Contenders and Pretenders

[Amazin]

Alot has been said about positive angles in handicapping.I find half of the puzzle's solution is throwing out what I consider horses possesing negative angles no matter how good their form looks at present.Some of my best scores has been with this backward form of handicapping and taking what's left..I'm curious what factors various members of this forum consider as a negative angle to toss a horse out of consideration.Here are some of mine:
1)Dropping in class off a win or good race
2)Adding lasix off a win or good race
3)Layoff off a win or good race
4)Claimed and drops
5)Second time Blinkers(in a row) when first time produced turnaround.
6)Second time Lasix(in a row)when first time produced turnaround
7)Stairstepping class dropper

[BIG HIT]

Hi here a few i can think of.
#1 fan out defintion lead by 2 length's or more and fold after the 1\2 marker
#2 switch to lesser jocky unless aprenttice
#3 jocky won on horse and next out choose another horse in same race.
#4 any horse get 5 pounds more today

[kitts]

Here's some for Bottom Level Claimers. They are not reliable for any level other than the bottom:

(1) Eliminate the favorite
(2) Eliminate any horse that won his last race
(3) Eliminate any horse with no wins in last 10
(4) Eliminate any horse dropping two or more levels.
(5) Eliminate any horse with a trainer at less than 9%
(6) Eliminate any horse with a jockey at less than 9%

These rules usually leave you with less than 5 contenders. They are very helpful at restricted NW1L claimers.

[Amazin]

Negative angles and not so obvious positive ones are the achillie's heel of handicappers and handicapping programs.Horses do win with negative angles just as horses lose with positive angles.But the R.O.I corrosponds to a greater loss with negative angles and a greater profit with positive angles.In mathematics if you multiply any number with a negative,the answer is a negative,no matter how large the positive is or how small the negative is.I find that if a horse comes out on top in a handicapping program(I.E.best final time,best trainer/jock/earnings etc.)but posseses a major negative characteristic,forget it,off the board at 1-2.The ability to reason whether a handicapping factor is positive or negative in a particular situation is where the skill and experience of the handicapper comes in.The times we hit it good is because we saw what other's didn't.If you don't see non-stereotypical negative angles,good luck,cause that's the only way you're going to win.The form is loaded with negatives.

[tedwin]

Kitts, I'm assuming you mean NW2L claimers. Wouldn't NW1L be maidens?

[andicap]

Originally posted by Amazin

5)Second time Blinkers(in a row) when first time produced turnaround.
6)Second time Lasix(in a row)when first time produced turnaround


Can you explain these two? I don't quite understand them. Horse adds blinkers, has an unexpected good race and you think the horse will tank next time? Kind of like a "bounce"?

[kitts]

Tedwin-
Oops. Yup, NW2L is what I meant. Those critters that have only won one race and have yet to beat winners. One reason I like these is the same reason for liking maidens in that there are usually several real easy throwouts.

[John]

How about never ran on the TURF [ 4yr old and up ]

and never ran the distance.

[Amazin]

Andicap

Ten years ago I came across a manuscript by Joe Takach,called "Situation Handicapping".In it he describes "2nd time lasix after first lasix has produced"He says"Very few lasix winners repeat".In his study he found about 6% repeat,at low odds.I find that this is true in my experience as well.I'm not a follower of Tackach but he has the best advice on Lasix.He's all over the web.
I discovered 2x Blinkers on my own.I found that horses who added them and showed uncharacteristic speed,would usually revert to their regular running style the second time and the blinkers would become a hindrance in their normal style.
Another aspect of both these angles is that if they do produce first time,then it is usually what Ragozine calls a "Top" in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy".In other words the speed figure produced by that race will be the highest the horse ever recorded.The chances of the horse equaling it or exceeding it are slim.In general he will "Bounce" .I find that even without the Lasix or blinkers issue,if the horse has a "Top" showing in his last race,he's a good candidate for a throwout.Of course reliable speed figures are a must in this case.
Rocojack
It's probably true that first time Turf and distance is negative in general,but these are not usually bet by the public.However I will allways bet a horse with strong turf breeding even if it's first time turf/distance.If it does well,that's the last time you're going to get a good price on it for a while.

[rrbauer]

amazin wrote:
In mathematics if you multiply any number with a negative,the answer is a negative,no matter how large the positive is or how small the negative is.

Comment:
Except when you multiply a negative by a negative!

kitts wrote:
One reason I like these is the same reason for liking maidens in that there are usually several real easy throwouts.

Comment:
Add to the throwouts the potential for some real mis-matches as another reason to like maidens.

Andicap wrote:
I find that even without the Lasix or blinkers issue,if the horse has a "Top" showing in his last race,he's a good candidate for a throwout.Of course reliable speed figures are a must in this case.

Comment:
I have found that the race performance after a "top" is best tied to the trainer. Some trainers are very good at managing their horses and maintaining their peak condition; some aren't; and, some are downright awful! Also, a long layup (more than 3 months) after a top; or, after a bounce off a top, is a signal that something went wrong. Those tops are the ones that I refer to as the kiss-of-death!

[thoroughbred]

A negative angle that I have found to be very uselful is when comparing a horse's last race to the prior race I see that BOTH the horse's early speed and stamina have decreased.

The two races considered have to be either at the same distance and surface, or the last race is at a shorter distance than the prior one.

This is a strong indication that the horse's overall capability is on a downward trend.

[so.cal.fan]

How about?
Failed at the same class and same distance at the same track
having a perfect or good trip?

[andicap]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
How about?
Failed at the same class and same distance at the same track
having a perfect or good trip?

I'm not sure about that one because the horse could have just been on the down portion of a form cycle and could rebound today. Maybe he just bounced off a good effort, got 4 weeks off and is training well. Certainly I'd consider him strongly today.