick word about Price and Class. Obviously, bottom-of-the-rung claimers are exempt from class maneuvers. In many cases, these bottom level horses will only be manipulated in price, which is perfectly acceptable.

With respect to Class, always be on the lookout for subtle class maneuvers, keeping in mind that other factors have a direct bearing on the Class issue. Factors such as Age, Sex, Restricted Races, Purse Levels, and even the Track are all closely related to the Class Factor. I can tell you from long experience that betting trainers are a shrewd lot, and many times their little class maneuvers will be pretty subtle. But be diligent and learn to look for and like “subtleties” because these are the things that make for good payoffs.

Finally, the title to this thread was meant to indicate what my personal “ticket to success” was. Not everyone is psychologically geared to betting on long shots for any number of reasons. Some can’t handle long run outs. Others wouldn’t feel comfortable betting a “miserable” looking horse with a 20-1 ML that was going off at 35-1 today, for instance Others aren’t experienced enough to be able to look at “depth” into a horse’s pp chart and determine if he’s a vulnerable long shot or a downright false one – this latter type being the finest wager in the game. To such people, I want to assure you that what was my ticket to personal success does not have to be yours, if long shot wagering isn’t to your liking for whatever reason. There are many ways to skin a cat in this game.

But to others of you who are inclined to think along the lines of my handicapping philosophy, I must say that in this day and age of computers and simos, the sky is the limit! If you can train yourself to think outside the public’s box, to shun conventional wisdom, to look for the unusual and uncommon, to adopt an unorthodox approach, you can make very good money in this game, providing you approach turf speculation from a business perspective. Forget the romantic ideas you might be harboring about the game. Make sure you’re adequately funded – funded for study and material expenses, living expenses, and wagering expenses. Would you think of starting up a business with inadequate funding? Do you think you would succeed if you did? Then neither will you in turf speculation. Have a detailed plan. Implement it. Keep a cool head.

I must say that it’s been a pleasant diversion coming from “over there” to “over here”. Perhaps I’ll return in another two or three years when a few from here migrate to there and wonder aloud about the reason for its existence on a racing forum. :)

I want to wish One and All a Very Merry Christmas (‘scuse my political incorrectnes), and the Happiest of New Years.

Boxcar

[BIG RED]

Boxcar, been thru one stack of forms this week. These are the ones I was chucking out (old and have to make some room) So far, haven't come up with to many bets, but there have been several hits. I don't think I can do a fair evaluation on this angle w/ claimers or optional. Don't have all the scratches (no charts for some). Another problem is by the lowest weight I am presuming you mean final weight before the race. This I don't have for a lot of the older forms. I used what I had (assigned wgt) It's been interesting though because I started to see something that I will investigate before I chuck these, and apply to my newer used forms.
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year

[boxcar]

Boxcar, been thru one stack of forms this week. These are the ones I was chucking out (old and have to make some room) So far, haven't come up with to many bets, but there have been several hits. I don't think I can do a fair evaluation on this angle w/ claimers or optional. Don't have all the scratches (no charts for some). Another problem is by the lowest weight I am presuming you mean final weight before the race. This I don't have for a lot of the older forms. I used what I had (assigned wgt) It's been interesting though because I started to see something that I will investigate before I chuck these, and apply to my newer used forms.
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year

Actually, the assigned weight today is sufficient, and you're comparing that the previous weights in the pp charts.

None of my long shot methods, standing alone, produced a lot of plays. This stands to reason, since few long shots win. This is why I used several methods in my own handicapping.

I find it interesting that just with the little research you have done, thus far, digging through pp data, as you are, that your eye is starting to notice things that probably went unnoticed previously. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I experienced the same thing. I'd be on a hunt, for an example, for specific information, only to discover something different, yet...related
to what I was searching for.

There's lots of gold to mined out of the pp charts....

Boxcar

[John]

Good methods, nicly writen, I for one will enjoy them.


BOXCAR, Thanks for the Christmas present.

John

[how cliche]

Really great and well written posts Boxcar. Thanks so very much. I am an "angular" player myself, but have only been at this for...it'll be 6 years on New Years Day. So I have a lot to learn & attempt to take in new ideas all the time. What's so nice about your methods is I am confident they will not lose value. The reason for this is they're complex and well hidden. A lot of players I'm aquainted with are searching for easy answers. Your answers take time and research & prove the point I've often thought to myself. The more time you put into the sport, the more you get out of it. I appreciate your willingness to give up trade secrets on an open forum. My printer's working overtime.:ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Really great and well written posts Boxcar. Thanks so very much. I am an "angular" player myself, but have only been at this for...it'll be 6 years on New Years Day. So I have a lot to learn & attempt to take in new ideas all the time. What's so nice about your methods is I am confident they will not lose value. The reason for this is they're complex and well hidden. A lot of players I'm aquainted with are searching for easy answers. Your answers take time and research & prove the point I've often thought to myself. The more time you put into the sport, the more you get out of it. I appreciate your willingness to give up trade secrets on an open forum. My printer's working overtime.:ThmbUp:

If you're studing racing angles, you're on the right track, especially if you stick with angles that are strictly found in the "universal" factors of horses' pp charts. I'm of the opinion that it's these factors that govern the outcome of most races to the greatest degree.

And you're right. I don't believe they will ever lose value. They won't because they will continue to do what they have always done, which is exploit the three major handicapping weakenesses of the public. How a large arsenal of racing angles does this is by providing the user with a broad contextual framework which makes for more accurate interpretation of the raw pp data. And better interpretation translates into a better and more thorough understanding of the particular race problem at hand. And in turn, the deeper insights we have into race problems, the more intelligent and informed wagering decisions we'll be able to make on a more consistent basis.

The public presents us with a real paradox. One one hand, the public cosensus presents us with formidable opposition at the windows. While on the other, the crowd is "stuck on stupid". This latter truth is borne out by a couple of facts. For one thing, the crowd can't get past it's "universal" hit rate of about 1/3, no matter the level of its ever-evolving "sophistication" over the years. And for another, the public consisently gravitates toward the obvious probably because it makes for easier and faster handicapping, overlooks the obscure because it takes too much time and effort to find it and to understand what it all means, and shuns the unorthodox because it's too difficult to break with conventional wisdom or to think ouside the box.

I submit to you, therefore, that the public has some serious chinks in its shining armor, and has always had them, and will continue to have them. These weaknesses will always be there for the smart opportunist to exploit. This fact will never change! Here's why: The primary reason the public will always manifest these weakenesses is because they too frequently interpret raw pp data out of its context -- usually because the public's contextual framework is too narrow. How it is possible, for example, to arrive at a proper understanding of a speaker's speech when someone takes but a portion of that speech and interprets it out of context --usually by omitting its broader context? This is why a student of racing angles will always have a leg up on the public. Such a student will have the utmost regard for the First Handicapping Principle, and will go out of his way to avoid violating it.

Lastly, your observation about human nature is on the mark. Many, if not most, people want easy and quick answers. But you will get out of this game only what you invest into it, as you have said.

The best to you,
Boxcar

[JackS]

Boxcar- Agree, the public will probably never achieve any longterm win percentage above 33%. The publics "hit rate" is pretty much a legacy.
This would not be to say that IF the public actually did improve, the astute handicapper would remain in the same posisition as he is today.
The result would decrease the knowledgeable players "wins" and at the same time increase his/her actual pay-out.
Bottom line- we really do not need to concern ourselves with how well or poorly the publics plays. Profits will always come in the form of overlays ,and for the public, their losses will continue in the form of underlays regardless of their hit rate..

[toetoe]

Boxcar,

Well put. I still maintain that almost canceling out the foolishness of the moneyed majority in wagering is the onerous, borderline usurious takeout. Even the wisest bettor sometimes makes foolish decisions, thereby failing to capitalize on the public's faults, but the tracks never fail to apply the takeout, do they? I have some ideas wherein they MIGHT forgo the takeout, as a well conceived plan, but that's a knotty problem for another thread.

[twindouble]

Boxcar,

Well put. I still maintain that almost canceling out the foolishness of the moneyed majority in wagering is the onerous, borderline usurious takeout. Even the wisest bettor sometimes makes foolish decisions, thereby failing to capitalize on the public's faults, but the tracks never fail to apply the takeout, do they? I have some ideas wherein they MIGHT forgo the takeout, as a well conceived plan, but that's a knotty problem for another thread.


What gets me is you and Boxcar talk like your not part of the "Public." Does that mean I can say, I'm not concidered the public when I'm on a winning streak and your on a losing one? :cool: :D

[JackS]

"General Consensus" Might be a better term then "The Public" since were all members of the Public. Still, "The Public" as a generic term is understood.

[how cliche]

I'm gonna past post an angle from yesterday, the final day at GGF. While not universal, I think it fits into the angular train of thought this thread is endorsing.

For several meets I've noticed trainer Armando Lage enjoys winning with his final runner of a given meet, on closing days, at a big number. In '03 Bourgesoisie won and paid $56.80 to close the BM meet. In '04 Bye Bye Birdie closed the year and paid $13.60. Yesterday, Lage's final runner was part of an uncoupled entry. Quiet Rumor, as the longer price of the two, closed the GGF meet for him and paid $90.60. In cases like these it's a very obscure and seldomly used angle. The only reason we're rewarded is for paying attention to a not normally tracked & somewhat rare handicapping factor.

[toetoe]

TD,

Yes, that is true, in a specific sense. All those specific cases add up to the general sense, in which, according to boxcar's parameters, payoffs minus all monies wagered, good and bad, are greater than zero. I think boxcar agrees when I say that we don't advocate blithely underestimating the public.

Keep an eye out for the charges of one Jose Luis Angulo, literally Joseph Angle. I call him my hunch trainer, as when I'm tearing up my tickets on his steeds, I hunch my shoulders and say, "Maybe next time."

[twindouble]

TD,

Yes, that is true, in a specific sense. All those specific cases add up to the general sense, in which, according to boxcar's parameters, payoffs minus all monies wagered, good and bad, are greater than zero. I think boxcar agrees when I say that we don't advocate blithely underestimating the public.

Keep an eye out for the charges of one Jose Luis Angulo, literally Joseph Angle. I call him my hunch trainer, as when I'm tearing up my tickets on his steeds, I hunch my shoulders and say, "Maybe next time."

Thanks toe, I understood. Just having some fun, in a much better mood today than yesterday. :) Get this guys, my 30 yo son for the first time sence his high scholl years is bringing home his girl for us to meet for the holidays. :faint: Chip off the old block, spent last weekend in Las Vegas, made a couple grand. :)

[boxcar]

What gets me is you and Boxcar talk like your not part of the "Public." Does that mean I can say, I'm not concidered the public when I'm on a winning streak and your on a losing one? :cool: :D

It goes without saying that every bettor makes up a part of the "public". (I think I even made this point earlier on.) But a bettor, at the same time, is competing against all other bettors who are participating in the same pool as he is. In this sense, then, a bettor is distinct from the ones against whom he's competing. From this bettor's perspective his competition is the "public". And from the perspective of the "public', any betting faction who is in disagreement with any other given betting faction in the same pool is the public. In short: the term "public" is really a methaphor used in place of the term "competition".

Boxcar

[Tom]

Bump

[boxcar]

The two odds angles we’ll take up are so powerful that these can be used on a stand-alone basis with lightly raced maidens. In other types of situations, however, I preferred to use them in conjunction with other supporting angles. So, right here might be a good place to briefly discuss why maiden races, generally, offer so many long shot opportunities, and why, specifically, lightly raced maidens can often prove to be lucrative investments under some circumstances.

I believe there’s an unwritten law in the game that allows racing officials (for better or for worse) to cut trainers of maidens a little bit more slack than they would with horses who are winners. But when we stop to think of it, this makes some sense. For one thing, a maiden is being sent out to do something that it has never done before, i.e. win!

For another thing first time starters (FTS) are additionally “cursed” with another whammy by also being asked to run in a race – something they’ve never done before either. So, in their first start, they are essentially learning how to race. Of course, some trainers have a knack for getting a FTS to win at first asking. And, of course, the conditioner’s job is made easier if his charge is blessed with a bit of precociousness.

But if the dynamic duo of a gifted trainer and exceptionally talented horse simply isn’t there (which is the case most of the time), then we should look at maiden races, generally, as being “trial runs”. for these young, untried, untested, sometimes unruly or even neurotic maidens. Just like new automobiles need to be broken in carefully, likewise maiden races are the media trainers use to “break in” their youngsters.

In addition to all this, a smart trainer will not want to push a young maiden too hard, too early or too often, especially when he knows that his horse has some idiosyncrasies that need to be addressed before going all out for the winner’s circle. Asking too much of youngster too soon could ruin him forever.

From a bettor’s perspective, a smart turf investor can take advantage of this kind of situation by paying especially close attention to lightly raced maidens – which for the purpose of these odds angles (and as stated previously in this thread) would include maidens with at least one start but no more than three starts in their chart. In fact, if you go back and study all the example angle horses I have given thus far in this thread, you will find that the large majority of them came out of maiden races and many of them were “lightly raced”.

Some years ago, a student of mine was so impressed by the sheer number of long shot winners who emerged from this group particularly, and from maiden races, generally, that he vowed to become a maiden race “specialist”. He swore that he would look no farther for his long shot winners than in maiden races – most especially from the low class claimers. (And the last I heard from him, he was doing quite well for himself.) And while my own philosophy was to try capitalize on every viable wagering opportunity, regardless of the type of race, I would, nonetheless, be hard-pressed to question his decision.

The two angles we’ll now look at were also found in another horse’s chart that we studied. It might interest you to know that Knight To A King (the Special A angle horse) discussed in message 79 of this thread also had these two angles. I didn’t mention it at the time because it’s not prudent to throw too much at one time to people. Too many angles at one time will only serve to confuse most people.

Another reason, I didn’t mention these two angles is because one of them is a variation to the FOT angle. This, too, would have confused many, I think. But in message 79, I wrote in part:

But here's the kicker: 11-1 on these kinds of plays is a relatively modest price.

The presence of these two odds angles accounted for that “modest” payoff, which nevertheless actually made this horse an excellent investment. The reason for this is because all the TI-type angles combined to validate one another. When this happens, I consider such horses to have a strong Validation Principle (VP) present in their charts. The stronger the VP is, the clearer the picture of everything that has been going on with the horse leading into today’s race becomes. And the clearer that picture is, the more confidently you can bet. It’s that simple.

It would be beneficial to everyone who has been following these discussion on racing angles, therefore, to go back to briefly revisit message 79 to better understand the angle dynamics in that horse’s chart before visiting the angle horse who ran recently in Tampa. Here is what I wrote in part pertaining to that older race:

“Knight To A King was conditioned by Joesph Tobin, and his trainer entered him today at the top price of 5K off his 2RB wherein his entered price back on 13Jun97 was $4,500. Here I'll partially reproduce the pertinent data from this horse's last two:”

The price/class levels are important to understand. This animal qualified on the Up in Class-Price Down Angle (UCPD). In his July 18th race, he was bumped up in class off his race of 13Jun97, and his tote odds were down today! This combination constitutes the unusual, the unexpected, the so-unlike-the public’s betting routine. In fact, KTAK was moving up today on two levels: price/class and moving up in the conditions, e.g. running today in a N3Y off of his previous N2Y race. Recall what I wrote earlier in this thread: Trainers can make very subtle price class shifts; therefore, one must learn to develop eagle-eyed skills in spotting these subtle moves.

And, naturally, KTAK qualified on the FOT angle – with 11-1 being well below his previous odds of 47-1. Since the “norm” in this game is for horses to drop in price today when dropping in class, then inquisitive minds must ask: Why the precipitous drop today – off two consecutive races in which the horse kept moving up in class? And off his LR effort when he was well beaten? It doesn’t make any sense – except to angle player like myself.

Now, let’s fast forward to 10Jan06 at Tampa Bay in the nightcap. For those so inclined, this race is recent enough to d/l from your favorite data vendor for study purposes; therefore, I’m not going to spend a lot of time typing out details as I’ve done on previous occasions.

As you can see, this race was conditioned 3 y.o. Maiden Filles going 7 panels, running for a tag of 25K. My sharp-eyed buddy who wrote recently was anticipating two odds angles: The UCPD and another angle which is a variation to the FOT, which I call the SFO or Special “Fifty” Off Angle. How this angle differs from the FOT is that the horse’s odds drop today does not meet the minimum 50% below the recent high. The odds drop in fact is only Forty percent below (40%).

Many moons ago, I discovered that this type of odds angle horse also makes good many times, so I added this angle to my repertoire. In addition to these odds angles, naturally the horse must be moving up in class today, and he must have finished out of the money in his LR – the farther back, the better! Remember: With these lightly raced maidens, oftentimes their races are merely “tune-ups” or training races for better things to come in the seeable future. Therefore, we shouldn’t necessarily be expecting bang-up performances from them.

In this race, we have the picture-perfect specimen in the 6 horse Cohiba’s Wildchild. Please note that she finished well up the track in her debut race on 18Dec05. In fact, she ran a very dull-looking race, and earned a very low SR to boot. To further add insult to injury, she is trained by, yet, another low profile trainer – a 5%er for the year 2005. And the “final nail in her coffin” (so thought the public) was that she moving up sharply from a $7,500. MC to a $25,000. MC. (Horrors of horrors!) Yet, despite all these “negatives”, someone sent this filly off at 19-1 off of her previous race’s odds of 35-1. What in the world is going on here? Is this normal? Is this the expected? Of course not!

Results: This little gal just nosed out the 8/5 fav Formally Jay to pay $40.40. FJ I will discuss briefly in the new Form thread. Unlike a lot of the favorites we have seen in previous race examples, this latter horse was definitely a threat in this race. Later on, I’ll explain why. And why I would have backed both horses: The winner to win, and boxed both in the X, which paid a very nifty $118.80! This race presented great investment opportunities.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Before jumping in to the next race, it might be a good idea to succinctly review the parameters for horses with an “ultimate form indicator” (UFI) in its chart.

• LR must have been an easy race
• LR.SR >= 2RB or 3RB.SR, depending on which race forms the basis to the performance angle.
• Horse must have a performance angle in its chart.

Previously we looked briefly at the A angle, which is a 2RB performance angle when we studied the Special A method of play. The parameters for this angle are:

• LR was an easy race.
• LR.OMF
• 2RB.IMF
• 2RB.DATE <= 60 days from Today’s Race Date (generally speaking)

Naturally, not all A angle horses make good. When these angle horses fail to win, they become Beaten A (BA) angle types. In this scenario, the race that forms the basis to this angle is the 3RB, and the parameters would look like this:

• LR.FP* > 1
• 2RB.OMF
• 3RB.IMF
• 3RB.DATE <= 75 days (generally speaking)

(*Finish Position)

Likewise, not all UFI form cycle horses win. When they lose, they become a Beaten UFI type (BUFI). Like the BA angle above, the race that forms the basis to this form cycle angle is also the 3RB, and the parameters would look like this:

• LR.FP > 1
• LR was relatively easy race (in most circumstances save for one)
• 2RB.OMF
• 3RB has a PA**
• 3RB.DATE <= 75 days (generally speaking)

(**Performance Angle)

Now, that this is all clear as mud to everyone, :D it might be a good idea to present a picture which is worth those proverbial 1,000 words. In fact, there’s a race wherein we can see two pictures of BUFI horses. For those of you who are closely following these angle discussions, it would be a very good idea to get your hands on the pp charts so that you can see these things clearly for yourselves.

The 9th at the Big A on 14Jan06 for 4 y.o. & UP Maidens foaled in NY State, going 5-1/2 furlongs. 11 started.

In other words, we’re looking at, yet, another el cheapo maiden race for older horses who have never won – a race with a bunch of classless wonders entered. (My kinda race!)

Let’s first look at the 9 horse – Incorporatetime – a failed winner after 16 starts. But this animal’s chart is loaded with performance angles; however, I’m just going to quickly comment on the ones we’ve covered here. This is a BA angle horse who lost last time out in a race that certainly was not a taxing effort. In that LR, he showed good early speed (ES) to the SC, but started to gradually lose ground at the ½ mi. pole to finish out of the money. According to TSN’s SRs, the horse’s last three, beginning with the 3RB looked like this: 70 – 72 – 65. His performance angle coupled with his SR pattern qualified him for the BUFI angle. His ML was 8-1, and he was sent off at 9/2 -- probably because his trainer has been “hot” for this meet winning at a 29% clip.

This was a very dangerous horse just on the Form Factor alone. This was a horse that was very likely to demonstrate good improvement today over his LR performance.

Then we come to the 6 horse Treated Wood – another classless wonder with 18 lifetime starts to his dismal credit. As many of you might recall, I’ve stated previously on this thread that was always partial to horses who aren’t dropping in class today – but even more so to horses with the DCLS or the BW-1 trainer maneuver angle in its chart. As you can see, this horse was dropped last start off an unrestricted MSW race. While I like for such angle horses to show an improved SR over its previous race, in TW’s case, the lower LR.SR is acceptable due to his BA angle and the fact that he, too, was a BUFI horse. Beginning with his 3RB, his SRs looked like this: 62-68-65.

