POOL INDICATORS

[bigmack]

Most of us spend the brunt of our time figuring out contenders/winners and the structuring of wagers while the pools and spread of money can go overlooked. I’ve been working with this ATR Pro software and have found some interesting angles particularly when the loot comes in and in what volume.

Is anyone on top of this that would care to share?

[Tote Master]

You must be joking! Right?
After seeing your previous responses to some of the things I've mentioned on other threads, you've got the b___s to post something like that?

What happened has your handicapping suddenly gone south?

Looking for new angles on the tote board no less!

All joking aside, you're headed in the right direction my friend, but not with that particular program.

Best of Luck!

[PaceAdvantage]

All joking aside, you're headed in the right direction my friend, but not with that particular program.

Best of Luck!

Can you help me out here and point me to the thread on this board where you have shown some concrete examples of what to look for....I'd like to read it again....

[cj]

Tote handicappers assume smarter people than them are betting and try to figure out which horse to bet. If I began with this assumption, I'd find something else to do with my time.

I assume I am smarter than most people betting, and look for their mistakes.

[Bruddah]

to be a drunk sailor, in a row boat. Has anyone seen PopEye or Bluto lately? :lol: :kiss:

[betovernetcapper]

I think ATR is the best creation since pop top beer cans.
Different trainers employ different and specific workout patterns and I think it likely each trainer/owner bets in a certain way. Years ago I noticed that some of Frank Kirby"s horses tended to be bet steadily. A chunk of money would go on the favorite and the other horses odds would rise and then magically the Kirby horses odds would revert to it's previous level. I think the tote board in conjunction with trainer stats and other handicapping tools can be very useful. :)

[bigmack]

I assume I am smarter than most people betting, and look for their mistakes.
Well stated cj as I do the same and always have. What triggered the tote vibe was chatting w/ DSchwartz a while back and his take on generating winnings out of race without having to score a win wager. Place and show payoffs have gone unnoticed by myself and when you throw around adult dollars they can generate decent numbers. In any event, I guess I should have known that the usual 'toters' would chim-in so as the beloved Gilda Radner would say - nevermind

[Tom]

Wonder if the "smart money" uses ATR? :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

Tote handicappers assume smarter people than them are betting and try to figure out which horse to bet.

CJ,

I get your meaning but even for a wiseguy like me ;) I find it useful but for a different reason: swarm intelligence. The crowd as a whole does remarkably well.

In fact, melding the probabilities with the tote board ("smoothing" as we call it) is the difference between winning and losing for me.

Of course, what most tote watchers are doing is looking at spikes... something I find to be... less than interesting (to say the least).


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

Hey Dave,

No doubt in some situations there are clues to be found on the tote. However, this whole monitoring of who is bet when seems silly to me, the spikes as you say. In today's age, anyone can bet any amount at nearly anytime. So, no disagreement from me on your point.

[Tote Master]

PA
Can you help me out here and point me to the thread on this board where you have shown some concrete examples of what to look for....I'd like to read it again.... Well I'll help out, but please don’t accuse me of advertising! I have posted a number of basic examples (which is actually only 1/3 of what the tote analysis actually provides. This is one of those examples I posted a year ago. The comments include the link:

The following link illustrates a portion of an "actual" tote analysis for some recently run races at Del Mar – 9-1-05 (On a Single race card). The last Interval is about 6-mins to post time. You’ll notice the relationship between Par and the adjacent Entry numbers in each case. This just happens to be what I call a “betting pattern” that is more prevalent at the larger tracks like Del Mar. It's one of the most important aspects of the analysis. I hope its not too complex, and I’m not sure if you’d know what to do with all those numbers, but for whatever its worth you might want to check the actual results for those races, particularly the Supers. (As usual, I'm sure you'll have your doubts, but yes all of the analyses are well documented)
http://www.tote-works.com/PublicIma...-6-8_9-1-05.jpg
(Note: Place the cursor on it and you can click on the image enlarge button and they will sharpen up)

I also posted “live” selections for (2) complete cards for Delta Downs sometime ago (early part of ’95), and of course even that was down-played by some, while others thought it was magic. (Unbelievable!)

