Angle Myths

[Secretariat]

One of the things I thought I'd start a thread on is Angle Myths. What I mean by that is "handicapping knowledge" that is no longer pertinent, but players still cling to. For example, one particular angle Jim Quinn espoused and more recently Mark Cramer is the MSW horse droppping to Md Clm ranks.

The above angle is obviously a horse taking a considerable class drop (particularly at larger tracks, but my tests show not as much at smaller ones).

The only problem I've found with this method is today it is vastly overplayed, and in almost every work out I run, it shows losing to the track take. Why? Well, the prices are generally incredibly low. The horses are overbet despite a decent win percent. You may find differently, but I've run lots of tests on this, and it has taken me awhile to fight "traditional handicapping advice" from the 70's, 80's and 90's, and look elswhere, and in some situation, actually ELIMINATING the so-called "sound handicapping advice."

I just was wondering if others here may have found so-called "sound handicapping angles" not to be in some cases. If so, I'd appreciate any postings as I'd like to run some tests on them.

Thanks.

[Turfday]

My site is loaded with various trainer, jockey, trainer-jockey, sire and post position angles among many other features. Since I'm a strategic partner of Equibase and one of their providers, my database dates back to Jan. 1, 1995 of every race run in North America and Canada.

I am noting the above only to indicate that I believe that I should have a viable opinion on this.

Whereas I don't doubt your conclusion about the open maiden to maiden claiming dropdown (that it is a vastly overbet angle), I believe the real profit from using angles is when positive or negative are COUPLED together or even TRIPLED together.

I have seen certain angles (stats) where trainers are absolutely LOUSY in certain situations... example: (1) the trainer wins 17% with sprinters and only 9% with routers; his entrant is moving from sprint-to-route within a 60-day cycle (poor stats with this move with a legit size sample); and adding blinkers (poor stats with this move with a legit size sample).

Conversely, coupling or tripling positive angles together is way more powerful than using one alone.

Finding and mixing positive or negative angles among trainer, jockey, trainer-jockey, sire and even post position is where a handicapper can get a very real and possible edge over the rest of the public.

Does this happen frequently? No. Is there often conflictiing information? Yes. But that's where the handicapper's good judgment and intuition is needed.

Directly related to your specific mention of the maiden dropdown, what if the trainer has absolutely terrible stats when he makes that move? What if the maiden drop down is going from a route-to-sprint and the trainer does poorly with that move? What if the trainer is adding blinkers to his maiden drop down (gets more attention from the public), and yet if you look at his record with "adding blinkers"...(example: Barry Abrams 2/39 last three years and Gary Contessa 6/81 last three years)...it's considerably worse than their normal win percentage?

So again, I refer to the power of coupling or tripling of positive or negative angles. There would be more reason to bet against that drop down than to bet on him.

[toetoe]

Sec,

Great to see you doubting the sacred cow of "biggest drop in racing." However, that still leaves finding a viable candidate in what can always turn out to be "worst heat ever run."
One thing I love to run into is somebody in A Closer Look saying, "Just broke maiden, water much deeper here," when all runners are either recent graduates or stuck at the nwx1 level for months. Where do these guys want the winners to come from, some graded stakes overseas? Not often gonna happen. So that's another maiden-related situation to exploit, provided the odds are good. It's my three-word mantra: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

[Overlay]

The only problem I've found with this method is today it is vastly overplayed, and in almost every work out I run, it shows losing to the track take. Why? Well, the prices are generally incredibly low. The horses are overbet despite a decent win percent.

Sec,

Your comment emphasizes the advisability of being aware of the winning percentage associated with any given angle, in conjunction with keeping a close eye on the ongoing mutuel prices that the angle is generating, in order to know when to start looking elsewhere for a new angle, once the original one starts being consistently overplayed.

An even better alternative is to use multiple angles or factors to arrive at an estimate of the winning chances for every horse in a field, so that you won't be subject to the loss of profitability that occurs when one specific horse starts being overbet, nor will you have the need to continually come up with fresh, undiscovered approaches as old ones become obsolete.