In addition, he looked like he was given a stiff workout in his LR, running close up to the leader for a ½ mi., then fading back. His LR, too, was an easy one. If we are to believe the pp data, he worked out in about 47:3 for a half. If this pony had this kind of number showing below in his workout line, he would never have been sent off a the price he was.

For me, this affair would have strictly been a two-horse race due to their strong angles and very good form. It would have been between the 6 and 9 -- period. Since both were being sent off at odds that would have provided me with my minimum return (100% net), I would have plunked down my $ on both of them to win, and boxed both in the X.

Results: Treated Wood necked out the 9 to pay a generous $33.40. And Incorporatetime completed the $156.50 exacta. For some strange reason the crowd made a FTS the slight fav. And ironically, the 6 horse trained by another low profile trainer beat out the horse with the hot trainer.

Both of these horses provided reasonable answers to the two questions that I always brought to bear upon race problems. This was particularly true of the winner due to his trainer maneuver angle, whereas the runner up had no such angle in his chart – yet, he was very dangerous on Form.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I have repeatedly stated that when it comes to handicapping that things unexpected, unorthodox, unusual or subtle in horses’ pp charts are a handicapper’s best friends. Any methodology, therefore, that permits the analyst to spot these kinds of things is worth its weight in gold, since the betting competition will frequently overlook, misunderstand or misinterpret characteristics like these.

Everyone also knows by now that I’m partial to horses who are not dropping in class today, yet have a class/price maneuver in their charts. However, no one should infer from this that class drop-downs today are always price killers. What will generally determine a drop0-down’s price is the subtlety of the performance angles in his chart. For example, a B angle horse (for lack of a better designation) is one who displayed ES in his 2RB, finishing out of the money in that race and in his LR. These horses can pay off megabucks, as can a horse who ran to 2.5 lengths of the winner in the SC in his 3RB (BB3 angle which we looked at on another occasion) and ran out in both subsequent races, or a horse who has a 3RB.IMF (BA angle). In fact, when a BA angle horse has the Double Drop (DD) angle in his chart (i.e. dropped last start and dropping again today), his BA angle becomes a “power” angle because the combination of the two angles is so strong.

Also, as stated previously, whenever a horse has the BW-2 angle in his chart (Before Winning, type 2), this greatly strengthens the DC (Dropping in Class) or DD angle. Once again, here are the parameters, formally, for the BW-2 trainer maneuver angle:

LR.FP > 1
LR.ECP* > Todays.ECP
[2RB, 3RB].ECP > Today’s ECP

(*Entered Class or Price)

Now, here’s another angle to add to your arsenal, if so inclined – the ES or Early Speed Angle, which is a LR performance angle. Here are the parameters:

LR.[1C, 2C, 3C].BL < 3.75
LR.FC.BL > 4

What this means is that for the first three calls of the race the horse must have run no more than 3.5 lengths off the leader at each of these calls, then faded back in the stretch run to, preferably finish at least 4 lengths behind the winner. This angle is very frequently found with the A angle, which is a 2RB performance angle.

With this all behind us, we can now look at the most subtle performance and form cycle angle in my arsenal. You won’t come across these angles too often, but when you do, look out because often the winners pay off in “telephone” numbers. These angles tend to pay very well because they are find their roots in the 4RB, and the public simply doesn’t have much of a clue on how to properly evaluate these kinds of angles.

The performance angle is the BBA or Beaten BA angle. And the form cycle angle that combines with so well with it is the BUFI angle. I’m attaching a portion of the chart to the 1 horse in the 5th at GP on 12Jan06 – Flight To Justice.

Why this horse is a BUFI type is because the SR in the race that completed his BA angle (i.e. the 2RB) was higher than the SR in the race that formed the basis to this angle (i.e. the 4RB). Therefore, at that point in time Flight To Justice was a UFI horse. But after his LR, he became a BUFI horse because he failed to win, his LR was not an overtaxing effort, and his LR.SR was lower than what he earned in his previous race.

In addition to all this, he was an A angle horse, due to his 2RB.IMF and LR.OMF. And even more than this, he had the ES angle in his LR. Please note his beaten lengths off the leader for the first 3 calls of his LR. So much for his performance angles and form cycle.

In terms of his trainer maneuver angles, he had the BW-2, since the class level of his 2RB and 3RB were higher than the price stipulated in today’s condition. Therefore, he had the strong version of the DC angle.

He also had a pinpoint angle in his chart, which I call the Lowest Class (LC) angle. (This angle is a second cousin” to the LW angle.) To qualify on this angle, the top price in today’s race condition must be the lowest in his current chart. As you can see from my attachment, the top price in today’s claimer was 14K – which represents the lowest level that he has run at in his current chart.

The only knock this horse had against him was that he has been away for about 50 days – but everything else in his chart said that he was sharp, was in an excellent form cycle mode, and that the trainer meant business with him today to the presence of the BW-2 and LC angles. At his prevailing odds, he was certainly worthy of a bet.

This pony won going away and rewarded the astute with a generous $94.20 mutuel.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

box,

Regarding the Treated Wood race, I foolishly threw out the horses coming from that Tale Of Wonder race, calling it a negatively key race. How did you rate Hey Tough Guy, the only other runner to show speed in the previous race? Did his FAILURE to fall back work against him? His form was not hidden, but should he get credit for the good effort?

[toetoe]

boxcar,

Not to make it a habit, but can you give me your opinion of a horse in Laurel's 9th on Saturday? That's a long way off, and maybe we can bat it around. The race, an $85,000 stakes for fillies and mares, has several win machines, but the filly that caught my eye is See Alice, a four-year-old that has blossomed since being claimed by Mark Shuman. The first thing that piqued my interest is that she ran at Aq in the race that Grecian Wings freaked. Now, See Alice finished behind Pelham Bay, frevvinsakes, a filly that may never win again, ever. However, every other bad race features trouble, and I'm wondering how she'd stack up as a runner in a "holding" or "forging" pattern. The last consideration is that she could start at a HUGE price. Just my opinion. :ThmbUp:

[toetoe]

The PP's are available at horse-races.net>Darley>Elusive Quality>Saturday, January 21, Race 9. :)

[boxcar]

box,

Regarding the Treated Wood race, I foolishly threw out the horses coming from that Tale Of Wonder race, calling it a negatively key race. How did you rate Hey Tough Guy, the only other runner to show speed in the previous race? Did his FAILURE to fall back work against him? His form was not hidden, but should he get credit for the good effort?

Good questions, Toe. Of course, he should get "credit" for those good efforts -- both of them -- his LR and 3RB. But neither giving credit or "hidden" form are really the issues here. The $64. question, especially with a good, obvious form horse like Tough Guy is: What will the probable effect of those good efforts, coupled with his form cycle, be on his condition today. Will those good efforts contribute to his current condition or will they detract from it? Is it likely he will improve or regress today off those good efforts? These are the pertinent, all-important questions. For the benefit of those following this thread closely, I have attached this horse's chart to make it easier to understand what follows.

Firstly, just what performance angles did this gelding have in his chart? Since he finished very close up in his 3RB and was beaten by only 1-1/4 lengths, I would have credited him with a shaded version of the BA angle, which my program would designate with "-BA". Common sense must prevail when we handicap. If this horse had finished 3rd beaten by those many lengths, would we not have credited him with the full blown version of the angle? Furthermore, lengths off the leader almost always trump finish positions.

Then he would have been credited with a rather complex combination angle that involves the manner in which he ran in his LR and 3RB, colupled with an OMF in the 2RB, coupled with his entered price/class today compared to his 2RB. This angle (which I call the C angle), perhaps, we'll study on some other occasion. However, since he didn't qualify on the trainer maneuver part of this angle, then this angle, too, would have been shaded to read: -C.

So, just in terms of these two particular perfomance angles, which can be very powerful when combined, the best TG could do is get credited with a "shaded" version of each.

But this wouldn't have been the main reason why I would have dumped him. The primary reason, believe it or not, would have been his current form cycle! If you look at his last three SRs starting from the 3RB, they are ascending. This particular form cycle mode I've dubbed Progressive Improvement (PI). And in most cases, this is a very positive mode. But in TG's case, it was not! Here's why: Since he ran a bang-up, close up finish in his 3RB (qualifiying him on the -BA angle), and earned an even higher SR in his LR -- which was another close-up, bang-up finish, then with these particular angles in his chart, coupled with his manner of running in both those races, this horse would have been a real threat and very likely to improve further today if his 2RB.SR had been lower than his 3RB.SR. As it was, it was higher. What I like to see with this type of horse, with these particular angles in his chart is a speed rating pattern that looks like this (starting from the 3RB in all cases): 61-59-74; or one that looks like this: 74 -69-71; or even one that looks like this: 74-76-72. But in most cases, the PI angle and its antithetical form cycle which I all Progressive Regression (PR), which occurs when when a horse is in consecutive descending mode (e.g. 74-68-60) -- are the death knell to this kind of horse.

In addtion to all this, that LR.SR of his was the best in his current chart.
Would he improve off that big LR.SR today? Not likely.

Therfore, TG's particular form cycle mode, the specific performance angles in his chart and his high LR.SR all combined in a way to detract from his current form. I would have looked at this horse and said that this is not an animal who is likely to demonstrate any improvement today, let alone -- any great improvement. Horses like this will usually regress in form, as it appears TG did in this race.

Hope this helps. Although, frankly, the Form Factor is the most complex of them all. It takes a good deal of study, practice and experience to be able to effectively deal with performance angles and form cycles.

Boxcar

[gurutoyou]

Boxcar,

I want to say thanks for all this valuable info as I have now just joined because of your posts...just so I can say thank you. Thank you.:)

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

I want to say thanks for all this valuable info as I have now just joined because of your posts...just so I can say thank you. Thank you.:)

And thank you. I hope my posts will help you to live up to your handle. :)

Boxcar

[valueguy]

Thanks much for your insight on form,Its been awhile since i played angles as i found you didn,t get too many plays on a card , usally none at all.
We all get too caught up in numbers and it really affects the mutuel payoffs big time as most players end up with the same top 2 or 3 contenders.
Now i am paying more attention to form and to what i think is an improving horse .There are lots of form angles out there you can use that ensure good
payoffs ,I just need to make sure I always use the other horses in the race as a comparison .Form angles coupled with good numbers have made the game more interesting..

Regards :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Thanks much for your insight on form,Its been awhile since i played angles as i found you didn,t get too many plays on a card , usally none at all.
We all get too caught up in numbers and it really affects the mutuel payoffs big time as most players end up with the same top 2 or 3 contenders.
Now i am paying more attention to form and to what i think is an improving horse .There are lots of form angles out there you can use that ensure good
payoffs ,I just need to make sure I always use the other horses in the race as a comparison .Form angles coupled with good numbers have made the game more interesting..

Regards :ThmbUp:

Thanks, VG. Will try hard to articulate these angles in a way that will make them easier to grasp.

I essentially wrote yesterday on the Off-Topic Forum (while straying off-topic :) ) that why many people, when exposed for a while to racing angles, grow to like them is because angles are something "concrete" upon which you can hang your informed opinions. The angles are visual. You can see them and almost "feel" them, in a manner of speaking. But most importantly, racing angles animate a horse's chart. They bring a chart to life because a user can really vizualize what has been going on recently with the horse --with everything leading right up to today's race.

A major distinction, therefore, between racing angles and other approaches is that the angles focus intently and solely on the whats and the underlying whys in a horse's chart, whereas other approaches focus on the whos and raw stats (of all different stripes). But those raw numbers are inadequate to address the two big questions, which I think should be brought to bear upon every race problem.

Another major distinction is that racing angles deal with the specifics in a horse's chart, whereas other approaches are too generalized. Racing Angles, by their very nature, embrace the philosophy of Particularism as opposed to the philosophy of Generalization. For example, a trainer can have this hot stat, the horse's jock can have this stat, and the trainer can have another hot stat over a particular surface or in certain kinds of races, etc., etc., etc. But...when it's all said and done -- are all those numbers sufficient to address the "two big questions"?

When my Canadian buddy wrote to me recently and shared the files with me that had that $40. winner he caught, he asked rehetorically in the email: What in the world is this horse doing here? Why is he in this race, moving up so sharply? It was these kinds of questions that sparked that anticipatory mechanism within. He knew, almost instinctively, that he had better keep any eye out on the betting on that pony.

In fact, the element of anticipation is a very desirable trait to bring to the handicapping table. This is why good Form students can and will get on a race one race too soon. It's inevitiable. They know through the speed and pace figs and form angles, etc. which horses in the race are ready or about ready to run big. They're on the right side of the form cycle curve (the upward side) -- but sometimes the selections lose because they really needed one more race to "tighten" them up really good. Conversely, the uniformed public is very often on the wrong side of the curve -- the downward side. And the form neophytes find out too late that the the chalkish "hot form" horse they bet on today blew its wad in its last good effort or two. So...while the two camps will blow bets on their respective bets, the really big dif between the two is that oftentimes the top form students will be rewared with a very nice mutuel the next time the horse runs and wins.

It really does pay in this game to be ahead of the proverbial curve. :)

Boxcar

[toetoe]

I'm reminded of Davidowitz's description of his first encounter with Beyer (or vice versa?), when one of them opened up his Form and said, "Let's train this horse," and they proceeded to go through the ten PP's, with an eye toward trainer intent and some kind of medium- to long-range campaign. Like a post mortem, followed by nine more post mortems(sp.?). Now, that's right up my alley, whereas the drudgery of making and slavishly following figures, checking weight, bullet works, Tomlinson #'s, pedigree ratings, etc., is too much like homework.

[delayjf]

Boxcar,

Could you throw me a bone concerning that distance switch angle thread/post, where might I search to find it? I'd love to read that as well as any other angles you've posted over the years.

Thanks,

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

Could you throw me a bone concerning that distance switch angle thread/post, where might I search to find it? I'd love to read that as well as any other angles you've posted over the years.

Thanks,

Hmmm...the last time I posted here at any great lengths was around three years or so ago. Maybe PA could help out. I don't know how far back stuff is archived. PA?

Boxcar

[grahors]

Greetings,
I may have missed this along the way..forgive me if I did...but,
Are the feelings, when playing angles, that the horse in question should be "competitive" with regards to spd, pace, or whatever you use to guage competitiveness or "projected" competitiveness.
For sure it would make a much stronger play (probably at lower odds), but should it be necessary.
Just a thought....
Cecil

[Overlay]

To me, that would depend on whether the angle was producing positive results to a degree that couldn't be accounted for by random variation, indicating that the angle was acting by itself as an independent determinant of the winning chances of the horses involved. If it was, I don't think you'd have to be concerned (or, at least, as concerned) about whether the horse qualified as competitive in the race using other normal gauges of competitiveness such as the ones you refer to. The main thing you'd then have to be aware of (IMO) would be the power of the angle in terms of its winning percentage, compared to the odds of the horse(s) in question, so that you could know whether you were getting betting value or not.

[delayjf]

BOXCAR,

I've searched the treads that you started but apparently you didn't start that post. I can only go look at your last 500 posts which I think takes me back to last year, maybe PA can help.

Two questions, some of the angles you presented involved trainer manipulations. Did you find that your angles were more potent when they involved specific trainers? Two, I have looked at betting patterns much like you presented in your angles, but I also considered the size of the field when attempting to determine if a horse was in fact being bet down, did you ever consider field size as well?

Thanks

[Richie]

delayjf

i went to advanced search and excluded off topic stuff, got back to 2001, still could not find it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Posts go back to March 2001. Since most of Boxcar's posts have been in off-topic, I'm surprised you're finding it difficult to pinpoint the posts you are looking for.

Did you make sure to check the SHOW RESULTS AS posts instead of threads? That may make it easier to find....

[dastar]

Hello Boxcar & a Big Thank YOU for all you have shared with this forum.

I am just another 30 year plus "plotter capper."

It is interesting, that some of your angles shown, (Not ALL of them) which you used or use, were taught to me by a friend who was close friends with a trainer. (Never met the trainer).

I also knew an owner and trainer from Louisiana Downs and we became good friends.

His first name was Mike.

He was an uncanny handicapper besides a really nice guy.

We would meet at the old Keystone Park, and he would only take $20 to bet, as that was his thing: If he lost, he was done for the day.

He won far more than he lost, and when he won, it was some juicy prices.

Boxcar: He showed me something I have never seen or heard from anyone.

He would call it "Jockeys Mistakes".

I am sure you and & everyone, have lost many races as a result.

This was most valuable information, for, obviously, the jockey fiqures in pretty much with the horse.

He was the first who taught me to read the DRF from the bottom to the top, and that way it is easier to see where the jockeys made mistakes.

I know that this has to be the least (from what I know) talked about facet of handicapping, but the one part that the majority of every handicapper and every book I have ever read, never mentioned anything about it.

It would be nice, if any trainers, jockeys who post here could elaborate on this interesting topic.

Mike specialized on the cheaper claiming races, for he said, that is where you will find most of your "Jockeys Mistakes."

He would go through each paceline, point out what the jockey was trying to do, and what he didn't do, and darn if he wasn't right on, most of the time.



Again, thanks for your kindness to all.


Dastar

[boxcar]

delayjf

i went to advanced search and excluded off topic stuff, got back to 2001, still could not find it.

Hmm...that's interesting. I think I posted some "over here" around '02. I didn't post nearly as much as I have now. And I don't recall if I started a thread or just disucssed the two distance angles on someone else's thread.

Maybe Tom can help us because he has used these two pinpoint angles, I believe. Tom? Earth calling Tom. :D

In your advanced searches, can you search by phrases? If so, try these two: "cutting back", "stretching out". See what you come up with.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

boxcar,

Not to make it a habit, but can you give me your opinion of a horse in Laurel's 9th on Saturday? That's a long way off, and maybe we can bat it around. The race, an $85,000 stakes for fillies and mares, has several win machines, but the filly that caught my eye is See Alice, a four-year-old that has blossomed since being claimed by Mark Shuman. The first thing that piqued my interest is that she ran at Aq in the race that Grecian Wings freaked. Now, See Alice finished behind Pelham Bay, frevvinsakes, a filly that may never win again, ever. However, every other bad race features trouble, and I'm wondering how she'd stack up as a runner in a "holding" or "forging" pattern. The last consideration is that she could start at a HUGE price. Just my opinion. :ThmbUp:

Okay...not to make a habit of this...but since you've asked and I'm workin' on my 5th brewski... :) (I'm kidding.)

See Alice actually has some decent things going on in her chart. She's a BA angle horse and also has my favorite LR performance angle going for her, i.e. the Hidden Condition (HC) angle. Notice the nice double move she made in her LR -- up closer to the leader in the 1C, then lost ground by the 2C, then picked up lengths and positions by the time she reached the SC, then lost a little more ground to the FC. This angle can be a great price getter!

Her current form? This is the big question mark in my mind. This and her class. But let's deal with the first factor first.

Her form looks "flat" -- it's not bad, but nothing to write home about either. Her last two SRs are the same. She didn't improve any in a race that had a slightly slower EP and in a race with a very modest LP rating. However, we must keep in mind that the HC angle is a "test race" type angle, so we can't expect too much out of her.

Her class is a huge question mark, and is my biggest concern. Her highest SR is a 91 earrned over a fast wf track. So, we must discount that SR some. Her next highest SR is an 83 which she earned in an OC race. Big dif between the two SRs. If we split the dif, we could give her "best effort" an 87 SR.

Of course, everything is relative. I'm concerned about her basic class level compared to whom in this race? I think Evasive is the mare to beat in this race for several reasons.

First, she's a mare going up against a filly. So, coming right out of the chute this early in the year, SA has an age-class deficit.

Evasive's form cycle, while not "excellent" is better than SA's. Evasive is in the PI form cycle mode (note the last three ascending SRs.)

Evasive also has a very good LR performance angle, which is the Position-Gain-Length angle (or PGL). Her LR was a relatively easy win effort.
That impressive looking 95 SR should also be discounted, however, because it was in a 5f dash, and anything less than 5-1/2f tends to produce skewed ratings -- I do take that LR.SR with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, if we split the dif between that rating and her next best SR in her chart (an 88 at BEL in a 6.5f heat) then we come up with about a 93. This would give Evasive about a 6-point edge in speed. About...

While I don't have an overall pace rating to work with here (as was available in the ITS pp data that I formally worked with), I have to think that Evasive would score higher due to her huge late kick capability. Her LPs are far superior to SA's. This is one of the reasons why I belive Evasive's LR was a relatively easy win. A modest EP coupled with a a high LP means that she did all her real running late in the race -- the last 1/8th.

The only knock against Evasive is that her PI angle is found with a shaded version of the C angle (-C). We looked at this combo on another occassion.
However, what is different in Evasive's case is that her 3RB was an easier race because she faded back at the SC to finish a few lenghts behind the winner. (In fact she was a "saved" horse in that race because her jock saved the place postion while losing ground.)