CJ
Tote handicappers assume smarter people than them are betting and try to figure out which horse to bet. If I began with this assumption, I'd find something else to do with my time.
I assume I am smarter than most people betting, and look for their mistakes. Well CJ you might very well be smarter then other handicappers making mistakes, but you let me know when you can determine the actual condition and disposition of every entry in ANY race or play the game as smart as those closest to the animals.

Where are you getting the term “tote handicapper” from? I'm not sure how anyone can handicap money, unless the word handicap simply means analyze in its broadest sense? There’s certainly a distinction between someone who just watches the odds and another who analyzes the money flow and recognizes important betting patterns. In much the same way that some players simply use other people’s selections while others attempt to analyze the PP’s.

The bottom line is that some (maybe most) handicappers actually believe that their analysis and numbers are more significant then the direct knowledge and intentions of the connections.
betovernetcapper
I think ATR is the best creation since pop top beer cans.
Different trainers employ different and specific workout patterns and I think it likely each trainer/owner bets in a certain way. Years ago I noticed that some of Frank Kirby"s horses tended to be bet steadily. A chunk of money would go on the favorite and the other horses odds would rise and then magically the Kirby horses odds would revert to it's previous level. I think the tote board in conjunction with trainer stats and other handicapping tools can be very useful.An excellent observation! But there’s a lot more to it then just monitoring the odds. I've also heard some contradictory statements about the ATR program, but if it works for you it's certainly a step in the right direction!

Dave Schwartz
CJ, I get your meaning but even for a wiseguy like me I find it useful but for a different reason: swarm intelligence. The crowd as a whole does remarkably well.
In fact, melding the probabilities with the tote board ("smoothing" as we call it) is the difference between winning and losing for me.
Of course, what most tote watchers are doing is looking at spikes... something I find to be... less than interesting (to say the least).
CJ
Hey Dave, No doubt in some situations there are clues to be found on the tote. However, this whole monitoring of who is bet when seems silly to me, the spikes as you say. In today's age, anyone can bet any amount at nearly anytime. So, no disagreement from me on your point. That’s some very interesting terminology that I’m not familiar with, but you’re right about the impact of the public’s 1st and 2nd choice in at least 50% of all races. I’m not sure what you’re looking at as far as the tote goes. While some tote watchers may be looking for spikes, they unfortunately usually come in with the “late” money. I can honestly say that if its not there by between 7 to 5 mins to post it not worth considering. The only deviation that I’ve found which contradicts this statement is at some of the smaller tracks, but even there the 7 and 5 min. intervals are critical to the betting patterns. There is a huge difference between observing a spike of a single entry versus seeing the betting patterns of ALL entries simultaneously in relation to ALL of the betting pools combined!

CJ, I was once a skeptical as you and many others in the handicapping world. I’ll just leave you with this final thought and link that I posted on another thread recently.

This thread started with a link to comments that perhaps many handicappers choose to ignore (and that’s fine with me). I thought I might add another interesting link that even a self-proclaimed expert handicapper has no choice but to accept. This old article perhaps sheds some light on why there’s such large void between the perceptions of the handicapper (from all the PP data) and the first-hand knowledge of the connections which leads to their intentions:
http://www.webcom.com/~alauck/atmcoll.html

After reading it, you might want to reconsider any doubts about (what some beleive to be) the most dominating factor that affects the outcome of this game.

I find it interesting that to date I haven’t seen a single comment on that PA thread by any handicapper (of any level of expertise) in response to that article.

[Tote Master]

Sorry about that! Apparently when the first link (an example of the tote analysis) was copied it was somehow appreviated and will not work. The complete link is below:
http://www.tote-works.com/PublicImages/Delmar_R2-5-6-8_9-1-05.jpg

[traynor]

Tote handicappers assume smarter people than them are betting and try to figure out which horse to bet. If I began with this assumption, I'd find something else to do with my time.

I assume I am smarter than most people betting, and look for their mistakes.

Well said.

[traynor]

The ATM article is interesting, if a bit simplistic. The Beyer quote is accurate, but overlooks the fact that he recanted that observation in later works, and in those same later works emphasized the importance of watching races, rather than the symbolic representation humans have made of those races.