[Valuist]

The problem w/angles is they make vast generalizations. There are some weak Mdn Sp races and some strong M50 races. The key is to look at the individual races involved and then make the judgement. Specifics players will beat generalizers in the long run every time.

[classhandicapper]

The easiest way to tell how big a dropdown a horse is making is to look at the average winning speed figure for each class. Typically, the difference between one step moves is 2-6 Beyer points. However, some maiden moves into winners and some MSW moves into maiden claimer/state bred maidens are much bigger. All this varies from track to track, meet to meet on the same circuit etc....

[classhandicapper]

turfday,

I agree with completely and then some more. I love to combine negatives or positives looking for plays. I prefer non-trainer angles though even though I use them also.

One problem with the trainer stats is that stock changes, training styles sometimes change, and sample size is always an issue. Some samples are so small you can't really tell if they indicate a trainer strength/weakness or are the result of a random good/bad run or stock etc....

The larger the sample, the more you can be sure, but the more likely the public will start building it into the odds correctly. That more or less makes the information useless from a ROI point of view. Knowing the angle is better than not knwing it for you own odds-line creating ability, but that's about it.

[Turfday]

Well, the "stars" don't always line up properly. After all, this is a highly subjective game.

In looking at my database and using the three time-factor searches I can implement OR by a sample-size search, I often find conflicting information. Something positive and something negative to go along with a particular contender.

And, of course, you are right..."back in the day"...when most of the public didn't have this kind of information, it wasn't as apparent and hence, that was often reflected in the odds.

I'm leaning to the point where I would rather find coupled or tripled NEGATIVE angles than positive ones because I find that it's easier for the public to zero in on the positive ones and knock down the prices on those.

[JackS]

The myth- Horse A has beat horse B in each of its last two outings therefore, Horse B will never beat horse A.
Horse B is very often a super bet especially if "H-A" is short priced and the public ( in it's effort to beat horse A) will be playing horse C.
This is often a case of a double underlay which will add to the value of horse B.
We don't need to win all of these bets to insure a nice profit over the course of any season. Watch for em.

[twindouble]

The problem w/angles is they make vast generalizations. There are some weak Mdn Sp races and some strong M50 races. The key is to look at the individual races involved and then make the judgement. Specifics players will beat generalizers in the long run every time.

I agree, a angle is just that, it has no weight unless it's supported by other factors in contex of the race as a whole. Basic handicapping in my opinion.

T.D.

[boxcar]

Whereas I don't doubt your conclusion about the open maiden to maiden claiming dropdown (that it is a vastly overbet angle), I believe the real profit from using angles is when positive or negative are COUPLED together or even TRIPLED together...Again, I refer to the power of coupling or tripling of positive or negative angles. There would be more reason to bet against that drop down than to bet on him..

Excellent advice! Bob is saying the exact same thing I said about racing angles. That generally speaking, the more positive racing angles a horse has in his chart, or the stronger the angle combos are (which doesn't necessarily mean many angles), the better reason you have to invest in the horse...providing the price is right, of course. In either case, that is to say, with either stats or racing angles, you would have a strong "validation principle" working for the horse because each stat or angle would support and strengthen the others.

Bob, I do have a question for you, if you don't mind: How do you handle situations wherein the horse's connections (i.e. low profile jock and trainer) sport low hit rate percentages? I ask because so many long shot winners come from within this "low profile" group. How do you personally deal with this type of scenario with your statistical approach?

Thanks,
Boxcar

[valueguy]

I love old angles .They are of course overbet. But when you run across a race
that has 3 or more horses with the same angles ,you then go for the value.
Won,t work alll the time of course but enough to make it profitable.
Hey! thats another angle.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Bug weight off, everything else being equal.

[boxcar]

Well, the "stars" don't always line up properly. After all, this is a highly subjective game.

In looking at my database and using the three time-factor searches I can implement OR by a sample-size search, I often find conflicting information. Something positive and something negative to go along with a particular contender.

And, of course, you are right..."back in the day"...when most of the public didn't have this kind of information, it wasn't as apparent and hence, that was often reflected in the odds.