Lastly, what both gals have in common is that they both have at least three wins in their current chart -- making them both relatively "high" percentage plays. Evasive has 4 wins in her chart. And SA has 4! There's only one other entrant in this race that has been this consistent -- the 4 y.o. Golden Malibu. However, this gal's three wins all came back in '04. And after that last win in Dec '04, it's been all downhill for this filly. Something is amiss with her now. Wouldn't bet her with Chinese money.

So, what to do? I give the nod to Evasive for all the above reasons; however, SA might improve tomorrow considerably off her last test race. Why not bet both to win, if the prices are right, and box both in the X?

This is how I see the race.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Try this ...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/search.php?searchid=227908

Got a weird screen from that link. It said: Sorry - no matches. Try some other terms. Whazup with dat? :)

Boxcar

[BillW]

Got a weird screen from that link. It said: Sorry - no matches. Try some other terms. Whazup with dat? :)

Boxcar

PA - pls delete my post if you can.

box - it worked when I first tried it. I didn't understand how, but not being one to argue with success ... :confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

It worked for me as well, but not anymore. My guess is that they expire after a certain time, and/or are cookie and/or session related....


Either way, I think the gist of it was that you narrowed it down to about 3 pages worth of results......maybe Bill can explain in words the terms he used to obtain those search results....

[BillW]

Yea, must have been cached. here are the steps necessary:

Go to Advanced search and type user in the "search by user name" field, "boxcar" in this case. Then <ctrl> click all forums except off topic in the lower rigth area labeled "search in forum(s)". In the lower left select "Show results as posts" then click "search now". That should do it.

Bill

[Tom]

I have an email from Boxcar with the distance stuff - I need to back a computer or two to find it:bang: I'll search this afternoon.


It was really good stuff. The derby list has not been maintained so the e-scribe, searchable part seems to have gone the way of $2 gas - too bad.
I also tried web archive, but could not find anything.

[boxcar]

I have an email from Boxcar with the distance stuff - I need to back a computer or two to find it:bang: I'll search this afternoon.


It was really good stuff. The derby list has not been maintained so the e-scribe, searchable part seems to have gone the way of $2 gas - too bad.
I also tried web archive, but could not find anything.

This even gets weirder. :bang: :bang:

Tom, unless I'm completely losing it, I thought I posted on the CB and SO distance angles on this forum. I distinctly remember some poster over here having a problem grasping an aspect of it, and a few exchanges ensued back and forth in my attempt to clarify things.

I think how the whole series of posts, regarding the distance factor, came to be is that I made some controversial comment (what else is new? :D ) to the effect that I considered this factor to be relatively minor -- but that I had discovered a very useful combination of distance angles, etc.that oftentimes revealed the trainer's intentions.

I really don't recall posting on these angles on the DL. But maybe I'm wrong... If so, I'm going into the deeper Phase II aspect of my retirement.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Just want to give a little heads up to those of you who are closely following this thread. Soon, I'll be starting a series of posts on various topics (mostly form-related), and I've chosen several real world examples taken from an excellent card of races -- GPX15JAN06. If so inclinded, therefore, you might benefit even more from the discussions by having this particular card in your hot possession. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

As we embark upon an initial study of Form, it would be good at the very outset to review (even at the risk of being redundant) what the most important handicapping inquiry is – what answers should we be seeking first and foremost. The question of great moment is:

Which horse in today’s race is most likely to demonstrate the most improvement?

But it’s also important to take notice of what the question isn’t asking. It isn’t asking: Which horse or horses are going to run a bang-up effort today? Or who is going to run a big race today? These kinds of questions are actually too broad in scope, for any number of entrants could perform well today – but maybe not well enough to win. The question above, however, is narrow in scope and well-defined. It’s a question that at once embraces and directly addresses all the positive and negative elements associated with a horse’s current form. And as we’ll see, the negative elements are just as important (if not more so) than the positive ones; for negative form “angles” are very useful elimination tools for the user. Any angle that helps a selector to eliminate horses who aren’t likely to improve enough to win are very valuable tools, indeed – most especially in the hands of a knowledgeable, experienced and skillful selector.

What, then, are the primary determinants that serious students of form should consider and weigh carefully when evaluating a horse’s current form? The following are what I have used very successfully in the past in my attempts to answer the all-important question above:

• Speed Ratings (SRs) of recent races, including SR patterns which determine if a horse in a positive, negative or even “flat line” (neutral) form cycle mode. SRs also help determine how close a horse has recently run to his best effort in his current chart.

• Pace Ratings – both Early (EP) and Late ( LP). (By “early”, I mean only the rating at the 2C of races.).

• Duration of Pressure. By this I mean the distance within a race in which a horse either set or pressed the pace. This is an extremely important element that is very closely tied in to the two previous ones.

• Dates between recent races. This is important sub-factor because horses need time to recuperate from strong efforts – time in which to “recharge their batteries”. A “fresh horse” can be mighty dangerous under some circumstances.

• Workouts. Workout angles, as they relate to recent races, can frequently reveal not only the state of a horse’s current condition, but a trainer’s intentions, as well.

• Performance Angles. These are very important tools because these angles reveal the manner in which a horse has run his recent races. This sub-factor, of course, is very closely related to number three above.

That’s it, folks. Now everyone can run with these and become form experts.
:D

But seriously, in some of the posts that follow, we’ll apply these points in order to try to answer the all-important form-related question.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

box,

Not sure where this fits, exactly, but here are two performances seen through my unique pair of eyes. They come from the same race, and the runners are in the very next race at AQ, the 6th.

I downgrade Thundering Success for looking deceivingly good, when the race was speedball-stuffed. The only mitigator is the Dutrow-2nd-time angle. In the same race, The Red Prince outsprinted several speedballs and opened up into the stretch, only to get tagged very late. Jockey change, at least neutral, prob. positive, but trainer Turner may never win again, and the bounce possibility looms.

We can discuss this post mortem, maybe. :) :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

BOXCAR,

I've searched the treads that you started but apparently you didn't start that post. I can only go look at your last 500 posts which I think takes me back to last year, maybe PA can help.

Two questions, some of the angles you presented involved trainer manipulations. Did you find that your angles were more potent when they involved specific trainers?

You know what? I wouldn't know because my angles only looked at the Whats and Whys in horses' charts. Never took the Whos in consideration. In fact, quite often I'd find myself backing low percentage trainers and/or jocks because this is where the big mutuels were -- and still are.

Two, I have looked at betting patterns much like you presented in your angles, but I also considered the size of the field when attempting to determine if a horse was in fact being bet down, did you ever consider field size as well?.

Interesting point. But no, I never did. I simply used the data in the Equiv. Odds column for purposes of comparing them to the tote odds today.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Toe, I see that Flame of Love took the 9th at LRL. Not too suprised. She ran a huge race last time out, but was fresh horse -- having had about 50 days vacation between her 2RB and LR. She was also in the PI form cycle mode -- having ascending SRs for her last three. Her favored status was understandable.

This is the kind of horse that ususally presents a big question mark. Sharp as all get out, but not much in the way of racing angles. At best I would have considered her a "vulnerable" fav because there is no evidence in her chart, save possibly for the Fresh Horse (FH) angle, to suggest that she'd come back and improve more today . I loved betting against these types -- but that doesn't mean they never beat me. She was much the best mare in the race today, though.

Boxcar

[wonatthewire1]

One that I enjoy (not for the faint of heart!) are the 10 tick bombs...

Horses that move up by 10 ticks (2 seconds) in any of their last two races. Since I only play evenings (cheaper tracks) and weekends, I can isolate a couple and not get too caught up in every race.

A couple of recent examples:

Friday night 1/20/06 Penn National, 5th race, 1 1/16, Clm NW 1-6 months

Bad looking field, but #3 O'Ririn looks especially bad with a low percentage trainer and absolutely no early speed in her last two races. But the two tick improvement in the middle call from 1:14.1 to 1:13.0 + 6 lengths put her at a +11 for me. Wins at 31-1.

Two races later, in the 7th, 1 1/16th, Clm NW3 Lifetime. Choir Leader is also trained by a low percentage trainer but shows a +13 for me in the final call of the last race out (1:47.1 to 1:45.2 + 4 lengths). Wins at 27.2-1. The place horse, Mr New Freedom, was a +14 at 14-1. The exacta returned $477.40.

I orginally got the idea from Mark Cramer, though he was using the tactic for harness racing. With these types of horses, I will put them in the bottom half of an exacta, using the "exacta as a place bet" as the basis for catching some longer exactas should the horse be ready, but not quite good enough for the top slot.

The Cramer methodology can be found on his website:

http://www.altiplanopublications.com/candx.htm

[shanta]

I just wanna say thanx Boxcar for sharing. This is the best thread I have seen since I signed on here couple of years back.

You deal with MANY factors frankly that I either have never heard of or never considered applying in a thoughtful and serious way.

I love learning new things and realize I definitely do NOT have all the answers.

Thanx again and stay cool

Richie

[wonatthewire1]

#1 in the 1st

[boxcar]

#1 in the 1st

What does "2+ ticker mean? Did you back this mare? She was an excellent wager. So good, in fact, that I'm going to post on this race sometime today -- even though I had other subject matter planned.

What an outrageously great price -- in a 5-horse field, yet! Unbelievable!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I just wanna say thanx Boxcar for sharing. This is the best thread I have seen since I signed on here couple of years back.

You deal with MANY factors frankly that I either have never heard of or never considered applying in a thoughtful and serious way.

I love learning new things and realize I definitely do NOT have all the answers.

Thanx again and stay cool

Richie

Thank you, Shanta. I hope you'll find my material helpful.

And be of good cheer; for I don't have all the answers either. :) For example, I don't have a clue as to why some horses will score when in a certain form cycle mode, yet others won't when in the same mode but will have to progress to the next mode. Our equine friends, apparently, are as physiologically different as we are. Some horses need to be "tightly wound" with a good effort or two or run to a higher SRs in their LRs. Whereas as other animals get "muscled up" with an easy race or two -- perhaps earning even lower SRs in their LRs. In the first case scenario, UFIs will score or run big races at least; but in the latter case BUFIs will run big next time out.

To All:

I want to thank everyone here again who has expressed appreciation for my efforts. All the kind words have motivated me to stay here a while longer in the hopes of imparting some useful knowledge -- knowledge that one day you'll be able to wisely put to practical and profitable. Knowledge that will translate into wisdom.

Boxcar

[dastar]

Hi Wonaththewire:

In that same race, where O'Ririn won, the 5 Nepals's Wickedwind shows a bigger improvement in ticks, or seconds.

Please tell me why or how the pick you came up with improved more than the 5?

Perhaps, you would take the best or highest odds, or bet both.

Thanks,

Dastar

[boxcar]

(Tom, I dedicate this post to you. Guess what angles I found?) :)

Hopefully, I’ll be able to demonstrate with the following race example how racing angles can “animate” a horse’s chart – make it dynamic by telling a story.

In post #115 written on 1/16, I wrote the following:

Everyone also knows by now that I’m partial to horses who are not dropping in class today, yet have a class/price maneuver in their charts. However, no one should infer from this that class drop-downs today are always price killers. What will generally determine a drop-down’s price is the subtlety of the performance angles in his chart. For example, a B angle horse (for lack of a better designation) is one who displayed ES in his 2RB, finishing out of the money in that race and in his LR. These horses can pay off in megabucks…

At the end of this post, you will find the chart of the 1 Horse Una Mirim who was entered today in the 1st at GP. This race was conditioned for F&M 4&Up going 6f over the m.t. and who were entered at the top tag of 18K or the bottom tag of 16k. Seven were entered but only five started.

Performance/Combo Angles:

The first thing we’ll notice is that this mare is a B angle horse. She displayed ES to the SC in her 2RB, and had a LR.OMF in an easy race. Qualified perfectly.

The second noteworthy item is that has a LR performance angle, i.e. the Special Stretch Gain (SSG) angle, which I’m not going to discuss now, except to say that the horse must have gained at last one length in the stretch run and finished 4th. Qualified perfectly.

(The gain in the LR and the fading back in the 2RB forms what many of you seem to call the “Z” pattern, incidentally.)

Next, this mare was in the UFI form cycle mode, earning a substantially higher LR.SR compared to her 2RB.SR. This form cycle, coupled with both her performance angles, indicates that this mare could be set to “explode” today.

So much for the “whats” in this mare’s chart. Now, let’s examine the “whys” to see if we can find any answers to the second most important question we should bring to bear upon every horse’s pp chart, which is:

Why has the trainer chosen to enter his horse under today’s race conditions?

Trainer Maneuver and Pinpoint Angles:

In this regard, the first thing we notice is that this mare should be credited with the BW-2 angle because the class levels in her 2RB and 3RB are higher than the class level of today’s race. Why is this? Because an Optional Claiming race should be considered to be a slightly higher class level than a straight claimer – most especially when in those OCs, the horse was not entered to be claimed! Generally speaking, a non-claiming event (including when horses are entered to not be claimed in OC races) is “better” than a claiming one. In fact, with this mare, she has only one race in her current chart that was in a straight claimer prior to today’s – her 10RB!

Another reason why, under the above conditions, OCs are “better” races is because when a horse is dropped today in a straight claimer, this often indicates that the trainer means business since he could lose the animal through the claiming box. If he’s going to risk losing the animal, then chances are good that he’s going to go for the gold by garnering the lions’ share of the purse, and possibly collecting on a nice bet or two.

The next thing we notice about this trainer is that he bumped his horse up in class last start off a “poor” race. He bumped her up from an OC16K event to a OC25K event. This maneuver is called the BX angle – for lack of a better designation. The “B” is because this trainer maneuver is often found with B angle horses, and when this is the case it strengthens this performance angle. The “X” part is because a horse’s last two outings must look “poor” – certainly must have been OMFs.

Whenever we see this maneuver, we should ask ourselves: Why is the trainer bumping his horse up in class off of a poor race and dropping her today?. More often than not, by the way, this maneuver will also be found with the BW-2 or the generally weaker DC (Drop in Class) angle. And when the horse has good things going for it, in terms of current form, then there can only be one reasonable answer to this question. So, things are looking pretty decent for this mare in the TI dept., also – but we’re not done yet – not by a long shot (bad pun intended).

The trainer further tipped his hand today with the Distance Factor. However, I’m not going to go into depth on the two distance-related angles that UM had her in chart because I wish to spend some time on more fundamentally important items before delving too deeply into too many Pinpoint Angles. These angles are for more advanced play. Suffice it say for now, though, that this animal had the Cutting Back (CB) and Stretching Out (SO) angles in her chart, and when these two are found in combination with one another, they can be very powerful! (Tom has already attested to this fact.)

Please note very carefully the distances of her last two races. In her 2RB she ran in a 6.5f heat and lost ground in the stretch run. In her LR, she ran in a 5f dash, and gained ground in the stretch run. Now look a the distance of today’s race: 6f! A distance that is right in between her last two outings! Her TI factor is getting stronger by the minute. Why? Because it’s the trainer who chooses where and how he’s gong to place his charge. But we’re not done yet.

This mare has one of a few claimed horse angles that I have in my arsenal. The one she had was the Claimed Horse, type 3 angle (CH-3). Somehow at some point since this mare was claimed from trainer Chavez, she ended up back in his possession again. Perhaps my TSN pp charts aren’t showing the claim (maybe someone could check) or she was bought back privately. In either case, the fact that a previous trainer now owns her again indicates that he probably holds this animal in high regard – even though her ’05 record isn’t very impressive. Maybe this trainer knew what made this mare tick – had her number – had her “ace card”. At any rate, this is another positive pinpoint angle.

Then she had another pinpoint angle – the LC, which we also looked at briefly on 1/16. In that same message, already cited earlier, I wrote:

He also had a pinpoint angle in his chart, which I call the Lowest Class (LC) angle. (This angle is a second cousin” to the LW angle.) To qualify on this angle, the top price in today’s race condition must be the lowest in his current chart. As you can see from my attachment, the top price in today’s claimer was 14K – which represents the lowest level that he has run at in his current chart.

Since we have seen that today’s class is the lowest in UM’s current chart, I would have done better if I had written earlier “price/class” instead of just price.

To summarize, then, here is what UM had going for her in the “whats” and “whys” departments in terms of her racing angles: B, SSG, UFI, BW2, BX, CB, SO, LC. Do not these seven racing angles combine to form a powerful picture of what has been going on recently with this horse leading up to today’s race? And don’t all her angles combine to tip us off as to why her trainer has entered her in this spot today? Does she not have a powerful VP principle going for her? And I might add that all this was especially true because she had at least three (3) pinpoint angles in her chart. These can be very powerful indicators.

Wasn’t her $45.80 win mutuel an unbelievable gift from a crowd that is essentially ignorant of racing angles?

We’ll come back to a couple of other horses in this race later.

Boxcar
P.S. In case no one noticed, this was yet another great angles horse who had “low profile” connections.

gpx22jan06-01 F&M 4&Up. 6F main track. SC 18K/16K

[wonatthewire1]

Sorry about being so brief on w/the +2 earlier on this horse...

The explanation that Boxcar gives above is thorough enough, what I noticed was the middle fractions in the last two races: 47.3 to 44.2 is a +3.1 on the seconds, and subtracting the 2 length difference puts the horse at +2.9 seconds. I tend to find that these significant differences give me an edge with longer priced horses that are going to be contentious the next time out. I do use the convential 1 length:1/10 second when looking at these types. Thus, Una Mirim, was a +14 for me (16 "ticks" - 2 lengths).

To answer Das' question earlier about Nepal's Wickedwind > I have the odds on the horse as running between 3-1 and 7-2 which are too low for me to consider with my waging strategies. I did use that horse on top of the saver exacta with the O'Ririn.

[twindouble]

Boxcar;

That was another excellent post but I wish you would dispense with the "angles" to describe what you do. To me it's pure handicapping at it's best. In other words you can't take so many sound handicapping factors and throw them in the realm of angles. Anyway, whatever you call it, it's dam good. Just to let you know, you relinquished your right to all this valuable information and I'm saving it for a future book. :cool:

T.D.

[boxcar]

Boxcar;

That was another excellent post but I wish you would dispense with the "angles" to describe what you do. To me it's pure handicapping at it's best. In other words you can't take so many sound handicapping factors and throw them in the realm of angles.

One question: WHY can't I do that!?

As I've said on other occasions, racing angles are the tools I used to make sense out of those raw "handicapping factors". It's a method of interpretation that accords the user with a unique perspective on race problems, which is precisely why it's able to nab so many viable long shot plays. This is precisely what makes it so "esoteric" -- except to those "initiated" in racing angles. And it's a way to make the raw data comprehensible and digestable.

The methodology is what it is. Period.

Anyway, whatever you call it, it's dam good. Just to let you know, you relinquished your right to all this valuable information and I'm saving it for a future book. :cool:

T.D.

Thank you. I really hope you will benefit from it. As long as you understand that racing angles aren't magic wands that will produce winners on demand. One needs to learn how to properly use them -- how to evaluate them.

Boxcar

[twindouble]

One question: WHY can't I do that!?

As I've said on other occasions, racing angles are the tools I used to make sense out of those raw "handicapping factors". It's a method of interpretation that accords the user with a unique perspective on race problems, which is precisely why it's able to nab so many viable long shot plays. This is precisely what makes it so "esoteric" -- except to those "initiated" in racing angles. And it's a way to make the raw data comprehensible and digestable.

The methodology is what it is. Period.

I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said what ever you call it is fine with me.


Thank you. I really hope you will benefit from it. As long as you understand that racing angles aren't magic wands that will produce winners on demand. One needs to learn how to properly use them -- how to evaluate them.

Boxcar

I've also posted angles can't stand alone but put together with other factors is basic handicapping, I also said you have to knack of expounding on them in way that's clear and understandable. I would like to think I have a clear understanding of the game otherwise I wouldn't be able to recognize a good handicapping when I see one, now would I. Over the years I've done very well on my own thank you. What I am learning from you is one can't just throw out simple answers when an in depth explanation is required and I respect your ability to do that.


T.D.

[boxcar]

I've also posted angles can't stand alone but put together with other factors is basic handicapping, I also said you have to knack of expounding on them in way that's clear and understandable. I would like to think I have a clear understanding of the game otherwise I wouldn't be able to recognize a good handicapping when I see one, now would I. Over the years I've done very well on my own thank you. What I am learning from you is one can't just throw out simple answers when an in depth explanation is required and I respect your ability to do that.

T.D.

Unfortunately, it takes a lot longer to expound on and explicate them in manner that most would be able to understand than it does for experienced users to find them in pp charts and analyze them properly. :)

Boxcar

[twindouble]

Unfortunately, it takes a lot longer to expound on and explicate them in manner that most would be able to understand than it does for experienced users to find them in pp charts and analyze them properly. :)

Boxcar

I would like to a couple more things, it was to late to edit that short pargaph, I meant to say, I can reconize a good handicapper when I see one. :bang:

The other is your quote above, what you said is very true but what I'm beginning to realize by reading your posts are what we as experienced handicappers take as being a unique ability that others lack in processing the information that couldn't be explained. Well, you are gradually dispensing with that idea and doing a good job of it. So in essence your on your way to dispelling another myth. Now, the only question is how many people are serious enough to put it all together remains to be seen.