The observations on class are interesting, but lack definition. That is, class is not sufficiently operationalized to be meaningful to other readers. It would be as easy to call it dominance; in any group of horses, one (or more) will quickly emerge as the most dominant. Which is dominant at any given moment in time may be related to a number of factors, some of the most important of which are current condition, stamina, and physical configuration. While the horses seem quite able to determine within the grouping in a given race which is dominant, I am a bit skeptical of the ability of humans to discover the same thing, particularly in view of their propensity for accepting symbolic representations in place of reality. It is an interesting area of study, and one at which I have spent a number of years developing a modest level of skill.

Unfortunately, the issue of class is often mechanically interpreted with numerical representation of dosage index, brilliance, or some other quality. In the Silver Screen Handicap some years ago, a filly was given little chance in the race because ("as everyone knows") colts "outclass" fillies by some factor (generally about 20%, following Quirin, Quinn, and Ainslie). The only catch was that Melair had never been headed; she had taken the lead in every race, and led at every call of every race (or at least the ones I looked at). It is hard to intimidate a horse you can't catch, and Melair paid $17 and change to win. A modest exacta wager funded a very pleasant weekend in Cancun.

Yes, class is important. But class is a dynamic, and attempts to quantify it based on numerical representations of past events may be more folly than science. Better idea is to go hang out at the rail as they come out of the stable area on their way to the paddock, and watch their ears. They will generally be monitoring the entry they consider the dominant one in that grouping.

[LaughAndBeMerry]

Tote handicappers assume smarter people than them are betting and try to figure out which horse to bet. If I began with this assumption, I'd find something else to do with my time.

I assume I am smarter than most people betting, and look for their mistakes.

ALL the syndicates use public probabilities as part of their models. There is absolutely no question it makes for better predictability. That doesn't mean the public never makes a mistake, but on certain circuits (NYRA for one) betting dead on the board horses will need to a fast reduction in your bankroll.

[classhandicapper]

The observations on class are interesting, but lack definition. That is, class is not sufficiently operationalized to be meaningful to other readers. It would be as easy to call it dominance; in any group of horses, one (or more) will quickly emerge as the most dominant. Which is dominant at any given moment in time may be related to a number of factors, some of the most important of which are current condition, stamina, and physical configuration. While the horses seem quite able to determine within the grouping in a given race which is dominant, I am a bit skeptical of the ability of humans to discover the same thing, particularly in view of their propensity for accepting symbolic representations in place of reality. It is an interesting area of study, and one at which I have spent a number of years developing a modest level of skill.

Unfortunately, the issue of class is often mechanically interpreted with numerical representation of dosage index, brilliance, or some other quality. In the Silver Screen Handicap some years ago, a filly was given little chance in the race because ("as everyone knows") colts "outclass" fillies by some factor (generally about 20%, following Quirin, Quinn, and Ainslie). The only catch was that Melair had never been headed; she had taken the lead in every race, and led at every call of every race (or at least the ones I looked at). It is hard to intimidate a horse you can't catch, and Melair paid $17 and change to win. A modest exacta wager funded a very pleasant weekend in Cancun.

Yes, class is important. But class is a dynamic, and attempts to quantify it based on numerical representations of past events may be more folly than science. Better idea is to go hang out at the rail as they come out of the stable area on their way to the paddock, and watch their ears. They will generally be monitoring the entry they consider the dominant one in that grouping.

The biggest problem with class handicapping is that no one has actually written a very good book on the subject. A few modern authors have touched the subject at the edges, but there's nothing comprehensive and of very high quality out there. The general understanding of what class is and how to use it is still in the dark ages. That's why most modern handicappers think it's irrelevant now.

There was a time when speed and pace handicapping was also in the dark ages. People used terrible par time charts, inaccurate track variants etc... If we were still using that kind of information, we'd be skeptical of numbers too. However, more sophisticated books on the subject came out and that style of handicapping took over.

Quite honestly, the current wisdom that class is irrelevant etc.. is just fine by me because I believe I now occupy the same exact postion that the better speed and pace handicappers occupied before the Beyer and other books brought high caliber figures to the masses. Most of the smartest people dismiss class because they don't understand it what it is, how to use it, or how to measure it. No one ever taught them.

[Blackgold]

I used ATR Pro for the 30 day period and may eventually get the program.

Not only is it helpful for identifying "live" money and "dead" money, but points to inefficiencies in the place and show pools.

And I like the tri payoff estimates.

You can also type in your line instead of using the ML, for tracking the action.