I'm leaning to the point where I would rather find coupled or tripled NEGATIVE angles than positive ones because I find that it's easier for the public to zero in on the positive ones and knock down the prices on those.


We really should get to know one another better! More great advice. (Great minds do think alike :) ).

When I was playing around with the A+ program, I synthesized my angles with the programs output and developed a few Long Shot Methods of Play that revolved strictly around negative racing angles which would allow me to eliminate negative angle horses --- or conversely, in the absence of them, permit me to play them. The results were great!

Boxcar

[Turfday]

You said: "Bob, I do have a question for you, if you don't mind: How do you handle situations wherein the horse's connections (i.e. low profile jock and trainer) sport low hit rate percentages? I ask because so many long shot winners come from within this "low profile" group. How do you personally deal with this type of scenario with your statistical approach?"


I assume you meant by "low profile" you meant LOW PERCENTAGE?

I think we have to surmise that if there is relatively large sample size and the connections are low percentage (trainer and jockey), then you have to demand some value (price). Also, look for positive or negative "ancillary" angles...speed or not? post position favorable or not? sire...plus or minus for the task at hand?

If you meant "low profile" by a trainer that doesn't run many horses...he still could be quite competent. If there's a jockey that doesn't ride many, usually there's a reason.

And, as we both agree, by "stacking"...or as you more properly term it, "validating" with multiple positive or negative angles, you should certainly get a more positive expectation.

Trouble is, as I pointed out, I LOVE seeing multiple negative angles attached to a given horse that, say, is 4/1 or less. Love playing against those types and prefer seeing negative angles because I really believe the public is more "forgiving" and doesn't interpret them as well as positive ones.

[Secretariat]

Some really great ideas, such as the combining of angles, negatives and/or positives.

I guess I was thinking more of the giants of the Fields advice.

For example the MSW to MdClm advice of Quinn and Cramer

The Big Win advice of Scott.

The Quirin mini-angles.

I think even Tom Worth lists a bunch of these such as Never Raced This Low, etc. I was kind of interested in what myths have been debunked. I agree the combination of angles, and the analysis of the specifics of a race are important as related to pars, but for the purely "angle" player, who doesn't want to rely on small trainer/jockey samples, what are the bad ideas today?

For example, shoudl the claiming horse rising two levels always be avoided? Is the horse who runs a tough stretch run last be avoided? I have my ideas, and research, but I do see sometimes significant differences on different tracks. Where one track may show a profit while at another track the angle collapses. Does this diminsh the angle, or is it wise to consider it a track specific angle.

[boxcar]

You said: "Bob, I do have a question for you, if you don't mind: How do you handle situations wherein the horse's connections (i.e. low profile jock and trainer) sport low hit rate percentages? I ask because so many long shot winners come from within this "low profile" group. How do you personally deal with this type of scenario with your statistical approach?"


I assume you meant by "low profile" you meant LOW PERCENTAGE?

Indeed,I did.

I think we have to surmise that if there is relatively large sample size and the connections are low percentage (trainer and jockey), then you have to demand some value (price). Also, look for positive or negative "ancillary" angles...speed or not? post position favorable or not? sire...plus or minus for the task at hand?

And, as we both agree, by "stacking"...or as you more properly term it, "validating" with multiple positive or negative angles, you should certainly get a more positive expectation.

Trouble is, as I pointed out, I LOVE seeing multiple negative angles attached to a given horse that, say, is 4/1 or less. Love playing against those types and prefer seeing negative angles because I really believe the public is more "forgiving" and doesn't interpret them as well as positive ones.

Makes good sense. I especially love seeing and betting against horses are likely bounce candidates. You can't get stronger negative than that one, since he's going to be running against other horses who are likely to improve considerably.

I also liked seeing the really poor class drop-downs who have been dropping consistently. The public is such a sucker for class drops, generally, that they don't take the time to carefully analyze the bad ones.

Another negative I liked betting against were horses with several good races in their charts -- who were close up in contention at the SC, but then consistently lost ground in the stretch runs in those races. This can often be a sign of a runner with bad ankles or tendons - a horse with some problem serious enough to keep him from reaching the finish line before everyone else.