What still troubles me is the fact you don't indulge anymore, like I said before you've got your reasons but I'll be dammed if I can think of one. :bang:


T.D.

[boxcar]

I would like to a couple more things, it was to late to edit that short pargaph, I meant to say, I can reconize a good handicapper when I see one. :bang:

The other is your quote above, what you said is very true but what I'm beginning to realize by reading your posts are what we as experienced handicappers take as being a unique ability that others lack in processing the information that couldn't be explained. Well, you are gradually dispensing with that idea and doing a good job of it. So in essence your on your way to dispelling another myth. Now, the only question is how many people are serious enough to put it all together remains to be seen.

Ahh...good question that last one. :) My guess is very few.

Many here are already set in their ways. They're comfortable with what they're doing and would be reluctant to leave familiar ground for strange, unexplored territory.

Many others are just "weekend warriors", and probably would be hard-pressed to find the requisite time to study and practice.

These two groups would cover about 99% of everyone here. :)

This would leave a third and very small group who might be aspiring to make turf speculation their vocation. A few out of this group might run with the ball.

What still troubles me is the fact you don't indulge anymore, like I said before you've got your reasons but I'll be dammed if I can think of one. :bang:

T.D.

Nah...you're not troubled as much as you are curious. ;) But I have already addressed this matter -- 'nough said!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Moving right along, in order to wind up this 1st race at GP, it might be a good idea to quickly review the charts of the two horses most heavily bet in this race. Both of them were relatively angle-poor horses, which I avoided like the plague.

Let’s first look at the runner-up in the race who bet down 9/5 and the second betting choice. What did No Badge have going for her that made her so attractive to the public? Not much!

Performance Angles: Front Running (FR) angle, which means the horse has the ability to get out and set the pace by at least the 2C of a race. And this race can be any in the horse’s current chart. This is a very desirable angle to have and we’ll look at this one more closely down the road.

She was an A angle horse who came back in her LR to earn an 18-point lower SR. Not a good sign! The drop of so many points could be an indication that that 2RB took too much out of her.

For your info, she was in a Progressive Regressive, type 2 (PR2) form cycle mode – one fairly common to A angle types. Note her SRs from the 4RB to the 2RB – all ascending, then she came back with a lower SR – but one that would have been too low for my liking.

And to her credit she had the BW2 trainer maneuver angle. The fact that she was “dropping” into a SC today would have suggested that the trainer, perhaps, was going to try to squeeze a win out of her.

She also had another negative angle in her chart, insofar as I would have been concerned. She was claimed last start, which under most circumstances, I considered to be a negative angle. Why? Because a horse in new hands, in a new barn, with a new training regime, with new feed, new handlers, etc., etc. might need some time to adjust to his new surroundings. So, I would have debited this filly with the Claimed Last Start (CLS) angle.

Further, she had an age-class problem. She was a filly going up against a mature mare with lots of good angles in her chart. Therefore, I would have debited her with the Age angle (err..AGE for short).

To her credit, however, she was a very consistent, hard-hitting filly. This is probably the major reason the public liked her so much. That plus her trainer.

Summary: Bad price, short on angles, questionable form, claimed last start, and an age-class problem. Might come back with a good race today, but I wouldn’t have bet her.

Results: She ran a big race to finish right behind Una Mirim to lose by a scant head. She set the pace (as would be expected) right up until the SC – but couldn’t hold the winner who figured to improve the most in this race. A slight bobble in that race by UM, and she might have lost. But still…NB was not worth betting in this race – before the event was run.

In my last post on this race, we’ll look at the 1-1 fav who ran up the track.

Boxcar

gpx22jan06-01 F&M 4&Up. 6F main track. SC 18K/16K.

[boxcar]

Let’s briefly look at one more entrant in this 1st race at GP – the heavy favorite. The hard-hitting, honest Expedite mare was sent off at EVEN money. Excellent horse + excellent connections = low price. The rule of thumb in this game is that if you want to go with the best, you often have to be willing to pay the price.

This is an always dangerous “iron” horse type – an animal who, when fit and entered properly, will turn in one bang-up effort after another.

In terms of performance angles, she’s an F angle horse, having three (3) IMFs in her last three outings. Very consistent and honest mare.. She won her 2RB and 3RB in moderately fast time for the track. Then in her LR, she lost a little ground and a running position (RP) in a race wherein she earned a low EP rating. A very big question mark here. Maybe those two previous wins have taken their toll on her?.

She was also claimed in her LR – in fact, she was claimed out of both of her most recent starts. Therefore, she should be debited with the Claimed Horse Last Start (CHLS) angle. Another negative – even given her excellent trainer.

In short, this was, yet, another angle-poor horse with questionable form and a negative angle. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that she was absolutely no bargain at EVEN money. A quick and easy toss out.

This was the kind of race in which you either went with the strong VP horse or you simply passed the race. That simple in this case.

This mare ran dead last, btw.

Boxcar

gpx22jan06-01 F&M 4&Up. 6F main track. SC 18K/16K.

[RaceIsClosed]

Let’s briefly look at one more entrant in this 1st race at GP – the heavy favorite. The hard-hitting, honest Expedite mare was sent off at EVEN money. Excellent horse + excellent connections = low price. The rule of thumb in this game is that if you want to go with the best, you often have to be willing to pay the price.

This is an always dangerous “iron” horse type – an animal who, when fit and entered properly, will turn in one bang-up effort after another.

In terms of performance angles, she’s an F angle horse, having three (3) IMFs in her last three outings. Very consistent and honest mare.. She won her 2RB and 3RB in moderately fast time for the track. Then in her LR, she lost a little ground and a running position (RP) in a race wherein she earned a low EP rating. A very big question mark here. Maybe those two previous wins have taken their toll on her?.

She was also claimed in her LR – in fact, she was claimed out of both of her most recent starts. Therefore, she should be debited with the Claimed Horse Last Start (CHLS) angle. Another negative – even given her excellent trainer.

In short, this was, yet, another angle-poor horse with questionable form and a negative angle. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that she was absolutely no bargain at EVEN money. A quick and easy toss out.

This was the kind of race in which you either went with the strong VP horse or you simply passed the race. That simple in this case.

This mare ran dead last, btw.

Boxcar

gpx22jan06-01 F&M 4&Up. 6F main track. SC 18K/16K.

I would fully expect this horse to win next time out, quite possibly at 9-5 to 3-1 against some overrated competitor. Wayne Catalano off the claim is rock-solid, and I doubt he bought himself a lemon.

[boxcar]

Any comments on Kaenel's ride on the 2nd fave, the #1 in AQU 9th's today? That was either the best or worst stiff job (depending upon how you look at it). Strangles his horse the entire way to let a 30-1 shot go wire to wire. And oh, the jock happened to "fall off" the fave at the gate in the same race.

No, it's not sour grapes. I don't play the AQU Inn track, I just happened to be flipping past TVG and saw the race. It was so bad, I had to watch the replay on Youbet.

LBM

Laugh, my "only comments" is that Whilestone was a fantastic bet! A fasle long shot, if there ever was one. The public made a huge boo-boo in that race. You just can't get a better play than this.

For those of you who have been closely following this thread, it might be a good idea to go back and re-read some of my previous messages, e.g. 1, 62, 97,98 and 152.

Here were the racing angles in ths gelding's chart, starting with his performance anges: B, ES, PI, UFI, SOS*, BWI, FOT.

(*This is the "Speed on Speed"syndrome angle that is complex and related only to the B angle. Suffice it to say it deals with a LR or workouts wherein a horse demonstrated speed that was in addition to its speed in his 2RB. This "syndrome" is so powerful that I deveoloped a method of play around it that annually would produce some of my biggest win mutuels and exacta payouts!)

Below is the chart.

Boxcar

aqu22jan06-09 C15K-NW2L 4&Up 5.5f

[boxcar]

For some reason, I'm not able to attach it to the previous message, so I'll attach it to this one.

Boxcar

aqu22jan06-09 C15K-NW2L 4&Up 5.5f

[boxcar]

Before moving on to examine the probable effects apsect to the form factor, I wanted to bring the above mentioned horse to everyone's attention. This gelding was another horse with the B/UFI combo in his chart. Please note the high turn of ES in his 2RB. However, in his case, he carried that speed only to the 2C, whereas Whilstone carrried his to the SC in his 2RB. While I consider this latter horse's B angle to be stronger, nonethess OFT's angle is acceptable. Many B types will score even with this slightly weaker variation to this angle -- which bar none has long been my favorite 2RB performance angle due to its subtle nature and, consequently, it's great price-getting potential, generally speaking.

We really haven't studied this angle in detail, but perhaps one day we will. Meanwhile, you should just keep it in mind and condition yourself to look for these kinds of angles.

OFT, finished 3rd in this race, by the way.

Boxcar

[ceejay]

Not trying to redboard (I used him on my ficticous P4 Ridersup contest play) but I thought Whilestone was live. I liked the improvement cutting back to 6F last out. Also liked the 20%-- 4/20-- hit rate for the trainer with 3 and out including 2 > 20-1 for an overall 6% man.

The loose horse providing a moving pick didn't hurt either.

[toetoe]

:ThmbUp:

I'm glad for you ceejay. Once in a while, the shot catches a break. I know I was scarred when my Finger Lakes ship-in longshot, Phantom G (?) was run down by a mediocrity that wasn't close to long enough odds, as well as when my 43/1 key Too Drunk To Call was stalked and passed by an apparent need-the-lead chalkball. The pick-four needed a four-figure payout to spice things up, though Buddha's $922-bucker yesterday was very nice, and with no boxcar bombers.

[gurutoyou]

Boxcar,

I have just been looking back at some of the weeks races to find the LW angle that you first brought to my attention and I noticed a few things at Turfway Park on Saturday January 22nd. First of all I do not have any PP's to look at but I did see the entrie's from Equibase and noticed that there were quite a few races that had horses running at different weights for whatever reasons. I found three 2nd place finishers(races 2,3 and 4) and then I found four winners in the next 5 races including a 68-1 fillie that came from the back to win, paying $138.40. The race is the 9th...and the horse is #2 INTERNATIONAL GAL (30-1 ML). She ran at 117 lbs. Others at 122lbs. It was a Maiden/Claiming for 3YO fillies. Claiming price $15,000-$10,000 1Mile. International Gal ran at 117 lbs. and a claiming price of $10,000 and others ran at 122 lbs. with a claiming price at $15,000. Would this be the kind of race you are trying to explain here?

Also, in the same race there is another fillie that that went at 119 lbs. but was a scratch #11 MIDNIGHT(12-1 ML) listed to Claim at $12,000. Would you try to find out about this horse's next race to see if there is any additional weight taken off or am I just blowing "dixie" in the wind? Is Turfway a good surface to run on? Or is there some kind of bias that only lighter weight horse fair well there? I have many more questions but I am trying to "Not" sound like I am "Not" a guru...to you. LOL.:blush:

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

I have just been looking back at some of the weeks races to find the LW angle that you first brought to my attention and I noticed a few things at Turfway Park on Saturday January 22nd. First of all I do not have any PP's to look at but I did see the entrie's from Equibase and noticed that there were quite a few races that had horses running at different weights for whatever reasons. I found three 2nd place finishers(races 2,3 and 4) and then I found four winners in the next 5 races including a 68-1 fillie that came from the back to win, paying $138.40. The race is the 9th...and the horse is #2 INTERNATIONAL GAL (30-1 ML). She ran at 117 lbs. Others at 122lbs. It was a Maiden/Claiming for 3YO fillies. Claiming price $15,000-$10,000 1Mile. International Gal ran at 117 lbs. and a claiming price of $10,000 and others ran at 122 lbs. with a claiming price at $15,000. Would this be the kind of race you are trying to explain here?

Also, in the same race there is another fillie that that went at 119 lbs. but was a scratch #11 MIDNIGHT(12-1 ML) listed to Claim at $12,000. Would you try to find out about this horse's next race to see if there is any additional weight taken off or am I just blowing "dixie" in the wind? Is Turfway a good surface to run on? Or is there some kind of bias that only lighter weight horse fair well there? I have many more questions but I am trying to "Not" sound like I am "Not" a guru...to you. LOL.:blush:


Are you saying that International Gal's lowest weight in her current chart was 117? Seems like a pretty high impost, although it could be possible that it was the lowest. Also, was she dropped in class or price last start?
You need to get your hands on pp charts for that day. Only in those charts (as opposed to result charts) will you be able to find these answers.

I was never aware of any biases at any tracks I used to play. Never took them into consideration. Never. I let the trainer and jock worry about how a track would play out on a given day.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Beginning with this post, I’d like to begin a series of discussions on the most difficult aspect to the Form Factor – which is evaluating the probable effects of horses’ recent good efforts in terms of how those races will most likely impact their performances today. Will those bang-up efforts tend to further their then good form or will they tend to detract from their form today? Any player who is entertaining the idea of becoming a serious student of form (which is the most important handicapping factor) must develop a high degree of proficiency and expertise in making these kinds of determinations, if he or she ever hopes to find reasonable answers to that most fundamentally important handicapping question that should be brought to bear upon every single race problem.

In the interest of brevity, and because we’ve now reached a point, in these discussions on this thread, where every seriously interested reader should now “gird up the loins of your mind” (to borrow a biblical phrase) beginning with committing to memory all the racing angles we’ve discussed thus far. From now on, I will simply refer to them in my little shorthand notations. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s because you haven’t done your homework – something that I cannot do for anyone here.

We’ll begin now by looking at two negative angles. The first is the Hard Race Last Start (HRLS) angle and the other is the Best Effort (BE) angle. At first blush it might appear that I’m violating one of my own handicapping tenets by “splitting hairs”, which I have repeatedly stated is never a good practice, since handicapping isn’t a scientific exercise. But the fact is that a horse can be debited with one angle, while not necessarily qualifying on the other.

Best Effort Angle

This is a simple angle to understand. Whenever a horse in his LR has earned his best SR in his current chart when either winning the race or clearly trying to win it, he should be debited with this angle. This doesn’t always mean, however, that such an angle horse should always be automatically eliminated. We might find good reason to retain him – and actually even bet him! But nonetheless, just to keep my angles “ledger” straight, I always debited a horse with the angle whenever he qualified on the raw SR data.

Generally speaking, any horse who won or finished within 3.5 lengths of the winner and earned its best SR in that race should be debited with this angle.

Hard Race Last Start Angle

This angle is a little bit harder to evaluate because it basically deals with the manner in which a horse’s recent bang-up races were run. In my “Introduction to Form”, I listed, as one of the primary determinants for evaluating probable effects of good races, the element of “duration of pressure”. This element to form evaluation deals primarily with the distance in which a horse either set or pressed the pace. Generally speaking, the closer up to the pace a horse ran, the tougher his race probably was. And any horse who runs to within 3.5 lengths of the leader for at least the first three calls should be considered a pacepresser. Of course, any horse who was leading at these points of call should be considered the pacesetter.

Additionally, the longer the distance in which the horse was pressured (for either type of runner), the harder the race probably was, generally speaking. This is so because the horse expended more of his energy. The more energy he expended in that last good recent effort or so, the less he might have today to get the job done.

So much for the general principles involved. Hopefully, all of this will become clearer to everyone with the study of several real-life examples from time to time, as we apply these principles. Ray Taulbot was a huge student of form and a very well-informed one. In his unpublished lessons he devoted more time to expounding on this particular aspect of the Form Factor than he did with any other handicapping aspect. Looking back, I can readily understand why. He didn’t want his students to fall into the public’s “one race too late” trap. “Hot Form Horses”, who lure bettors into in this trap, burn up an awful lot of the public’s money day in, day out – all because the crowd doesn’t know how to properly evaluate form. Conversely, those “in the know” consistently reap the rewards of the public’s ignorance.

Please look with me at the chart of Proud Prospect a 3 y.o. filly who was sent off as the lukewarm fav at 5/2 at GP in the 4th on 15Jan06.

The first thing we notice is that she was an F angle filly. She was a speedball of sorts, also – having the FR angle in her chart (see her 10Sep05 race).

Her form cycle mode: PR2, starting with the SR in her 4RB. From this race to her 2RB she was in PR mode, then came back to earn a much higher LR.SR – in the best in her current chart by approximately 3 points, according to her next best effort run back on 22Aug05 at CRC.. This higher rating put her into PR2 mode. Not a bad form cycle mode, in and of itself.

Her LR.SR qualifies her on the negative BE angle. Now we must also determine if that LR was a real toughie.

In terms of speed, it was! First, she was clearly trying to win that race. Any horse who had the lead at the SC was trying to win – most especially in her case, since she seized the lead by the 1C. This filly was not a “saved horse”. No jockey in his right mind would ease back on an animal that had the lead going into the stretch. She lost plenty of ground (5.5 lengths) by the time she reached the FC – and could only manage to
garner the show portion of the purse. Her very high SR coupled with the “duration of pressure” element probably would combine today to detract from her then great current form. I would have most definitely debited her with the HRLS angle, also.

And in the absence of any evidence (such as workout angles) that would suggest that she’d be ready to run big again today, she would have been a very easy toss out. This is one gal to which I wouldn’t have given a second look.

What did the crowd see in her to bet her down to favored status? Got me. She finished somewhere in the middle of the pack – well beaten.

Boxcar

gpx15jan06-04 C-30K- 25KN2L 3 y.o. F, 6F m.t.

[boxcar]

I forgot to mention this: Don't be fooled by this filly's trainer manevuer angles, i.e. BW2 and DD. Or by her LC pinpoint angle.

It looks like the trainer could be going with her today, doesn't it? But so what, if he is? Many times a trainer will try to squeeze a little bit more juice out of his lemon -- but don't fall into temptation. :) Even when this is the case, it's perfectly fine to disagree with the trainer. It's perfectly legit to exercise your own judgment -- to make your own informed opinions. To be your own person. And for those of you who will do what it takes to become proficent in this aspect of your handicapping -- your personal, informed opinion will often put the uninformed public's to shame.

It's not all that unusual to see a horse like this with decent trainer maneuver angles in its chart. But don't get sucked into the trap when everything in such a horse's chart says the animal will likely regress today off its recent good efforts.

In retrospect, perhaps it was these very angles that led the crowd to bet her down to 5/2.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Below is a chart taken from...(I ain't sayin') :) What I'd like to know is if any of you based on what you have learned, thus far, would bet this filly or not? Yes or no. And WHY? (Based on what you've learned thus far, of course.) I'd like to see if anyone has been catching anything I've been saying.

The only other two things I'll say is that she was entered right back at the same class level as her LR, and her PTO was 10-1.

No fair peeking at the result charts, btw. Ten demerits for cheatin' :)

Boxcar

[wonatthewire1]

gurutoyou,

This is a tough horse to come up with because she is a FTS from a trainer with no record (05-06) and a sire with only one runner (more on this in a sec).

Secondly, the 5 horse, Right Time Matty (3-1) and the 8, Sassy Skipper (11-1) are both carrying the same weight or slightly less.

The sire is Lord Chairman, and is 1-1 over the 12 months so he is probably not going to have that much information on him. But an interesting fact for International Gal is that the trainer was the breeder and the owner, while the horse is a WA bred in KY. The only other piece of interesting information on this filly's connections was that the trainer changed jockey prior to the race from the printed program (Laurente to Richard Bracho) and the move was to a higher percentage jock.

You'd probably have to be standing right next to Dana Smith and have overheard that the horse was ready to get this one!

[boxcar]

gurutoyou,

This is a tough horse to come up with because she is a FTS from a trainer with no record (05-06) and a sire with only one runner (more on this in a sec).

Secondly, the 5 horse, Right Time Matty (3-1) and the 8, Sassy Skipper (11-1) are both carrying the same weight or slightly less.

The sire is Lord Chairman, and is 1-1 over the 12 months so he is probably not going to have that much information on him. But an interesting fact for International Gal is that the trainer was the breeder and the owner, while the horse is a WA bred in KY. The only other piece of interesting information on this filly's connections was that the trainer changed jockey prior to the race from the printed program (Laurente to Richard Bracho) and the move was to a higher percentage jock.

You'd probably have to be standing right next to Dana Smith and have overheard that the horse was ready to get this one!


And in addition to all this, the horse wasn't the only to who broke her maiden, Dana Smith did too on her the very first horse that she ever sent out! Probably a lot of celebratin' ensued after that.

The breeder/owner angle suggests that this filly was highly regarded.

Boxcar

[dastar]

Gurutoyou,

In checking back on this FTS, there is one little bit of info, that may have alerted you to play this horse.

The trainer has a 40% Win rate with First time starters!!!

Just to let you know.


Dastar

[dastar]

Guruto you,

I also neglected another small piece to this FST.

The race was at one mile & She was bred for running routes.

Hindsight, is 20 20, and I had 7 or so cards downloaded Sunday, but Never even looked at Turfway!


Dastar

[dastar]

Boxcar,

First of all, the second off a layoff angle would be a strong +.