It also has a neat batch wager feature that works with Pinny.

I would say in the future, we will see more computer handicapping programs incorporate ideas like ATR Pro into their offering.

I use Handicapping Magic and it does point to "Heavy Play" for some "live" money runners and "No Action" for dead money.

I'm sure if I knew how to use ATR Pro better than I did during the trial period, I could find ways to make money with it.

The best thing I got out of it was, I spent time focused on betting for value and it got me away from my biggest downfall as a horseplayer, liking certain runners.

Good luck all!

[ryesteve]

it... points to inefficiencies in the place and show pools.

I did their trial a while back with the notion that it'd be useful for that, as well as spotting inbalances in the straight/exotic pools. THe problem I found was that 70% of the money would come in during the last update or two, which would usually negate any value you might've seen before that point. I also got the impression that a lot of people were attempting to do the same thing. It seemed like the greater the inefficiency, the harder it would get hit by the time betting had ended. Like, if a horse was 30% light in the show pool, on average it'd end up being overbet by 10% or so. Horses that were light by only 5% or so, would tend to be much more stable. Perhaps a lot of this is dependent on what tracks you're looking at...

[classhandicapper]

Different trainers employ different and specific workout patterns and I think it likely each trainer/owner bets in a certain way.

I think the biggest evidence that the action on the tote board sometimes matters can be found among first time starters and layoff horses. In fact, it's pretty obvious.

From there, it doesn't take much of a leap to realize that if the clockers, connections, and others etc... can sometimes tell which firsters can run and which layoffs are ready, they can also sometimes have insights into which horses have been training better or worse since their last race and might bet accordingly. It doesn't matter much if I can out handicap them in general or whether they win or lose on their bets. Their action still sometimes reflects information that I don't have and that could easily be important in estimating the horse's chances.

When I don't understand the odds board, I don't assume it's because the public is being dumb. It could be because my own information is innaccurate or incomplete or because some people are either betting or avoiding a specific horse because they know more about what's been happening in the barn than I do.

[cj]

When I don't understand the odds board, I don't assume it's because the public is being dumb. It could be because my own information is innaccurate or incomplete or because some people are either betting or avoiding a specific horse because they know more about what's been happening in the barn than I do.

So how do you ever place a bet?

[ryesteve]

So how do you ever place a bet?
I don't really disagree with what he was saying. Thing is, you can still bet overlays when you understand why it's an overlay. It's when a horse is not taking money and you don't understand why that you have to stop and wonder what you might be missing.

For me, the best evidence that there's a lot of info out there that I don't have access to is found in the lines and offerings of the matchup bets at Pinnacle and Betcris. For example, in yesterday's Gazelle, Bushfire (9/5) probably looked like a gimme vs. Last Romance (28-1)... but since Pinnacle isn't in business to give away money, it was easy to deduce that there was a problem with Bushfire. If I'm only looking at the PPs, I'd have been hard-pressed to predict that Bushfire was going to finish as poorly as she did.

[cj]

For example, in yesterday's Gazelle, Bushfire (9/5) probably looked like a gimme vs. Last Romance (28-1)... but since Pinnacle isn't in business to give away money, it was easy to deduce that there was a problem with Bushfire. If I'm only looking at the PPs, I'd have been hard-pressed to predict that Bushfire was going to finish as poorly as she did.

This had nothing to do with any "inside" money IMO. Teammate was the reason to bet against Bushfire in a matchup. It had nothing to do with the win odds. I am learning more and more about matchups, and one big thing is win odds are only a small factor when betting matchups.

[ryesteve]

This had nothing to do with any "inside" money IMO. Teammate was the reason to bet against Bushfire in a matchup.
Teammate was in the race the last time Bushfire faced Pine Island and beat her, so I'm not really sure why her presence this time would make such a dramatic difference. I can see this being an effective argument to bet Bushfire against Pine Island, but against a mediocre looking horse like Last Romance? That's a leap of faith.

Besides, as the race played out, Bushfire had a fairly comfortable lead with soft fractions. Her half mile was well slower than the opening half in the other two races out of the chute yesterday, and the pace setters in those races finished 2nd and 1st. There's no way to blame Teammate for the way she backed up. She just didn't look ready to run a race yesterday, and there's no way I could've gotten that from the PPs.