Take care,
Boxcar

[First_Place]

To sum it up (using Boxcar's lingo): you want an "angle rich" horse.

Regards,

FP

[Turfday]

nm

[Suff]

The primary benefit of betting angles verus other methods is it puts me on Horses I might not otherwise regard highly, the caveat being they are often $20.00+ horses.


If I like the angle, 3rd off a layoff (or 2nd), stretching out off two weak sprint tries, with a workout after last race (or not frequently), and the horse is number. I'll bet the angle. The animal could have no earthly reason beyond 3rd off, well timed spaces between races and workouts....amd stretching out. If that horse is a Price....I'll get on him. More often than not they run up track. But when they don't , its a nice cash and it can be credited with only one thing.........Playing that angle.

They're good underneath horses as well.

Layoff length, Trainer/Jock Combo, Trainer patterens get in the way when you dig deep.......but if I'm looking at 19-1 in race I think might be up for grabs.........and I find that angle.........its a worthy bet.

If your at the track and you see what everybody else see's with 15 minutes, .....a couple of Favorites and a bunch of maybe's...........angles will get you to horses that pay.

[Suff]

The Biggest Myth Angle I have heard discussed but never seen materialize is "2nd lasix".


Number 2 is 2nd lasix in Fillys.

Seen them talked about infrequently, but never supported by any data. Anecdotal or otherwise.

[twindouble]

The Biggest Myth Angle I have heard discussed but never seen materialize is "2nd lasix".


Number 2 is 2nd lasix in Fillys.

Seen them talked about infrequently, but never supported by any data. Anecdotal or otherwise.


I think you would get the same results on just about any angle that stands by it's self. That's why I recomend not getting into a race with that kind of baggage.


T.D.

[Tom]

The Biggest Myth Angle I have heard discussed but never seen materialize is "2nd lasix".


Number 2 is 2nd lasix in Fillys.

Seen them talked about infrequently, but never supported by any data. Anecdotal or otherwise.

Suff,
Last 6 months of 2005 - all surfaces, all ages, fillys, back in 30 days or less:
12% wins, about a .70 roi, but, when looking at them win or place - exacta finished, you get 23%.

Some other filters might improve these stats - especially whiich trainers are doing it, class moves, etc.

[wonatthewire1]

1/21/06 at Philadelphia, 3rd race, MCL $15,000 - $13,000 at 6fl.

The 3 droppers in the race fill the tri

1st - #8 - Gram's Beauty > MSW to MCL, 2nd start for Allard w/Vega up; 2.8-1

2nd - #4 - Kourages Kelly > MSW to MCL, 2nd start for Collazo with Rivera up; 9.1-1

3rd - #2 - Flor Da Mari > MCL25,000 to MCL15,000, 2nd start for Heather Rogers with Glasser up; 23.8-1

Exacta returned $67.00 and the trifecta returned $719.80; these three were the only class droppers in the race.

[JackS]

GP8 Turf 1m- Last fraction handicappin picked (exact order) 13-1-10 ,$2 Tri $900+. Very close at repeating in GP10 Turf1/16.

[Secretariat]

1/21/06 at Philadelphia, 3rd race, MCL $15,000 - $13,000 at 6fl.

The 3 droppers in the race fill the tri

1st - #8 - Gram's Beauty > MSW to MCL, 2nd start for Allard w/Vega up; 2.8-1

2nd - #4 - Kourages Kelly > MSW to MCL, 2nd start for Collazo with Rivera up; 9.1-1

3rd - #2 - Flor Da Mari > MCL25,000 to MCL15,000, 2nd start for Heather Rogers with Glasser up; 23.8-1

Exacta returned $67.00 and the trifecta returned $719.80; these three were the only class droppers in the race.

I've found races like this as well, but long term over thousands of races, the MSW to MClm drop is a big overplay by the crowd showing an ROI loss. Will it win over a period of time. Sure that's why most angles only post a motnh worth of workouts.