Early speed to SC, on first after layoff, shows trainer did not want to push her.

E8 is best of all E's

Like the Breezing WO at Churchill.
Certainly doesn't hurt to have the jockey back up who knows her, and won 1st race with her.

I like the fact, she has an outside post, similar to her previous good race.
Last, but certainly Not least, Keenland is ranked as #1 track, compared to a lesser ranked TP.

Couple that with 25M Open Claiming which is considered double over the 15M at TP.

And while she did Not win at Keenland, she ran a strong race to the SC, against much better company.

Now, if the race is 5&1/2 panels or 6 max, she would have to be considered a strong contender, but that certainly depends on who she is running against, and their running styles.

If she goes off at 2-1 or less, I would hope she goes 6&1/2 furlongs, so I would most likely think she was out today for a strong tuneup, for the most powerful 3rd, off a layoff, and then back to 5&1/2 to 6 panels.


Dastar

[boxcar]

Gurutoyou,

In checking back on this FTS, there is one little bit of info, that may have alerted you to play this horse.

The trainer has a 40% Win rate with First time starters!!!

Just to let you know.


Dastar

That's interesting. The TSN pp chart has Smith sporting goose eggs straight across her stat line and no data for '05! How did you come up with 40%? Are we looking at the same horse? :confused:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

First of all, the second off a layoff angle would be a strong +.

Early speed to SC, on first after layoff, shows trainer did not want to push her.

E8 is best of all E's

Like the Breezing WO at Churchill.
Certainly doesn't hurt to have the jockey back up who knows her, and won 1st race with her.

I like the fact, she has an outside post, similar to her previous good race.
Last, but certainly Not least, Keenland is ranked as #1 track, compared to a lesser ranked TP.

Couple that with 25M Open Claiming which is considered double over the 15M at TP.

And while she did Not win at Keenland, she ran a strong race to the SC, against much better company.

Now, if the race is 5&1/2 panels or 6 max, she would have to be considered a strong contender, but that certainly depends on who she is running against, and their running styles.

If she goes off at 2-1 or less, I would hope she goes 6&1/2 furlongs, so I would most likely think she was out today for a strong tuneup, for the most powerful 3rd, off a layoff, and then back to 5&1/2 to 6 panels.


Dastar

Her Post Time Odds were 10-1. This is what I meant by "PTO". And the distance was 5.5f on the m.t. I take it, then, you would have considered her a stong contender?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

And, btw, how did you know all this stuff, dastar, without peekin? :) Jock? Post, etc.? And the jock up on her did not win with her previously. (One of us needs to change data vendors.) :D

Boxcar

[dastar]

Boxcar,

40% win rate with First Time Starters.
Triple checked this.


Dastar

[dastar]

Boxcar,

On the little attachment you showed us:

It says #8, I take that to be her post today.

Next to SPD and to the immediate right side, PP: Shows she was starting from the previous posts in decending order 7 7 6.

2 races back: Jose German Castenon rode her AND FINISHED 8th, so that is my eyes mistakenly seeing the small print thinking it was Castenon.

What is very interesting, Castenon rode her in Keenland, and I take it the race today is TP, but I do not know, as I have not even tried to find out what the race date is.

One other piece of info that shows me intentions to some degree:
The horse broke quicker from the gate in her 2nd and 3rd races, and even though she took the lead in her last out, it is quite possible, they wanted to conserve some of her energy, as I previously mentioned: The trainer did not want to push her, especially at so young and inexperienced as she is.

By the way, you picked a very interesting horse to show us all.

Got to get me some bifocals though.


Dastar

[toetoe]

I would bet Dancin Judy, IF she had a work or were coming right back (14 days, e.g.) AND the track were not Turfway, home of the tightfisted track mgmt.'s best friend, Astrodirt.

[toetoe]

Dastar,

What relevance can a workout, breezing or otherwise, have if the horse has subsequently raced? :confused:

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

On the little attachment you showed us:

It says #8, I take that to be her post today.

Next to SPD and to the immediate right side, PP: Shows she was starting from the previous posts in decending order 7 7 6.

2 races back: Jose German Castenon rode her AND FINISHED 8th, so that is my eyes mistakenly seeing the small print thinking it was Castenon.

What is very interesting, Castenon rode her in Keenland, and I take it the race today is TP, but I do not know, as I have not even tried to find out what the race date is.

One other piece of info that shows me intentions to some degree:
The horse broke quicker from the gate in her 2nd and 3rd races, and even though she took the lead in her last out, it is quite possible, they wanted to conserve some of her energy, as I previously mentioned: The trainer did not want to push her, especially at so young and inexperienced as she is.

By the way, you picked a very interesting horse to show us all.

Got to get me some bifocals though.


Dastar

:D That goes for both of us! This is one the reasons why my data vendor of choice, in terms pp data formatting and reading ease, was ITS back when I was playing . But you can't beat the el cheapo price on these TSN .pdf files -- which, frankly, I didn't even know existed until my Canadian buddy sent me that race file to show me the long shot he bet.

This horse should be "interesting" because we've already have seen very recently two like her in the cases of one angle, a couple of more in the case of another, and with respect to another -- several horses already!

So, now that you know what the distance was and what her odds were, what sayest thou?

Boxcar

[dastar]

Boxcar,

Answer to your other post regarding the test:
Yes! I label her a strong contender, but as I stated, need to see the others.

If you can, look at the 2nd race PHA today the 24th.

#12 wins 40-1!

This one really stumped me.

Seems, to me whenever a horse runs its most previous races at Meadowlands and or Monmouth, I find it more difficult a race to handicap, then a horse coming from PN or FL or even SUF.

I am not sure, but because the MED & MON are faster surfaces, it throws off my comparing to PHA.

The only thing I can possitively make of her past races is:

Meadowlands is a very slight 2 point differential rated Grade 2 track, compared to the also rated Grade 2 PHA.

Other than that, her 16M down to 14M price, because it is statebred is certainly not that helpful.

In fact, out of the 11 starters (#3 scratched), I did not have this #12 among my 5 contenders!

Probably, the major factor I missed was, the race had plenty of speed, but this horse was a P6.

Cozy Fannie shot from the gate and easily got the lead to wire the field!

Hope you see something I missed.

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

Answer to your other post regarding the test:
Yes! I label her a strong contender, but as I stated, need to see the others.

If you can, look at the 2nd race PHA today the 24th.

#12 wins 40-1!

This one really stumped me.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Nothing personal, dastar. :D :D

But come on. Please! Don't you see any similarities between Cozzie Fannie's recent races and Dancin Judi's? Or how about, to a slightly lesser extent, between the bomb who won at GP on 1//2 (Una Mirim)?

Boxcar

[dastar]

Boxcar,

I will grant you now, I have Cozy Fannie as my third pick, but how can you not say the #11 and a lesser extent the #4 do not have a similar shot at todays race?

Regardless that the 4 ran second, my key was the 11, but I am still looking closely to see why the 12 would be your pick.

The 11 horse led in the stretch,by 2&1/2 at 6 panels last out, and today they go 5&1/2: That is a strong contender, and an angle I have seen get many good hits with.

I believe now, because the odds on 11 were bet down, to I believe 3-1 or so, the next out with the 11 could be very strong contender.

In addition, I saw the last race with both the 11 and 12 in it.

Rapid River won that race from well off the pace, and I believe Raid River was a FTS!

I guess the 11 ran a harder race and the 12, Cozy Fannie, was just out for the conditioner.

Dastar

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

I will grant you now, I have Cozy Fannie as my third pick, but how can you not say the #11 and a lesser extent the #4 do not have a similar shot at todays race?

Regardless that the 4 ran second, my key was the 11, but I am still looking closely to see why the 12 would be your pick.

A few things: First, you’re entitled to your opinion, humble or otherwise. I didn’t start this thread to debate selections. In this game, one man’s poison is another’s meat.

Furthermore, you’re operating under some assumption that I wouldn’t have backed more than one horse in this race – even though many times in the past I have stated that I routinely would bet more than one contender in a race, providing the prices on them were sufficiently high so that I could realize my minimum acceptable net return on my race investment. I never said that you couldn’t bet this one or that one in this particular race that we’re currently discussing. All I basically said was that Cozy Fannie was very betable in this race. Nothing more, nothing less.

And thirdly, the fact that you’re still scratching your head over the results of this race and my previous short remarks about CF tells me clearly that you haven’t paid very close attention to many (if indeed any) of my posts, most especially the more recent ones that dealt with the very racing angles that are in CF’s chart! Perhaps these angles might ring a bell with you: HW, B, UFI, SOS, FH. (Technically, she qualified on the ES angle in her LR, but because of the loss of positions and lengths between the 2C and SC, I view her race as being more of "workout" to the 2C.) The B and UFI angles I’ve discussed a little more than the others. The SOS angle was mentioned very briefly recently (msg #163 on 1/23), and is a mysterious speed phenomenon involving only B angle horses, whereby the angle horse either through one or more recent workouts or in his LR demonstrated speed that was in addition to his 2RB speed. CF qualifies on this very powerful, yet unexplained and mysterious phenomenon due to the HW angle in her LR. (In fact, sir, the $62.00 bomb Whilstone who ran at aqu22jan06-09 had this SOS angle – see msg #163 and 164 of 1/23). I really don’t know, sir, how much more recent we can get.

I also wrote recently that the B angle was my favorite 2RB performance angle, and that this angle is so good, in terms of its price-getting potential, that I developed a complex method of play around and the SOS angle it that year in and year out – without fail – it would provide me with very fat, healthy returns.

And, finally, on the very same date in msg. #165, I wrote:

Before moving on to examine the probable effects aspect to the form factor, I wanted to bring the above mentioned horse to everyone's attention. This gelding was another horse with the B/UFI combo in his chart. Please note the high turn of ES in his 2RB. However, in his case, he carried that speed only to the 2C, whereas Whilstone carrried his to the SC in his 2RB. While I consider this latter horse's B angle to be stronger, nonetheless OFT's angle is acceptable. Many B types will score even with this slightly weaker variation to this angle -- which bar none has long been my favorite 2RB performance angle due to its subtle nature and, consequently, it's great price-getting potential, generally speaking.

We really haven't studied this angle in detail, but perhaps one day we will. Meanwhile, you should just keep it in mind and condition yourself to look for these kinds of angles.

Dastar, did not Cozy Fannie have this “weaker” variation of the B angle in her chart yesterday – one day after I made the above remarks?

I certainly don’t wish to appear rude, but there are a few people here who seem interested in learning what I know. (And if there's anything at all that I know about this game, it is the "stuff" out of which viable long shots plays are made.) For their sake and benefit, therefore, I can only respectfully say to you that it’s time to lead, follow or get out of the way, so that I don’t have to waste valuable time (mine and everyone else’s) rehashing past material. And thus far, anyway, it appears that just about everyone got it. You’ve been the only one asking “why?”.

When I get a chance, I’ll review for your benefit (if interested) and everyone else's the horses you liked. I can tell you right now, however, that I would not have bet the 4 horse with Chinese money! And the 11 horse had an Age-Class deficit.

For the sake of all the other readers here, I will attach the chart of this bomb who scored yesterday in case you’re interested in studying her chart.

Boxcar

P.S. This horse was trained by another “low profile” trainer.

pha24jan06-02, FMC- 8k to 7k, F&M 4&Up, 5.5f m.t.

[Richie]

Thanks again for all the great info, one quick question. When turf races are mingled in the chart within the last 4RB, how do you handle them? I'm using all your angles to play Sam Houston late Friday nite and I'm really having fun going thru the last 4 races.

Richie

[GaryG]

If I may interject regarding turf races, every race a horse runs has an effect on his form, for better or worse. Many trainers will use a turfer as a stamina builder and then "crack down" going 7f. Good luck Richie. :ThmbUp:

[rmania]

...
If you can, look at the 2nd race PHA today the 24th.

#12 wins 40-1!

This one really stumped me.
Let me suggest a more simple approach which would have led you to Cozy Fannie.

If you would have just selected the horse that (based on its last race) should have the lead at the quarter pole you would have selected #12 Cozy Fannie.

In fact, had you used this same approach in every sprint race you would have done quite well.

Here’s a list of those horse which fell into the above category and how they finished...

Race 1 #1 Madera Canyon (1st $11.20)
Race 2 #12 Cozy Fannie (1st $89.40)
Race 3 #2 Wisecrack (1st $4.40)
Race 5 #7 Devils Right Hand (3rd)
Race 6 #10 Smilin Riley (1st $13.80)
Race 7 #7 Sing D Song (Out)
Race 8 #4 Dixie Strut (Out)
Race 9 #6 Good and Crafty (1st $12.80)
Race 10 #4 Late Breaking News (1st $11.40)

[dastar]

Boxcar,

Later in the night, or should I say early AM 3 EST:

With a clearer head, I looked at what you wrote, and your best angles, and I Really see what you are saying. In a much more profound understanding than before, I Definitely find your methods coming into focus, much more than before.

To give a small 10 to twenty second synopsis, of why this took me longer than some other serious students of the game is: I have always been conditioned and taught to look for closing horses, as a matter of fact, a winner of over $300,000 for one year in the early 1980's, showed me what to look for back then in terms of closers, and that has always been my mindset, and unfortunately, it takes time to teach an older dog new tricks.

When I read your many articles and insightful posts, it went so much against my grain from past years, and that is something I know I will overcome.

What is interesting is, when I lived in Florida, when cold eastern winters set in, I made very good money playing the dog races in Hollywood,FLA.
And definitely then, I knew how to play those animals, and it was very much prevalent on early speed, and which dogs would be most likely to run into each other.

I am not the most patient man on earth and with a little more stubborness than most, it takes time to get through my thick skull.

Back to your angles, and their values of investment worth, I definitely am starting to see, my past handicapping ways were backwards.

With your examples, which I am constantly referring to with other past racing cards, and the methods you use to put the process into "live" motion, it is gradually getting to my brain.

By the way, I was not commenting that you would only pick one horse or any other number, I was only referring to the #12 Cozy Fannie, which at that said time in my world, I had a tougher time seeing.

Thanks for your posts, back and forth with me, and sometimes a teacher has to go to lengths to get the student to grasp in full what they are teaching.

Boxcar, and to others who have helped.:)

Thanks so much,

Dastar

[dastar]

Toetoe,

Is is in how they are interpreted:

Rule of thumb is: Closeup and taxing race, where the trainer needs to test his horse before the next race, he may well run him in a workout, as workouts after a race tend to keep the horse sharp.

Sometimes a workout can tip the trainers intentions.
Use to be and may still be: When a horse stabled at Phila Park and had a workout at FAI (Fairgrounds)that would be a helpful tip as FAI was a very slow training surface and many horses won their next race.

Don't hold me to this now, but I remember this certainly helped 20 years ago.

The time of a workout is not always a key element, but the recency between the workouts is important, and the distance of a workout has merit.

There are other more expert workout specialist handicappers who can add much more than I know.

Hope this clarifies a little for you.

Dastar

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

Later in the night, or should I say early AM 3 EST:

With a clearer head, I looked at what you wrote, and your best angles, and I Really see what you are saying. In a much more profound understanding than before, I Definitely find your methods coming into focus, much more than before.

To give a small 10 to twenty second synopsis, of why this took me longer than some other serious students of the game is: I have always been conditioned and taught to look for closing horses, as a matter of fact, a winner of over $300,000 for one year in the early 1980's, showed me what to look for back then in terms of closers, and that has always been my mindset, and unfortunately, it takes time to teach an older dog new tricks.

When I read your many articles and insightful posts, it went so much against my grain from past years, and that is something I know I will overcome.

What is interesting is, when I lived in Florida, when cold eastern winters set in, I made very good money playing the dog races in Hollywood,FLA.
And definitely then, I knew how to play those animals, and it was very much prevalent on early speed, and which dogs would be most likely to run into each other.

I am not the most patient man on earth and with a little more stubborness than most, it takes time to get through my thick skull.

Back to your angles, and their values of investment worth, I definitely am starting to see, my past handicapping ways were backwards.

With your examples, which I am constantly referring to with other past racing cards, and the methods you use to put the process into "live" motion, it is gradually getting to my brain.

By the way, I was not commenting that you would only pick one horse or any other number, I was only referring to the #12 Cozy Fannie, which at that said time in my world, I had a tougher time seeing.

Thanks for your posts, back and forth with me, and sometimes a teacher has to go to lengths to get the student to grasp in full what they are teaching.

Boxcar, and to others who have helped.:)

Thanks so much,

Dastar

Dastar, and I apologize if I seemed impatient or rude to you. This methodology is not light reading. Some angles are complex. Others are tricky to evaluate properly. Some angles require the presence of others to really click (e.g. the B/SOS combo.), etc. And...the entire methodology goes against the grain of conventional wisdom. This is why you're having a problem appropriating the principles, and the angles for your own. People get set in their ways. We’re all creature of habits, and it’s tough to break those habits – most especially when many of the things we do were taught to us by turf “gurus” or “experts”, which many of us admire and respect to some extent.
It’s very, very tough to make a clean break from the “old” in order to embrace the “new” – even though the racing angles I have used are anything but new. (Another paradox to this methodology.)

My suggestion to you and everyone else here, though, who may be seriously considering making that break is to take it slowly. Study and practice until it hurts. Observe. Study horse’s charts. Study result charts. Try to determine why this long shot won, or why that one won. (It might interest you to know that I studied intently for nearly three years before I placed my first wager, and I was studying this stuff full time!)

Print these posts out, if so inclined. Read them over and over and over. This procedure coupled with what I just above will ingrain these racing angles into your whole being – into your subconscious even. After awhile, you’ll find yourself automatically and quickly (as you gain speed over time) looking for very specific things in horses’ pp charts. You eyes will be able to see several things at once. In short, these racing angles will become second nature to you if you follow my advice.

Again, I hope you’ll be able to benefit from my posts.

Take care,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

I wish to briefly look at one the fillies in the pha24jan06-02 race that Dastar liked – Queens Folly. But first, I’ll give everyone one more positive angle to add to your arsenal, if so inclined. This angle has to do with a “layoff” horse, and I call this kind of horse: Fresh Horse (FH).

To qualify, a horse must have been laid off for a minimum of 30 days between his 2RB and LR; however, the layoff should not exceed more than 60 days. The reason for this is because anything more than 60 days could indicate that the horse has been recuperating from some ailment or physical problem.

I have “shaded” this angle (-FH) whenever the rest period is less than 30 days but more than 24 days between the LR and 2RB.

I have also shaded this angle (-FH) whenever the rest period of 30 to 60 days or so is between the 2RB and 3RB.

This is an opportune time to share this angle with everyone since QF has the -FH angle in her chart, having had a 29-day vacation between her last two outings. However, in her case, I would not have considered the presence of this angle to be of any great value to her because she had two tough races back-to-back. Even so…she did run a big race yesterday to finish only 1.25 lengths behind Cozy Fannie. That little rest period between her last two outings probably accounted largely for that bang-up effort. That time off was enough to “recharge her batteries”.

However, I would not have included her in my betting strategy in this race, which means I wouldn’t have collected on the exacta. Here is why: I would have felt that her last two great efforts would have combined to take something out of her.

In her 2RB, she earned her highest SR in a moderately fast pace. Then she came back to earn her second best rating in her LR – but in a faster pace. The 2-point differential between the two races would have qualified her on the Nearly Best Effort (NBE) angle. To qualify on this negative angle (generally speaking) a horse in his LR must have run to within three points of his best SR in his current chart.

The next thing we should notice about this filly is that she was trying to win both of her last two outings. In her 2RB, she had a very slight lead at the SC, then fell back some to garner the place money. In her LR, she gained quite a bit of ground from the 2C to the SC, but then faded to finish 4th, while earning a slightly lower SR in a faster early paced race. I have to believe that the reason she faded in her LR was due to her previous hard race.

Additionally, QF has an Age-Class problem, also. She’s a 4 y.o. facing at least one dangerous 5 y.o. mare.

Again, I know that sometimes these kinds of horses can come back to run another big race today, as was indeed the case with QF – but I wouldn’t have bet her – even at her 10-1 odds. Why? Because I would not have considered her to be the most likely candidate to demonstrate the most improvement in the race. Therefore, I would have most certainly tossed her.

Below is her chart.

Boxcar

pha24jan06-02, FMC- 8k to 7k, F&M 4&Up, 5.5f m.t.

[boxcar]

Thanks again for all the great info, one quick question. When turf races are mingled in the chart within the last 4RB, how do you handle them? I'm using all your angles to play Sam Houston late Friday nite and I'm really having fun going thru the last 4 races.

Richie

A mixture of turf and dirt races are fine with respect to these racing angles and form cycle modes.

I wish you the best when your play SH -- but as I just advised Dastar, it would be prudent to take it slowly. These angles aren't for "fast food" consumption.
:)

Boxcar

[twindouble]

+Boxcar;

This will make sense to you I'm sure. I mentioned this in passing in another post, handicapping is work but it also intails many other things but this one covers some of what your attempting to get accross. It's one thing to handicap a race, wager on it win or lose but it's a mistake not to take note of the those winning or losing conditions. Why did you win, why did you lose? To me your handicapping of that race doesn't end when the race is over. Any handicapper that gets beat should automatically want to know why so it's inportant to go back, see what you missed and beyond if it's not in the form. The result is seeing things others didn't bother with, you call them angles that produce long shots, that's OK I just call it darn good handicapping as I said two or three times.