[Tom]

I would have thought Bushfire was closer to 28-1 than 9-5 in real chances of winning yesterday.

[ryesteve]

I would have thought Bushfire was closer to 28-1 than 9-5 in real chances of winning yesterday.
But that could be a function of thinking Pine Island was a mortal lock. What would you have said the chances of Bushfire beating Last Romance would've been?

[traynor]

The biggest problem with class handicapping is that no one has actually written a very good book on the subject. A few modern authors have touched the subject at the edges, but there's nothing comprehensive and of very high quality out there. The general understanding of what class is and how to use it is still in the dark ages. That's why most modern handicappers think it's irrelevant now.

There was a time when speed and pace handicapping was also in the dark ages. People used terrible par time charts, inaccurate track variants etc... If we were still using that kind of information, we'd be skeptical of numbers too. However, more sophisticated books on the subject came out and that style of handicapping took over.

Quite honestly, the current wisdom that class is irrelevant etc.. is just fine by me because I believe I now occupy the same exact postion that the better speed and pace handicappers occupied before the Beyer and other books brought high caliber figures to the masses. Most of the smartest people dismiss class because they don't understand it what it is, how to use it, or how to measure it. No one ever taught them.

I agree that not much of substance has been written about class. Quinn is assumed an "authority," but he is more an academic than a handicapper. The obvius question is, who would write such a book? That it should be written is a given; racing fans buy incredible junk, not because they prefer incredible junk, but because that is the only thing available. Write a decent, literate book that provides good, usable information and put me on top of the list for pre-publication purchase.

Seriously, I think the problem is the "bean counter" mentality that prefers "57.36 fps" over less precise quantifications. (I am assuming your class focus is more interpretive than quantitative--it may not be). The proliferation of computer handicapping applications is not because they pick more winners at better prices, but rather that they play to the desire for black-and-white distinctions that make one entry "better" than another.

Class is a fascinating topic. I would not presume to ask you to reveal any techniques or processes that you consider proprietary, but I think everyone would be interested in some indication of the general direction or topics you consider relevant in evaluating class.
Good Luck

[bigmack]

This had nothing to do with any "inside" money IMO. Teammate was the reason to bet against Bushfire in a matchup. It had nothing to do with the win odds. I am learning more and more about matchups, and one big thing is win odds are only a small factor when betting matchups.
Leaning into Bushfire with her previously shown late pace being less than impressive and going 1 1/8 was foolhearty of the pub. I too am working on some of these match-ups and am unclear of your statement, "win odds are only a small factor when betting matchups". In these matchups they're downright irrelevant. ?

[mcikey01]

I did their trial a while back with the notion that it'd be useful for that, as well as spotting inbalances in the straight/exotic pools. THe problem I found was that 70% of the money would come in during the last update or two, which would usually negate any value you might've seen before that point. I also got the impression that a lot of people were attempting to do the same thing. It seemed like the greater the inefficiency, the harder it would get hit by the time betting had ended. Like, if a horse was 30% light in the show pool, on average it'd end up being overbet by 10% or so. Horses that were light by only 5% or so, would tend to be much more stable. Perhaps a lot of this is dependent on what tracks you're looking at...

I agree...I used to utilize an abbbreviated version of the Ziemba formula for identifying place overlays.....My shortcut version could be calculated mentally leaving me free to get some visuals on the field...It was a handy back-up when there was nothing appetizng in the win pool.....But, the sizable overlays at 5min to post quickly disappeared when playing the New York and California circuits...The smaller overlays seemed more stable, as you observed....And this was in the days prior to the inception of Internet betting...

Wouldn't dream of doing similar tote watching these days...

[ryesteve]

I too am working on some of these match-ups and am unclear of your statement, "win odds are only a small factor when betting matchups". In these matchups they're downright irrelevant. ?
No, they're not irrelevant. Why do you think Pinnacle and Betcris cut off the matchup bets at post time of the previous race? They don't want you seeing the toteboard. If you could bet the matchups knowing what the final odds would be, you would easily make money (as long as you were able to get your bet in before the line shifted from the bets placed by all the other people who'd be watching the tote). I believe what cj was getting at was that because of the nature of the matchups the linemakers contrive, horses don't run to their odds as reliably as they typically do.