It all boils down to how much information your willing to part with when it comes to your own handicapping that puts you above the average player and how much anyone one person can absorb at once and get it right. I was never one to put on classes for handicappers, not that I didn't part with some knowledge when the timing was right. For example a buddy would ask, "how did you come up with that horse," first thing I would say is, go back and look and you tell me or if the reason was I got it off the charts at the end of the day I would go to the trunk of my car, pull out the chart and show him the what I saw. In most cases they didn't kown how to read them or what to look for, others got on the bandwagon but not many.

[boxcar]

+Boxcar;

This will make sense to you I'm sure. I mentioned this in passing in another post, handicapping is work but it also intails many other things but this one covers some of what your attempting to get accross. It's one thing to handicap a race, wager on it win or lose but it's a mistake not to take note of the those winning or losing conditions. Why did you win, why did you lose? To me your handicapping of that race doesn't end when the race is over. Any handicapper that gets beat should automatically want to know why so it's inportant to go back, see what you missed and beyond if it's not in the form. The result is seeing things others didn't bother with, you call them angles that produce long shots, that's OK I just call it darn good handicapping as I said two or three times.

It's always a good idea to go back and see why you lost a race. I always did that just to see if I missed anything within the framework of my approach. Sometimes I would catch an error I made. But the vast majority of the time the losses could be attributed to nothing more than an "upset". For example, maybe some angle-poor horse beat me. Or maybe some horse who really didn't figure to improve much today did. Or maybe a "question mark" horse (for whatever reason) beat out my selection that wasn't questionable -- in my humble, informed opinion, of course. :) Or maybe it was just a chaotic-type race and I bet the three best priced contenders in it, while eliminating the one with the lower price; but this latter horse beat me. Or maybe I just got beat by poor racing luck. All these kinds of things and many more occurred regularly enough to guarantee that I'd alway select more losers than winners over the long haul.

You see...there's lots and lots of ways one can lose races, and very often (especially in the case of a top-notch player), it will have nothing to do with his handicapping -- but everything to do with the kinds of things metioned above -- everything to do with the vicissitudes that are naturally inherent to the game. This is why I always considered turf speculation to be a high risk venture and why I knew from the very beginning that I had to get good prices on my winners. So...I started researching good-priced winners (i.e. long shots). Seemed like the logical place to start with my homework.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Either that or just about everyone here figured out that Dancin Judi (in msg #172) would have been a very betable filly due to the subject content of the recent messages coupled with what DJ's chart looked like -- just bristlin' with great angles -- so many that her VP was ready to explode.

For those of you who didn't peek this event was run at tpx22jan06-07 and this little filly wired her field to win easily and rewarded her backers with a very generous $23.60 mutuel. Unbelievable price, considering all her great racing angles: BA, B, HW, FH, FR, SOS, UFI, DCLS, Y, FOT.

The only angle in this bunch that no one would be familiar with is the Y pinpoint angle which is a weight-related angle that has to do with her DCLS trainer maneuver angle.

See...beating the tar out of this game isn't so difficult once you know what to look for in horses' pp charts.

For those of you who are following along closely, it would be a good exercise to now go back and see if you can spot all the above angles in her chart.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Since the pha24jan06 card had another B angle winner on it in the 10th, I‘ll just list Late Breaking News’s angles and attach her chart below.

Angles: BB3, B, HW, SOS, FR, BW2, LC

(The BB3 angle I’ve alluded to in a previous post, but we haven’t discussed this one yet. It’s a 3RB combination angle.)

Because she was dropped so sharply in today’s race, her win mutuel suffered accordingly, and she paid a paltry $11.40, despite her dismal appearing form.

Down the road, we’ll study this B angle in depth because it’s truly worthy of our close attention due to its great price-getting capabilities. (Well…usually anyway.)

Boxcar

pha24jan06-10 C-5K, F&M 4&Up, 7f m.t.

[twindouble]

It's always a good idea to go back and see why you lost a race. I always did that just to see if I missed anything within the framework of my approach. Sometimes I would catch an error I made. But the vast majority of the time the losses could be attributed to nothing more than an "upset". For example, maybe some angle-poor horse beat me. Or maybe some horse who really didn't figure to improve much today did. Or maybe a "question mark" horse (for whatever reason) beat out my selection that wasn't questionable -- in my humble, informed opinion, of course. :) Or maybe it was just a chaotic-type race and I bet the three best priced contenders in it, while eliminating the one with the lower price; but this latter horse beat me. Or maybe I just got beat by poor racing luck. All these kinds of things and many more occurred regularly enough to guarantee that I'd alway select more losers than winners over the long haul.

You see...there's lots and lots of ways one can lose races, and very often (especially in the case of a top-notch player), it will have nothing to do with his handicapping -- but everything to do with the kinds of things metioned above -- everything to do with the vicissitudes :confused: that are naturally inherent to the game. This is why I always considered turf speculation to be a high risk venture and why I knew from the very beginning that I had to get good prices on my winners. So...I started researching good-priced winners (i.e. long shots). Seemed like the logical place to start with my homework.

Boxcar

I think somewhere in this tread I mentioned looking for value is as old as the game, goes without saying. When a good handicapper gets beat his responce isn't that his bankroll took a wack, it's more to do with his compitive nature plus his drive to get it right within reason, taking into account most of what you said in this post. The latter is very inportant in my opinion because it sets the stage for the right frame of mind so you don't over react and go plunging for things that just aren't there. You have to keep a cool head and an open mind. Not directing my comments to you, just to add something to the thread.

I'll add just one more thing, we all talk about why we think a horse will win but it's just as important to me to tell why others won't win so when someone says to me, "that horse doesn't have a shot", my response is, tell me why.

T.D.

[boxcar]

I think somewhere in this tread I mentioned looking for value is as old as the game, goes without saying.

But how many people have looked in the places I have? :) How many people have asked, for example, why do long shots win, generally. What's the "stuff" out of which most long shot winners are made? Not, why did this particular long shot upset me in this particular race? Not that one can't learn valuable things from asking this kind of question. But my investigation was exceedingly broader. It cast a very large net over numerous long shot winners over a long period of time. Of course, such a broad inquiry raised a large subset of other related questions, also. And one of the real benefits to this kind of study was that I grew to understand the public's strengths and weaknesses. (It's good to know your "enemy". :) )

And you're absolutely right about having to understand why horses lose. I knew going into my study that I'd have to search for answers as to why most long shots lose. (This is how I came to develop my negative angles.) It was a huge undertaking -- all done, incidentally, before PCs were a gleam in anyone's eye. All my painstaking research was done by hand.

Boxcar

[JackS]

Teach yourself to be suspicious of all favorites, after all, they do lose 2 out of 3 times statistically.
Personally, the only time I play the favorite is when I think he can't lose or that he is reasonably priced at low odds that I can accept(weak favorite).
BTW- My estimation on horses that can't lose do lose about half the time. Knowing this, I will accept odds 1-1 or above and always a part of an exoctic wager.

[Buzz]

Hi Boxcar,



I have been following your thread from the start but have been unable to reply due to some difficulties in the bbs registration and posting process.

I have been doing my homework and realized early on that your insights are the result of a lot of dedication to the game and an unyielding focus to get to the bottom of things.

I have been trying to look to “cause and effect” as I filter through a race using the angles that you have described.

Primarily, how is this horse coming into form and why?

My question is this. If the horse is the cause and the angle is the effect, what is the cause that is affecting the horse to win?

I think that it is important to understand this underlying piece to the puzzle because everytime a B Angle appears in the PP’s doesn’t mean that the horse is going to win.

It only means that its winning characteristics are beginning to be expressed. This also means that an angle rich horse has a lot of credibility.


Thanks,

Buzz

[wononce]

thank you for sharing ,.you have made me look at pp lines


much differantly than in the past. keep it up please.!!!!
wononce

[First_Place]

Boxcar wrote:

"It's always a good idea to go back and see why you lost a race."

I've been doing that for the longest time and have gained many new insights as a result. Glad to know that I share the same modus operandi as (someone as experienced like) you my friend.

"You see...there's lots and lots of ways one can lose races, and very often (especially in the case of a top-notch player), it will have nothing to do with his handicapping..."

Yes indeed. That's why I specialize (and make my money) on exotic wagers. Easier said than done (at first). Your Win horse can easily lose by a nose, head, neck, half-length, etc.

To each his own however.

All the best.

FP

p.s. Boxcar, thanks again for the continuing education. Your hard-earned insights are worth their weight in gold. Keep it comin'!

[rmania]

Had you referred to my earlier post and used my “simple angle” at Santa Anita today you would have scored one winner and two place horses in 3 sprint races. And that one winner paid $71.60. :eek:

[boxcar]

thank you for sharing ,.you have made me look at pp lines


much differantly than in the past. keep it up please.!!!!
wononce

Different is very good! Always remember: Distance yourself from conventional wisdom, as much you can.

Hope my posts help you.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hi Boxcar,



I have been following your thread from the start but have been unable to reply due to some difficulties in the bbs registration and posting process.

I have been doing my homework and realized early on that your insights are the result of a lot of dedication to the game and an unyielding focus to get to the bottom of things.

I have been trying to look to “cause and effect” as I filter through a race using the angles that you have described.

Primarily, how is this horse coming into form and why?

My question is this. If the horse is the cause and the angle is the effect, what is the cause that is affecting the horse to win?

I think that it is important to understand this underlying piece to the puzzle because everytime a B Angle appears in the PP’s doesn’t mean that the horse is going to win.

It only means that its winning characteristics are beginning to be expressed. This also means that an angle rich horse has a lot of credibility.


Thanks,

Buzz

Actually, you ask a very good question. But when you stop to think about it for a moment, how do we usually refer to a horse's form -- or perhaps I should ask, how do all Form aficionadoes view Form -- through what "prism"? Isn't it in the prism of cycles, that is to say, form cycles?

So, in one sense there is a cycle of cause and effect. But we should understand that Figs (speed and pace) plus racing angles are merely tools that we use to translate a horse's form cycle into some understandable expression (hopefully :) ). These are tools that simply express a horse's current form cycle. The figs a horse runs to and the manner in which he runs to those figs are entirely the horse's own doing. He is the "cause". Now, how he ran + how fast he ran in the recent past will certainly influence how he will likely run today.

Hopefully, I can make this a little bit clearer to you in my next post when I attach a chart of a bomb who won today at TPX because he has good angles and figs.

Boxcar

[Buzz]

Boxcar,

Thanks for the insight.

I am looking forward to your next handicapping example and application.

In the meantime I gotta get my vocabulary and abbreviations up to par.

<G>

Buzz

[boxcar]

I’ve talked about how often I would "shade" my racing angles. Even my program is able to express shaded angles with the "-" sign. Why did I go to all the trouble to do this? Because of the importance of capturing the essence of any given angle, it was always necessary to make certain an angle be interpreted according to its "spirit" as opposed to merely its "letter". This was especially true with performance angles, although when I did my "class mapping" for my program (which was the most difficult task of all), I also wanted to try to capture the essence of price-class maneuvers by the spirit of the rules as opposed to only the letter of them. (Recall my remarks earlier about how generally I considered non-claiming events to be "superior" to claiming ones? This was so even in cases sometimes when the former type might have been a restricted race and the latter an open event.)

TPX26JAN06-09 offers two excellent examples of why getting to the “ultimate nature” of racing angles is so very important. And…why splitting hairs in this game will frequently be financially counterproductive. For those of you are following these discussions, it would be a good idea to get your hands on this particular card. (You just can’t beat TSN’s 50 cents-a pop price per card. Such a deal. )

Please look at the chart of the 12 horse Perfectly Legal. If you cover up his last two outings and pretend they aren’t there for a moment, what kind of angle horse do we have going into his 11DEC05 race? A angle, correct? Now he came back on this date and won a huge race – earning his best SR and best LP rating. Now…don’t let his narrow nk victory fool you. That race was not a hard effort. Why? Because he did all his real running in the last furlong of the race! He came on like a runaway freight train and steamrolled over his opponents, gaining a little more than 2.5 lengths in the stretch run. The fact that this race didn’t take too much out of him is borne out by the SR he earned in his next race. He came back with only a 6-point lower SR.

Starting with his 4RB, let’s look at his SR pattern: 59-51-68-62. He just “exploded” as a previous A angle horse, didn’t he? I think Sheeters would call this a “new top” (but I stand to be corrected.) So, on raw numbers he’s in a BUFI form cycle mode – except he won his 2RB -- he wasn’t beaten. Right here is where common sense must kick in.

Suppose he had lost that 2RB and finished 2nd beaten by ank. Then he would have qualified perfectly on the BUFI form cycle mode and the BBA performance angle. Given the fact that he’s sharp, has an excellent SR pattern , has the best late kick by far of any other entrant in the race, dropped only 6 points in LR.SR off his previous bang-up race, doesn’t it make sense to credit him with the –BBA angle? Doesn’t his form cycle mode (which we have looked at previously) indicate that he’s probably ready to run another big race today? His PTO = 30-1.

But there were other bona fide contenders in this race. The Grey Fella (4) was sent off as the 2-1 fave. I love LR maiden winners who have his LR performance angle (P-G-L), but that was all he had going for him. That and a high LR.SR. Yes, he won big but on an overall slow pace. His LP was much lower than the 12’s. Could improve further today, but in the absence of more angles and his low price he was an easy toss out.

The next sharp contender was Drew’s Delight (7), who I would have credited with the –F angle because he ran a good 2RB to finish 4th beaten only 5.25 – while passing 6 horses from the 1C to the FC and gaining over 3 lengths I the process, and while passing 3 of those horses in the stretch run and gaining 1 of those 3 lengths. Again, common sense should prevail. If this horse had finished 3rd, wouldn’t we have credited him with the full blow version of the F angle?

This animal was also in an excellent form cycle – the PI mode (note carefully his last three ascending SRs.) And none of his last three races were hard, not even his LR wherein he ran to a 70 SR duplicating the rating that he earned back 06NOV04.

Also, he has an Age-Class edge over the 12. However, he most certainly doesn’t possess the closing kick of this younger horse! No where near it. His PTO = 7/2.

The next contender Thenardier (2) is in a UFI form cycle mode. Note pattern of his last three SRs.

And…wouldn’t you know, this is another excellent example of why it’s prudent and wise to shade racing angles. Look at his 3RB. What if he had finished 3rd beaten by 2.25 lengths? Would we not have credited him with the BA angle?

So, in addition to his -BA, he also had a LR performance angle, i.e. ES technically. But again, since he fell back so sharply after he reached the 2C, I would have considered his LR to have been a conditioner wherein he was given a stiff 6f workout.

He, too, is a 4 y.o., but his pace figs are modest, which somewhat detracts from his LR.SR. But even so…he’s sharp and very likely to improve off his LR and his current form cycle mode. PTO = 13-1.

So, there you have it. How would I have bet this race? I would have gone with the 12 and 2 straight because their odds justified two straight bets. And then I would have boxed these two with the 7. Results: the 12 won and paid a very generous $62.00. The sharp 2 was right behind him and completed a very juicy $703.60 X. And the 7 took the show slot and completed an unbelievable $5,742.60. (No, I didn’t do tris, but toward the end of my career I was giving serious consideration to betting them.)

I will post the charts of the three main contenders in this race.

Boxcar

tpx26jan06-09 C-5KN2L, 4&Up, 1 MI m.t.

[boxcar]

tpx26jan06-09 C-5KN2L, 4&Up, 1 MI m.t.

[boxcar]

tpx26jan06-09 C-5KN2L, 4&Up, 1 MI m.t.

[rmania]

So, has anyone tried to apply my previously posted “simple angle”?
I didn’t think so.
Too simple, right!
Well, had you used it on today’s sprint races at Santa Anita you would have done quite well.
Below are the races, the horse in each that ran the fastest first ½ mile in their last race, and how the horse did today.

Race 2
#4 She’s Stormin (2nd) :rolleyes:

Race 3
#11 Add Heat (1st $92.20) :eek:

Race 5
#3 Pearls ‘n’ Satin (Out) :blush:

Race 7
#7 Exquisite Beauty (1st $7.20) ;)

Race 8
#1 Margeds Delred (1st $12.40) :jump:

[boxcar]

So, has anyone tried to apply my previously posted “simple angle”?
I didn’t think so.
Too simple, right!
Well, had you used it on today’s sprint races at Santa Anita you would have done quite well.
Below are the races, the horse in each that ran the fastest first ½ mile in their last race, and how the horse did today.

Race 2
#4 She’s Stormin (2nd) :rolleyes:

Race 3
#11 Add Heat (1st $92.20) :eek:

Race 5
#3 Pearls ‘n’ Satin (Out) :blush:

Race 7
#7 Exquisite Beauty (1st $7.20) ;)

Race 8
#1 Margeds Delred (1st $12.40) :jump:


The 11 in the 3rd would have been quite betable with my methodology. He had the B/BX combo, which is quite strong – and one which I have discussed previously.

The others I wouldn't have bet because they were chalk.

Re the 1 in the 8th, how did you come up with her since her E1 rating isn’t as high as the 3’s or the 8’s? (In fact this latter filly’s EP figs were considerably higher than the 1’s.)

I’m a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle, and try to implement it when I can. The reason my approach is more complex is because I wanted to catch as many big fish as possible no matter which pond they were in. I wanted to nab my share of long shot winners on the turf and in routes in addition to the sprints. And I also expected to catch my fair share of nice paying exactas. The extra work was well worth the big paychecks.

You seem to be a sprint specialist. I knew another fella online who was one also. And I also knew a turf specialist. That was all he played. He wouldn’t think of doing dirt. And I think I mentioned previously that one of my students went on to become a maiden race specialist. Since you appear to be a sprint specialist, you probably wouldn’t have had Tioga Junction in the 4th at SA today who paid $38.60. This gelding had excellent long shot angles in his chart – most of which I’ve already shared on this thread, e.g. BW1, UC, improved LR.SR over previous race, UFI form cycle mode, BB (Beaten B angle which is the only we haven’t looked at). This was the case of a very sharp sprinter stretching out to 8f today. I loved these kind of scenarios because often the sprinter would get on the lead and literally steal the race. Today was a little different, though, because there was another speedball in with him; but nonetheless TJ pressed the pace and took command at the SC to win easily going away. There was every reason to believe that this horse’s trainer was going to shoot the works today with this very sharp animal.

Take care, and the best to you with your “simple approach”.

Boxcar

[Buzz]

Hi Boxcar,



Thanks for expanding my conception of form and special thanks for the prism analogy. I realized that I have been thinking primarily about positive form and glossing over the negative side of the cycle. I think that is because I never associated negative form with picking winners, which was a big flaw on my part.



I went back and reviewed your angle definitions and now appreciate how you review the entire form cycle of each horse when you evaluate a race. Each horse is its own entity and is somewhere in its own form cycle. It sounds simple and obvious until you realize how much effort is required to look at the negative side of the cycle. Until I came across your thread the negative side of the form cycle was just a big black hole.



And I think the look to the negative side of the form cycle is what the public does least. That’s why a BUFI pays so much more than a favorite.



The other thing that I realized is that I don’t have a clear formula for some of the angles. I have read this thread top to bottom many times, taken a lot of notes and still have a bit of confusion to clear up.



Listed below are some of the definitions that I think I may have “half” right. Would you look them over and add a “thumbs up” and/or some corrections where necessary. I know where to look in the thread for the theory but need to know what to look for in pacelines.



Your definitions and examples are clear enough; however, sometimes my gray cells don’t clang loud enough and I miss the point. Some people tell me it’s due to age. Personally I think it has more to do with the “miles”. <LOL>



A Angle:

Today

LR was non-taxing race

LR.OMF

2RB.IMF

2RB.DATE<=60 days from Today’s race



BA Beaten A Angle

Today

LR FP<1

2RB.OMF

3RB.IMF



-BA Shaded version of BA (This is a bit advanced and I am going to explore it once I know the simpler ones better.)



BBA or Beaten BA Angle (This one escapes me totally and I would like to know more.)





B Angle

Today

LR.OMF

2RB.IMF



BB3 (I need help with this one. You refer to it as a 3RB combination angle.)





Most of the rest of the material I have a good “intellectual” grasp on. And I can use it to handicap with.



Thanks for sharing your experiences and I look forward to your comments.



Buzz

[rmania]

The 11 in the 3rd would have been quite betable with my methodology. He had the B/BX combo, which is quite strong – and one which I have discussed previously.
My question is how many of the other six double-digit longshots in that race would have been betable? Probably three and if so could you have singled out the 11?
The others I wouldn't have bet because they were chalk.
I’m not sure what your definition of “chalk” is since none of the five horses listed went off favored.
Re the 1 in the 8th, how did you come up with her since her E1 rating isn’t as high as the 3’s or the 8’s? (In fact this latter filly’s EP figs were considerably higher than the 1’s.)
Fortunately, I don’t prescribe to the ratings you’re referring to. If your “EP figs” on the 8 horse were considerably higher than the 1 it’s probably because the 8 was running downhill in her last race.
I’m a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle, and try to implement it when I can. The reason my approach is more complex is because I wanted to catch as many big fish as possible no matter which pond they were in.
First of all I’m not familiar with the K.I.S.S principle. I don’t spend a lot of time reading about other handicapping methods. As for your “big fish” desire, this “K.I.S.S principle” (as you call it) just landed a couple of whoppers on back-to-back days in a pond small enough to be absorbed with a paper towel.

[Tom]

KISS =

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
Not horse racing in origin - don't make things too complicated

[boxcar]

My question is how many of the other six double-digit longshots in that race would have been betable? Probably three and if so could you have singled out the 11?

Why do you say three? And which three? And now you're saying "could" I have singled him out. Well...that's a fair question. Probably not if I wasn't wearing my glasses. And maybe not again if I failed run the race file through my program. Or maybe I would have since I've written previously about the B and BX angles, and even explained the rationale behind this latter combination angle.

But to answer your question: There wasn't really anything else in the race. By this I mean: All the other entrants were angle-poor. (This, too, I wrote about previously.) And I would never bet these kinds of horses.

I’m not sure what your definition of “chalk” is since none of the five horses listed went off favored.

To me any horse under 3-1 was "chalk" because I so rarely bet any of these. In fact any horse under 10-1 was "chalkish", comparitively speaking, of course. I mean...everythig is relative.

Fortunately, I don’t prescribe to the ratings you’re referring to. If your “EP figs” on the 8 horse were considerably higher than the 1 it’s probably because the 8 was running downhill in her last race.

Ahh...well, those el cheapo TSN figs may be markedly inferior. But according to them, the 8 horse must have been dropped off a cliff! (But that other entrant with better figs may have only been skating downhill.) Unfortunately for us unwashed masses, though, it appears that in your "simple approach" you omitted an important piece of info with respect to just what figs we should all be using to cash in on those "simple" bonanzas. Mind sharing with us what numbers you use?

First of all I’m not familiar with the K.I.S.S principle. I don’t spend a lot of time reading about other handicapping methods.

Don't have to spend time reading about other 'capping methods. The K.I.S.S. principle is universal and can apply and has been applied to many different endeavors.

As for your “big fish” desire, this “K.I.S.S principle” (as you call it) just landed a couple of whoppers on back-to-back days in a pond small enough to be absorbed with a paper towel.

Since this is the case, according to you, it speaks very well to my methodology. After all, the goal of the approach is to catch big fish. The size of the pond is insignificant. And if those big fish were in such small ponds,it made catching them easy, didn't it? Then my metholdology would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel, wouldn't it? In fact, sir, that's precisely what it does in the hands of an experienced user.

Boxcar

[dastar]

Rmania,

Regarding how you pick with your K I S S.

In the 3rd at Santa Anita, amongst a bunch of first time starters:
The #11 Add Heat did have the best Early Speed Rating for 2 calls, but that was on a Wet Fast surface. E1 E2 was 180 rating total.

Can't argue with that result though.

In the 8th, I believe the way you arrived on this horse #1 Margeds Delred, was because he Did have the best 2 Early Speed numbers (181 total) in the most recent race of all the entrants.

The #8 Irish Mafia has superior figures as Boxcar noted, also, the #9 Rebellious had better ES in August 2005, but since the #8 last raced in March 2005, I am guessing this is how you arrived at your figures.

In my humble opinion, we would all do ourselves justice to study and learn what Boxcar has so willingly showed us. Not saying to discard your K I S S system, but to incorporate Boxcars Angles as well.

Good luck

Dastar

[boxcar]

Hi Boxcar,



Thanks for expanding my conception of form and special thanks for the prism analogy. I realized that I have been thinking primarily about positive form and glossing over the negative side of the cycle. I think that is because I never associated negative form with picking winners, which was a big flaw on my part.



I went back and reviewed your angle definitions and now appreciate how you review the entire form cycle of each horse when you evaluate a race. Each horse is its own entity and is somewhere in its own form cycle. It sounds simple and obvious until you realize how much effort is required to look at the negative side of the cycle. Until I came across your thread the negative side of the form cycle was just a big black hole.



And I think the look to the negative side of the form cycle is what the public does least. That’s why a BUFI pays so much more than a favorite.



The other thing that I realized is that I don’t have a clear formula for some of the angles. I have read this thread top to bottom many times, taken a lot of notes and still have a bit of confusion to clear up.



Listed below are some of the definitions that I think I may have “half” right. Would you look them over and add a “thumbs up” and/or some corrections where necessary. I know where to look in the thread for the theory but need to know what to look for in pacelines.



Your definitions and examples are clear enough; however, sometimes my gray cells don’t clang loud enough and I miss the point. Some people tell me it’s due to age. Personally I think it has more to do with the “miles”. <LOL>



A Angle:

Today

LR was non-taxing race

LR.OMF

2RB.IMF

2RB.DATE<=60 days from Today’s race

This is correct. The "essence" of the A angle is that a horse had a 2RB.IMF, then a subsequent easy race in its last outing - usually an OMF. Of course, like many of my angles, this one, too, can be "shaded". I'll get into this later, as we advance. But let me give you one quick example. Suppose in his LR a horse lost ground betweee the 2C and FC, and his FP (Finish Position) was 3rd and his BL (Beaten Lengths) were 8. Technically, he doesn't qualify on the angle because of LR.IMF. But again...the essence of the angle is as stated above; therefore, such a horse (in this example) did have an easy race. And it would be foolish to not credit him with the angle, since he qualifies according to the "spirit" of it, especially since chances were good in that race that he finished in the money only because tired horses were backing up to him. (I came across a good example of this on one of yesterday's card, and when I find it again, I'll post the chart of the horse. It involved a B angle winner, but nonetheless the principle stands.)



BA Beaten A Angle

Today

LR FP<1

2RB.OMF

3RB.IMF

As the name of the angle suggests (i.e. "beaten"), this kind of horse was an A angle horse who failed to win his LR. That is to say, that prior to his LR he was an A angle horse. His losing LR now makes him a BA horse.



-BA Shaded version of BA (This is a bit advanced and I am going to explore it once I know the simpler ones better.)

Again, I'll have to write some guiding parameters forthe various "shaded" angles to help you with this. This is quite a bit of work, believe it or not. (Brings back memories when I had to do all this stuff for my programmer, and it all had to be technically correct.)

BBA or Beaten BA Angle (This one escapes me totally and I would like to know more.)

All this angle does is take the above one (the BA) a step further. This angle involves a horse who prior to his LR was a BA type. He became a BBA type when he lost his LR. I've posted charts of these kinds of horses, so it might help to read and have the charts of these angle horses in front of you.

B Angle

Today

LR.OMF

2RB.IMF



[b]BB3 (I need help with this one. You refer to it as a 3RB combination angle.)

This is a combination angle, which I'll get into later. It has to do with the lengths off the leader at the SC in a horse's 3RB and how a trainer has entered his horse in terms of price/class today relative to that 3RB. It's a great long shot angle, but one that occurs, unfortunately, only infrequently.

Again, take it slow. Go back and read the parameters and have the example pp charts before you. The two together should help.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Rmania,

Regarding how you pick with your K I S S.

In the 3rd at Santa Anita, amongst a bunch of first time starters:
The #11 Add Heat did have the best Early Speed Rating for 2 calls, but that was on a Wet Fast surface. E1 E2 was 180 rating total.

Can't argue with that result though.

In the 8th, I believe the way you arrived on this horse #1 Margeds Delred, was because he Did have the best 2 Early Speed numbers (181 total) in the most recent race of all the entrants.

The #8 Irish Mafia has superior figures as Boxcar noted, also, the #9 Rebellious had better ES in August 2005, but since the #8 last raced in March 2005, I am guessing this is how you arrived at your figures.

But even so....when you combine the #8's EP figs, you come up with fig whopper of 194 compared to the 1's 181 -- a significant difference. Maybe there's a LR date rule that Rmania didn't tell us about?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

For those of you following these discussions, you may want to get your hands on the sax28jan06 card of races. I've been waiting to see a horse with a few workout angles in his chart, and I've finally found one. This way, I can save some valuable time and discuss three angles and show them all with one horse.

As most of you know, every now and again the topic of workouts gets recycled, and then regurgitated, and then rehashed :) , so perhaps the little study we'll have in the near future will help strip away some of the myths, misconceptions, and misunderstandings that seem to abound with this particular subject. As we'll see, there are times when raw workout times are important. And then there are times when workout patterns are important. And then there are other times when workouts are used for test purposes relative to recent races when a trainer is gertting ready to crack down.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I’d like to go back to the sax27jan06 card to review more closely the two races
wherein long shots scored. There are two reasons I want to do this: a) I detected a tone of incredulity in Rmania’s last post with respect to Add Heat when I said this horse was “betable” (according to my methodology, of course); b) but far more important than this, I hope I’ll be able to drive home a point that will be of utmost importance to anyone who is contemplating using this methodology. In fact, the point is so important that it’s one of my very few hard ‘n’ fast rules that I always abided by, and consequently I always tried to impress it’s significance upon the minds of my students, as well. It’s one of those rules that should be etched in stone. But first let’s briefly revisit the 3 rd race wherein the above mentioned colt was entered.

Add Heat didn’t have many angles, but the few he had were far more than the angle-poor entrants running against him; and the few he had gave him a decent VP (Validation Principle, in case anyone forgot). In my opinion, he wasn’t a “fantastic” bet – certainly compared to some other examples we have seen in this thread – but he did have good things going for him that no one else in the race had! But even more importantly, his chart contains long shot angles – not a slew of them, like some other horses we have seen, but nonetheless they were there!

Here are this colt’s angles: B, -FC, -SOS, BX, UC, FO.

The only heretofore unmentioned angle in this mix is the First Call (FC) LR performance angle. It’s the weakest of the performance angles because the only requirement is that a horse had to have run to within 3.5 lengths of the leader at the 1C of the race, and then fade back thereafter and finish out of the money. Technically, AH didn’t even fully qualify on this angle because he 3.75 lengths off the leader at the FC. However, I would have credited him (at least mentally) with this angle simply because he was in the 5th position at the FC, which means there were at least 5 horses bunched up at that point. Perhaps the chart maker didn’t get it exactly right. It’s tough to be precise beyond the 3rd or 4th horse back. He could have been even farther behind the leader, or maybe he was slightly closer.

Another important reason I would have credited him is because if the trainer’s intention was to merely give his colt a 3f workout within his LR, and assuming that that 3f was run in 36 seconds (which by every indication it was unless he slowed down to take a break), and if that kind of speed had been demonstrated in a real workout (showing in his workout line, that is) either just before or just after his LR, then this colt would have been a bona fide, true-blue, full-blown SOS angle horse.

But some more general facts on the FC angle: This angle is a little stronger in route races because the 1C in most routes is at the ½ mi. pole. So, when a horse has a running line similar to AH’s, we have to figure that the horse was given at least a decent ½ mi. workout – or possibly even 5f workout, since the next call is at the ¾ pole.

The FC angle takes on added strength when the Switch in Distance (SD) angle is in a horse’s chart, especially when a sprinter was entered in a route event in his LR and, of course, is switching back today to a route distance.

So, what we’re looking here in AH’s situation is a weak FC angle. No question about it.
Therefore, this being the case, we’re also looking at a weak SOS angle. The best we can say about AH’s manner of running to the 1C was that perhaps he was given a 3f workout, and then faded back by the time he reached the 2C.

However, what wasn’t weak was his B angle because he carried his early speed in the 2RB right up to the SC. A good, strong angle.

The next good angle he had in his chart (and this would have really caught my eye due to the presence of the B angle) was the combination angle – the BX. I wrote a little about this angle a week ago in message #152 in the context of another bomb Una Mirim. At that time I stated:

The next thing we notice about this trainer is that he bumped his horse up in class last start off a “poor” race. He bumped her up from an OC16K event to a OC25K event. This maneuver is called the BX angle – for lack of a better designation. The “B” is because this trainer maneuver is often found with B angle horses, and when this is the case it strengthens this performance angle. The “X” part is because a horse’s last two outings must look “poor” – certainly must have been OMFs.

Whenever we see this maneuver, we should ask ourselves: Why is the trainer bumping his horse up in class off of a poor race and dropping her today?. More often than not, by the way, this maneuver will also be found with the BW-2 or the generally weaker DC (Drop in Class) angle. And when the horse has good things going for it, in terms of current form, then there can only be one reasonable answer to this question. So, things are looking pretty decent for this mare in the TI dept., also – but we’re not done yet – not by a long shot (bad pun intended).

About 95% of the time, a BX horse will either be dropping in class today or be entered back at the same level. Believe it or not, the former maneuver strengthens the BX because that will usually tip the selector off that the trainer is now satisfied with how the horse came out of his LR, and now he’s going to shoot with him today. In cases, however, when the horse isn’t dropping today, these types tend to pay off very big – more so, generally, than the class/price drop-downs. It’s rare that a BX horse will be bumped up today, as was the case with AH – moving up from a restricted race to an open event.

But lest I get ahead of myself, someone may be wondering if AH even moved “up” last start. I addressed this very issue just a couple of days ago in message #212. But I’ll elaborate a little further. The reason I “shaded” price-class maneuvers was because frequently trainers will bump their horses up in price or class to protect them from being claimed when they’re being raced into condition. Conversely, trainers will frequently drop their horses in price or class when they’re ready to go for the roses. They’re willing to risk losing their horse in such cases because they’ll collect purse money and possibly a nice bet – all of which will more than offset the loss of the animal if he should get claimed. (This latter is especially true in the case of long shots.)

But slick betting trainers also have another way of protecting their horses from claims during training races: They’ll enter them in non-claiming, cheap restricted races, or even optional claimers wherein they’re not entered to be claimed. This is precisely why I went to great trouble to “shade” these price-class maneuvers.

AH was maneuvered in this very fashion off her 2RB. She went from a MC75K race to a sMDN44K. We must, then, ask the same question: Why the bump “up” off a “bad” race? What is the trainer doing with this colt? Why is he really bumping her “up” today into an openMDN44K race?

I believe the answer to these kinds of questions can be found in the FO pinpoint angle. Please look carefully at the big odds drop in her 3RB off her 4RB. She was bet down to 10-1 off of her previous race wherein her PTO were 24-1. Now way back in msg. #94 when I gave everyone the FO Method of Play, I stated therein that I didn’t go back beyond the 3RB for this angle. In other words, the angle horse would have had to be bet down sharply in one of his last two races. But that rule was in the context of a method of play, which is a lot different from a stand-alone angle. Why is this? Because a single angle needs the support of other angles – and these can be any large number of combinations of angles. Whereas with a selection method, the “rules” are far more restrictive by design, otherwise the method would be too complex and cumbersome for easy and quick selection purposes. With the FO angle itself, outside of selection method, it’s perfectly acceptable to go back to the 4RB, meaning a horse could be bet down sharply in any of its last three races. The reason for this is that sometimes it will take a trainer three races to get it right instead of one or even two, as apparently was the case with AH. He gave his colt two conditioning races after the 3RB, and then today cracked down and got it right. But in no case whatsoever did I ever go back beyond the 4RB with this particular angle.

To sum up then – this colt had no fewer than six (6) long shot angles in his chart. Some were weaker than we’d like to see – but nonetheless they were there. And we see that the stable might have dropped a bet on their colt. And as stated previously, when a stable is out “for revenge”, don’t be too surprised when its horse shows little or no evidence of support in the betting today, since the stable must recoup it losses. Quite often these angle horses will go off at much longer prices than they did in the races wherein they were “bet down”.

Therefore, since we have these long shot angles, then all we have to do next is find out if the price is right. The price was certainly long on AH, wasn’t it? So…we have long shot angles + long price – the [rhetorical] question now becomes: What to do?

We’ll take up the next race in the next post.

Boxcar

sax27jan06-03 MDN-44K,. 3YO, 6.5f, t.c. downhill, Added Heat - $92.20

[dav4463]

You know this thread is more interesting than many of the handicapping books I've shelled out big money to read !

[grahors]

More interesting and more profitable!!

[rmania]

Rmania,

Regarding how you pick with your K I S S.
First of all it was Boxcar that dubbed this the “K.I.S.S” method. That OK though, I kinda like it.
In the 3rd at Santa Anita, amongst a bunch of first time starters:
The #11 Add Heat did have the best Early Speed Rating for 2 calls, but that was on a Wet Fast surface. E1 E2 was 180 rating total.

Can't argue with that result though.
#11 recorded a faster first ½ mile in his last race than the competition did in their last race. This was accomplished on a fast track (not wet fast). Also note that out of 12 starters only 4 were making their debut.
In the 8th, I believe the way you arrived on this horse #1 Margeds Delred, was because he Did have the best 2 Early Speed numbers (181 total) in the most recent race of all the entrants.

The #8 Irish Mafia has superior figures as Boxcar noted, also, the #9 Rebellious had better ES in August 2005, but since the #8 last raced in March 2005, I am guessing this is how you arrived at your figures.
Again, #8s last race was run D O W N H I L L. As a handicapper, if you fail to make an adjustment for this... well!

Here’s another example where K.I.S.S. can be profitable:

Yesterday I posted a longshot pick on the Selections board (something that I have yet to see Boxcar do). I gave out the #3 horse in the 7th race. Unfortunately she finished 4th but she did complete the superfecta.

Looking back at that race there were 3 horses (within a length of each other) that turned the fastest ½ mile in their last race. The actual order was #3, #5, & #4 . These 3 (compared to last races of the remaining entries) ran a minimum of 8 lengths faster than the rest of the field.. Looking at the final times of each horse’s last race the actual order was #5, #3, #6, & #4.

Yesterday’s 7th race finished like this:

1st - #5 (1.30 – 1)
2nd - #6 (4.40 –1)
3rd - #4 (39.70 –1)
4th - #3 (20.20-1)

The $1 tri paid $154,70 and the $1 super paid $1,281.40

[boxcar]

Yesterday I posted a longshot pick on the Selections board (something that I have yet to see Boxcar do).

Okay...this sez it all. Hey, Rmania, are you a DL spy sent over here to spy on our liberty? :D

Tell me, please, what part of "retirement", don't you understand? And why do you feel the need to have to issue a not-so-thinly veiled challenge? Is your ego on steroids? Or is your self-esteem feeling a little low these days? In fact, I'm compelled to ask you, sir, why do you even read this thread, since you boasted that you don't read handicapping material? And that is what this thread has evolved into -- going from a few relatively simple methods of play to my full-blown methodology, which a few people seem to be enjoying and finding informative.

Have you considered joining moveon.org? ;)

Boxcar
P.S. Perhaps before you take your leave, though, (if that's what you should decide to do) you'd be kind enough to share your magic formula with everyone for adjusting for downhill races -- providing, of course, it's simple.

[boxcar]

I’m going to approach the sax27jan06-04 race a little bit differently. I’ll try a different analytical format that I hope will make the angles and the various form cycle modes of Tioga Junction easier to understand. This horse’s current form was very dynamic in nature. We’re about to see (hopefully), how his angles evolved and how a horse cycles through his form. His racing angles really do “animate” this particular horse’s current chart.

But first, let’s list his positive angles: -BBA, BB, UFI, FH, BWI, UC

What we’re going to do now is work our way through his last four outings to see how we arrived at these performance angles and form cycle mode. And we’ll do this by working our way up to his LR.

• 4RB – 63 SR: He ran a good race back, finishing 4th and beaten only 3.5 lengths in a 6f sprint. That race was relatively easy. He gained 2 RPs and a little over 2 lengths from the 1C to the FC. Then his trainer gives this relatively lightly-raced maiden about a 6-week vacation. And doesn’t bring him back to race again until 13Nov05, which bring us to that race.

• 3RB – 70 SR: His trainer switched distances here and entered him in an 8.5f race while bumping him way up in class to the 50K level off of his above race which was at the 20K level. At this point he became a UFI horse. Why? Because we should rightly credit the animal with the -A angle due to his above race. Would he not have been credited with this angle if he had finished 3rd in that race? And from a BL standpoint, is that 4RB any worse than his LR effort!? Also, at this point in time he would have been credited with the HW angle due to his early speed which he carried to the 2C in this race.. So, at this point in time we have a -A/HW/UFI horse. (Notice what happened to his odds in this race compared to his price in the 4RB off of the bump-up!)

• 2RB – 65 SR: So, while TJ was really sharp coming into this race, for some reason he failed to fire. The trainer also bumped him again into non-claiming restricted race. Maybe this horse was a head case, or maybe the trainer thought simply he needed additional racing experience – as opposed to more conditioning, for example. In this race, he was switched back to a sprint event (which completed the SD angle). And he ran in a fashion similar to how Add Heat ran in the race we just analyzed. That is to say, he qualified on the FC angle at this point due to this high turn of ES to the 1C. So…at this point in time, TJ had these angles going for him: -BA, B, -FC, -SOS, BUFI, SD, UC. (Again, the reason I would have credited him with the –SOS angle is because we really don’t know how far he carried his ES in this race. He could have carried it to the 3/8 pole. We just don’t know.) And, of course, at this point in time he would have cycled into BUFI mode due to his lower SR in this race off his previous one. (Note once again what happened to him in the betting in this race off of another bump-up!)

• LR – 77 SR. In this 5.5f heat, he “exploded” by running to the SR he did. Even if we discount this rating by a few points (because the race was under 6f) he still would have run to a personal all-time high. With this race, his angles and form cycle mode “metamorphosed” further into these: -BBA, *BB, UFI, FH, BWI, UC – all of which are the ones listed early on in this post. (The BB is the Beaten B angle, which at this point in time has it basis in the 3RB.)

Before moving on, I want to address briefly the layoff he had between his LR and 2RB. In his 2RB, I would not have credited him with the FH angle because he had been away too long. About the max I will stretch this angle is 40 days, and he was laid off for more than this. And this is what I would have considered happened in the period between his 2RB and LR, i.e. he had a layoff. A layoff can be a negative or positive angle depending, of course, on other closely related factors in a horse’s chart. At any rate at that point in time, that is to say, going into his LR, I would have debited him with the Long Layoff (LL) angle due to him exceeding the 40-day limit. I personally think this layoff contributed to his losing that LR. And I can tell you from long experience that I’ve seen countless numbers of horses come up short in their first race off a layoff – although a good number of them will finish in the money – just as TJ did! Having said this, however, I believe that his trainer sent him out to win that LR if he could due to the very sharp drop in his odds in that race – although, once again, the crowd is a sucker for drop-downs.

Now we come to the very big question: What will the probable effects of that good LR be on his form today? Now, we know from a recent previous post that the BE angle can be a negative angle, and it usually is, in fact. What determines this, however, are other closely related factors, such as dates between races, duration of pressure, the existence of recent previous bang-up efforts, etc.

Of course, the first thing we see is that he has the FH angle. A good thing.

The next thing we notice is that unlike Proud Prospect (post #170), he doesn’t have any recent good races! He wasn’t overtaxed in any of his prior recent outings. Another good thing.

But what about the “duration of pressure” factor in this LR? He ran closest to the leader at the 1C, and then after that ran a more or less even race. His running line doesn’t indicate that he was “all out”. He wasn’t neck-to-neck or head-to-head with the leader. He wasn’t involved in any hotly contested duel. In fact, he lost a little ground in the stretch run, while gaining a RP. All this indicates is that one of the horses ahead of him tired and backed up into him. Therefore, I would have downgraded this negative angle to a –BE.

So, while he earned a big SR, for all the reasons just stated, I would have had to think that he’d come right back to run another big race, as a fresh and very sharp horse. I had every reason to believe that he would demonstrate further improvement today. He was dropped last start and improved his SR dramatically in that race. So, now what the trainer does is bump his sharp runner up a little to protect him from a claim, hopefully, while sending him out to run for a photo-op.

Naturally, the public being “stuck on stupid”, in terms of critical form analysis and trainer maneuvers, sent this sharp, well-meant horse off at 18-1. He steamrolled over his competition like a runaway, speeding train. He paid an unbelievable $38.60

So, once again we have a long shot who has long shot angles in his chart – primarily, the BWI and UC price-class maneuvers. And this long shot is very sharp, very fresh and should improve further today. What to do?

In the next post, we’ll look briefly at his major competitor in this race. And afterwards, I’ll reveal what one of my hard ‘n’ fast rules was.

Boxcar

sax27jan06-04, MC-40K to 35K, 4YO&UP, 1 mi. m.t.

[toetoe]

boxcar,

OUCH! Join Finish-Your-Cucumber-And-Sprouts-Sandwich-And-Moveon.org? That's worse than Track Champion! :eek: :D

[PaceAdvantage]

Before this evolves any further, I want to step in right now and squash any sort of petty personal squabbling that might otherwise hijack this fine thread. So Box and rmania, shake hands and try again. Capiche?

[lsbets]

Well said PA. While I have no stats to back it up, my perusal of the selections forum places rmania's picks at the top of the list. When he picks a horse, I pay attention - kind of like EF Hutton. On the other hand, even though I doubt I will use any of the methods Boxcar has posted (more from sheer laziness and being stuck in my ways than anything else), I am enjoying reading through them and have found this to be the best handicapping thread in a long, long time.

[boxcar]

Before this evolves any further, I want to step in right now and squash any sort of petty personal squabbling that might otherwise hijack this fine thread. So Box and rmania, shake hands and try again. Capiche?

Too bad this software doesn't have a handshake icon.... :)

Boxcar

[Tom]

Dittos on this being a great thread. One of the longest out of OT in a while....lots of things to think about here.

[boxcar]

Before getting to the next horse in that 4th race, I'd like to address those who have written to me privately very recently about one particular item. (I promise, though, that I'll answer each of you as time permits.) Just because I'm retired from the game doesn't mean that I sit around idly all day. The fact is that I'm a pretty busy camper. I'm involved on a couple of other forums (of entirely diffrent genre than this one). I'm involved in my wife's business (that's because I wouldn't let her retire so that she could support me in the manner in which I've become accustomed). And I have other day-to-day activities that require attention.

A couple of you have written to ask if I'd make my program available to you. And while I'm very flattered that you would ask, I have to decline for a few reasons. One of which is my limited time. There's a learning curve to the program, and I would need to teach you how to run it from a command line, and you wouldn't even understand all the jargon it spits out at this point. I just don't have the time to get involved with this kind of thing.

Another major reason I won't is because I believe I would be doing you a great disservice in the long haul. The best way possible to learn this methodology thoroughly (if indeed that is your intention) is with a hands-on approach. There is no better way. Just dig in, memorize the angles, study pp charts and results charts, and practice using them.

I realize this must all sound quite daunting. And in some sense it probably is, if you're not willing to take it slow and easy. Again, this methodology is not for "fast food" consumption. It's not something that you can just pick up and digest on the fly. It just won't happen that way.

Meanwhile, though, I hope those of you who have written, as well as others, will continue to enjoy my posts -- but even more importantly find the material informative and helpful -- to the point where you'll be able to make some profitable selections with it.

You know...there are two ways to find gold. There is the "simple" way, as Rmania might have found by panning for it above ground in some stream, as it were; and then there is the more difficult way by mining for it underground, in a manner of speaking. Many moons ago I deliberately chose this latter method because the "mother lode" lies beneath -- not above, in my opinion, of course.

Boxcar

[twindouble]

The fact is that I'm a pretty busy camper. I'm involved on a couple of other forums (of entirely diffrent genre than this one). I'm involved in my wife's business (that's because I wouldn't let her retire so that she could support me in the manner in which I've become accustomed) quote; Boxcar.


Isn't it great, the woman's movement liberated guys like you and I. :cool:


T.D.

[boxcar]

The fact is that I'm a pretty busy camper. I'm involved on a couple of other forums (of entirely diffrent genre than this one). I'm involved in my wife's business (that's because I wouldn't let her retire so that she could support me in the manner in which I've become accustomed) quote; Boxcar.


Isn't it great, the woman's movement liberated guys like you and I. :cool:


T.D.

You can bet on its greatness. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

To finish up with sax27jan06-04, we’ll look quickly at another bona fide contender in this race – Diamond Hondo who was sent off as the 7/5 fave.

What I’ll do from now on when talking about F angle horses (horses who have at least 3 IMFs in their last four (4) outings, I’ll designate which races within their last four qualified them. In the case of this particular horse, he had IMFs in his LR, 3RB and 4RB, therefore this would be designated by F134.

Angles: F134, *BA, PGL, UFI, DD, LC

Right here is as good a place as any to give the parameters for the LR performance angle Position-Gain-Lengths (PGL). This is the only performance angle in my arsenal where the horse’s running position (RP) trumps the lengths gained. It’s a simple, but powerful performance angle. To qualify a horse must have passed at least three (3) horses and gained at least two (2) lengths from the 1C to the FC. Simple as that.

As we can see, this little pony is angle-rich – especially in terms of his performance angles. And he was in a great form cycle mode – being another UFI type, just like the winner of this race was. Note carefully his SR pattern starting from the 3RB:
83 – 76 – 86.

And more than this his BA angle was “power angle”, which my program designated with the (*). What made his BA angle so strong was the presence of the Double Drop (DD) price-class maneuver. A couple of weeks ago in post #115, I wrote in part about this angle:

In fact, when a BA angle horse has the Double Drop (DD) angle in his chart (i.e. dropped last start and dropping again today), his BA angle becomes a “power” angle because the combination of the two angles is so strong.

What would the likely probable effects be off his recent good races? Answer: A very likely candidate for further improvement today! His LR was a relatively easy one. Another closer who did all his real running during the stretch run. This was another horse with a powerful late kick, earning a 95 LP in his last race.

The fact that the trainer is dropping this razor sharp animal today can only mean that he’s going for the roses. There is no other way to interpret the DD maneuver – most especially in light of the LC pinpoint angle! His class level today was the lowest in his current chart? Can there be any doubt as to what the trainer intends to do?

There would have been only way to bet this race. You bet the 18-1 shot to win, and box him and this very sharp fave in the X.

This was, yet, another case whereby the fave was “vulnerable” – not because of any negatives within his own chart per se, but because of his main competitor. The prudent thing to have done in this situation is exactly what I said above.

DH completed a very betable X, which for every deuce bet returned an unbelievable $112.40.

Sometimes these long shot winners and exacta combos are like ripe fruit in that they make for very easy pickins.

Boxcar

sax27jan06-04, MC-40K to 35K, 4YO&UP, 1 mi. m.t.

[boxcar]

These last two races we looked at have quite a bit of relevance to uno, number one, primary, top rule. The reason behind the rule is simple and reasonable when you stop to think about it. To those of you who are thinking about changing the way you’ve been handicapping, you will also have to make some corresponding mental adjustments to accommodate this kind of methodology.

We have seen how powerful this comprehensive approach is with the numerous examples I’ve posted, thus far. The factors that it embraces aren’t called “universal” for nothing. These angles are as old as the hills, they work for most distances, over all surfaces, and at all major race tracks. This approach isn’t a fad that will be here today and gone tomorrow.. It’ll be around a long time after I’m gone (well…maybe). :) It price-getting capabilities are arguably unparalleled because an experienced user is able to see things that others cannot. You might even call this a “WMD” – a [lethal] Weapon of Mutuel Destruction because in the right hands this methodology could “destroy” the prices.

Because of its powerful long shot-getting capabilities, everyone who thinks they want to claim this approach for your own should be prepared to follow this hard ‘n’ fast rule:

Whenever you see a horse with good long shot angles in his chart, especially if he’s been maneuvered by his trainer to get a price, and that horse has no serious knocks against it, you should make it your business to bet this kind of horse without fail every time.

Failure to follow this reasonable and logical rule will prove financially disastrous to you. What will happen is that you’ll back a half a dozen or so long shot selections, and they’ll lose. And then you’ll come across the next one, and you’ll “freeze”. You’ll hesitate. You’ll equivocate. You’ll question. You’ll doubt. And you won’t have a dime on him when he scores at a big price. (Your headache just got stronger, and your depression burrowed more deeply.) I know human nature. I know how people are.

If you hope to collect on long shot winners on a regular basis, then you must adhere to this rule, otherwise you’ll be defeating the core purpose of the methodology. Someone may be wondering what I mean by “regular basis”. I can only speak out of my own experience. But in my last few years of play, with the aid of my program, I was able to play comfortably two to three tracks a day – depending on how lazy I wanted to be on any given day. So…let’s say I averaged 2.5 tracks per day at 10 races per track. That’s 25 races x 5 days = about 125 races per week. And let’s say I would play about 50% of these – or roughly 50 to 60 races a week. It would be a rare week when I didn’t hit a dozen long shot winners or so. Some weeks less. Some weeks more.

Of course, all of what I said applies with equal force to both false long shot plays and the riskier vulnerable ones.

This is just food for serious thought to anyone who is contemplating a commitment to this approach. Best to know what lies ahead before making such a commitment.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Once upon a time there was a thread titled: Does a Jockey Change Make You Change Your Bet?

I contributed some to that topic and essentially said that a jockey switch, under some circumstances, could put me on a horse. In post #49 of that thread in late December, I shared my favorite jockey switch angle with everyone because of its subtlety. The name of that particular angle is J2 (pardon the lack of creativity) because I have a few jock angles in my arsenal.

Then I followed up the above post with #63, which provided an example or two taken out of some old racing files. I’m happy to report that I can now supply everyone with a real world, touchy-feely, here-and-now example from the very recent past. Here are the rules again to that subtle angle:


1) The horse must have had the same rider up on him at minimum for three consecutive races, starting from his 2RB thru his 4RB. This parameter is what will constitute the horse as having had a “regular” rider prior to its LR.

2) A different jock must have ridden the horse in its LR.

3) The jock who rode the horse in its LR must also have the call on the horse in today’s race.

4) The horse must have finished out of the money in its last two races.

5) And finally, it must be determined whether the trainer’s decision to switch jockeys in the horse’s last outing was forced upon him or was strictly voluntary. Whenever it’s determined that the trainer’s decision was voluntary in nature, then the angle is legitimate and the horse is worthy of careful consideration.

To implement rule number five, we must consult the result charts and look for only two items. We want to find out if, in the horse’s LR, the “regular” rider had the call on another mount in that same race. If he did, there is no angle. But if he didn’t have any mount in that race, then the next thing we’ll want to find out is if the “regular” rider even worked that day. Did he ride at all that particular day? If he didn’t work, there is also no angle. But in situations when the “regular” rider worked on the date of that LR and didn’t have a mount in that same race on that day, then the angle is established because now we know for a fact that the trainer’s decision was not forced upon him by extenuating circumstances. His choice of a jock switch was entirely voluntary.

But rule five also requires the use of a little “common sense”. For example, let’s say we’re considering a horse whose LR was run on 12/04 in the 1st race. And let’s say the “regular” rider had no mount in that race and that that rider didn’t ride at all until late on the card that day. I personally insisted that the rider must have ridden two mounts on that card, and I cared not how late on the card he rode them. If he rode two horses on that day, then I assumed that he was there the entire day. Of course, this same “common sense” rule applies in the reverse situation, i.e. whenever the horse’s LR was run late on the card. We just want to make sure that the horse’s “regular” jock rode at least two other horses prior to that race on that particular card

Now, someone posted on the above thread to the effect that if a jockey intends to ride any mount in any race, he has to show up by the first race. If this is indeed the case, then the “common sense” rule can be revoked. But if it isn’t or no one can provide confirmation on this, then stick with this “common sense” rule.

We have a great example of this jock angle on the tpx29jan06-01 card in the chart of Outflankem. His VP, in terms of the TI factor was quite strong. Here were all his angles: DCLS, UC, FOT, J2, FR, FH

As we can see, he was dropped in class last start, improved his LR.SR off his 2RB in the process (always a positive form indicator with this maneuver), and his PTO today was 12-1 -- more than 50% below his LR.Odds. Of course, the question here is: Why all the money on him today for no apparent reason?

With respect to the jockey angle, he qualified perfectly – both in his pp chart and in the result charts. If you check the result charts for his LR, you’ll find that his regular rider neither had the call on him in that 10th race, nor did he take the day off from work. He had mounts in both the 2nd and 4th races on that tpx20Jan06 card.

Great VP on this horse. Even so, he paid a tidy $26.80. Sometimes it’s just too easy…

Boxcar

P.S. My buddy up in Canada shared this one with me.

tpx29jan06-01, C-7.5k-N3L , 3YO, 6f m.t.

[SAL]

Glad you had this one, but I don't think the jock factor applies here. You say the jock change by the trainer has to be voluntary in nature, but I think the reason for the jock change here is the fact that it is a different trainer.

Not saying that the other angles aren't valid though.

[rmania]

Applying my K.I.S.S. method at Santa Anita yesterday (6 sprint races) produced the following results:

3 Wins
2 Places
1 Show

Note that the 2 horses which placed were both beaten by 1st time starters. So in essence, the K.I.S.S. method found the winner of those with a previous start in 5 of 6 races.

[boxcar]

Glad you had this one, but I don't think the jock factor applies here. You say the jock change by the trainer has to be voluntary in nature, but I think the reason for the jock change here is the fact that it is a different trainer.

Not saying that the other angles aren't valid though.

Nope I didn't have that one. My buddy up in Canada did. I don't bet the ponies anymore. I just buy lotto tickets now with all the money my wife makes. :)

But that's an interesting point you raise about the change in trainer. Nonetheless, as you indicated, his other angles are valid.

Boxcar

[Niko]

Boxcar:

A couple questions-not to knock what you're saying as I'm trying to soak in what you're sharing. I've been down this road in one format or the other and still use horse angles to key in on longshots. Questions from my experience that you may be able to help me and others with.

1) A & B form angles. Essentially looking for horses that finished out the money one of their last two races and in the money in one but not both of their last two. (last and/or 3rd last ok also in BB). Covered a lot by Talbout and others. This encompasses a lot of horses in claiming races who are inconsistent.

2) Form Factors. Usually if a horse loses a race but was competitive at some point they will show some form angle. Included eased last race, bid and hung, late stretch gain, even race, z-pattern etc....I gave up on these and just marked form if the horse was competitive at any portion. Now I just look for something very atypical not caused by trouble. Unlike myself have you found any form factor to better than others within their own context?

3) UFI. Again this encompasses a lot of horses. Have you found this angle to be stronger if the last race was greater than the 2nd and 3rd rating, or in the case of BUFI the 2nd rating was greater than the 3rd and 4th rating.

It's been MY experience that if I use the above factors there a lot of horses that can qualify as a start and it tends to muddle the picture or not help identify the right horse(s) to key.

It seems from this thread that your success as already mentioned may be attributed more to your ability to identify which longshots to play and which favorites are false (thorough handicapping) than the angles themselves.

All this reminds me of Tom Worths Pops and Tips methods which has been around quite a while.

Again this isn't to knock this approach as my handicapping grew up on it and I eventually settled into a hybrid that worked for me often enough. But in it's purest form most races were too confusing with all the anlges for me to make a profit with the approach. And it was easy to go back and find the angles for the winning horse after the race is done.

Thanks for the time you've taken to part with your wisdom. It's hard to put it all down and teach others "stuck" in their ways.

Rmania--thanks for the Kiss approach on speed favoring tracks. I'll have to add it to my angle. I've looked at early speed but need to re-visit it.

[Niko]

Almost forgot. Can you explain your SOS (speed of speed) a little more?
Can it be improving calls either diagonally or vertically in last 2-3 races, improved workouts.....

[boxcar]

Almost forgot. Can you explain your SOS (speed of speed) a little more?
Can it be improving calls either diagonally or vertically in last 2-3 races, improved workouts.....3

I haven't really explained the SOS (Speed On Speed) Syndrome. This has to do only with B angle horses. Since B types must have shown ES to at least the 2C in their 2RB, then this SOS "angle" demands that subsequent to that 2RB, the horse once again must demonstrate additional speed -- either with an early speed angle in the LR, such as the HW (early speed to the 2C), the ES (early speed to the SC) or even with the FC angle (early speed to the 1C only) -- although this is the weakest angle since in a sprint race you just can't be sure how far he carried that early speed. If he carried it to the 3/8 pole, that's fine. But if he only carried it for a ¼ mi.. -- that's not so good. (I explained the weakness of the FC angle in sprints in some detail in the Add Heat race at SA. However, if the FC angle was in a route race, then this fine -- because in most routes the 1C is to at least the ½ mi. pole.

Another way a horse could qualify on the SOS is through a "fast" workout (FW angle), which was given after his 2RB or after the LR -- doesn't matter which race. For a horse to qualify on the basis of a workout, he must have run to the following minimum times for these distances:

3f or 4f work = :36 or :48 sec, respectively.
5f work = 1:01
6f work = 1:14

99% of the time the workout distance will be one of the first three listed. A trainer will very rarely work his horse at a distance greater than 5f, while asking for speed.

Of course, if you’re playing some track that’s really slow, deep or whatever – then you will probably have to adjust the above minimum times to account for the slowness of your track. Since I only played major tracks, this was never a problem for me.

Hope this helps,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

I'm curious: Did anyone play the above race yesterday? If so, who did you play, and, perhaps briefly tell us why. I find this to be a very interesting race.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Some gent wrote to me in email (which I'm really, really far behind in getting answered :blush: ) , and he said that he hit on some $88. winner due to something I posted. At any rate...do any of you Left Coasters know to which race he was alluding, and when it was run?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Left Coasters, I found that race. It was an $86 winner in the 1st. The race was run the day before yesterday. I'll post on it later, and in the process share another jock angle with everyone.

I just can't believe what an easy pick that was 'cause there wasn't very much else in that short 7-horse field. Unbelievable....

Boxcar