[cj]

Leaning into Bushfire with her previously shown late pace being less than impressive and going 1 1/8 was foolhearty of the pub. I too am working on some of these match-ups and am unclear of your statement, "win odds are only a small factor when betting matchups". In these matchups they're downright irrelevant. ?

To determine a true line, I try and determine what is the chance a horse will finish in each of the possible finish positions. So I would say you are right, I don't use the public's win odds at all. I don't think you can anyway, as matchups are closed before you ever get to see live odds.

If it is a 5 horse field, I might say Horse A is 40% for 1st, 30% for 2nd, 15% 3rd, 10% 4th, 5% 5th. Horse B might be 20% 1st, 30% 2nd, 30% 3rd, 15% 4th, 5% 5th. Then, you can create a matchup line based on that. So, my personal win odds would certainly be a factor.

That is how I have begun looking at them and creating my own matchup line.

[classhandicapper]

So how do you ever place a bet?

I don't disagree with the odds board very often. In fact, over the years, the more I have learned, the more I have tended to agree with the odds board. Perhaps that's because my handicapping is very comprehensive and I am looking at more sources of information. All I know is that when I rank the horses in order of preference and then look at the board, it usually more or less matches my opinions. Most of the small differences are in very grey areas that are difficult to bet anyway.

When I do disagree and don't understand why, I don't think I am right any more often than the public. A lot of those horses I like disappoint badly for no apparent reason and the ones I didn't like seem to run much better than I expected.

Since I am often looking at so much information, I have come to suspect that there are flows of money into these races from people that may know things about the horse's condition that I don't.

When I do understand the difference of opinion, I am right much more often.

The things I disagree with the public about tend to fall into categories.

I might know that a horse from out of town raced on a dead rail last out and I can safely throw out it's last race. The locals might not dig that deep.

I might know that a horse ran into back to back fast paces and isn't really going off form. The public tends to catch on to a single fast pace or is at least pretty forgiving of a single bad effort.

I might know that a horse is gaining an inflated reputation off a few biased trips or races against especially weak competition for the class.

Once in awhile I have a strong opinion about how the race development is going to hurt one of the contenders.

There are lots of things like that. When I can pin it down, I am much more confortable with the bet.

[classhandicapper]

I thought Bushfire was a good bet against because of the layoff. It's pretty hard to get a horse ready for a Grade 1 race off a longer than 2 month layoff. Some of those horses will win, but more of them will misfire badly than the typical group of solid horses like that.

[classhandicapper]

Class is a fascinating topic. I would not presume to ask you to reveal any techniques or processes that you consider proprietary, but I think everyone would be interested in some indication of the general direction or topics you consider relevant in evaluating class.
Good Luck

I don't do much that hasn't already been written about or discussed elsewhere, but the insights are located all over the place. They aren't in any condensed book about class. So putting it all together can be a problem. I also think there is so much misinformation out there from long ago, the silliness has discouraged some extremely bright people from trying to understand how to use class better.

What I am trying to do is determine the quality and depth of the fields a horse has been competing against and how well (and consistently) it has been running (given the trips) relative to other horses in those races etc...

That starts by having an understanding of how the various class designations at your track stack up against each other (and how other tracks compare to your own) and then identifying the stronger and weaker fields within those designations. Did the field conatin many more (less) than the average number of contenders. Were the contenders especially sharp and good (or weak) for the class?

You want to do that BEFORE the horses start coming out of the races and revealing their strength to everyone.

Horses coming out of especially strong fields often outrun their numbers and vice versa.

Things like speed and pace figures relative to the PAR for the class can be clues as to the strength of a field and help with the interpretive process, but they aren't the whole story and almost everyone has access to that info know. Plus, one of the major weaknesses of numbers is accuracy and an inability to capture everything in the race development and formulize it well. Quality comparisons often cut right through all that complexity and give you a very simple and correct answer.

[aaron]

The public is very good in NY especially when a horse comes up dead on the board.By dead, I mean a horse that most NY handicappers figure will be 8/5 and is going off 5 or 6-1.These horses are not overlasys,they are bad bets.When I see people making a line and betting horses like that,I know they are making one of the worse bets you can make in NY.When a board comes up with a horse like that,the handicapper better adjust his line.

[ryesteve]

I thought Bushfire was a good bet against because of the layoff.
Devil's advocate could say that she'd been freshened while Pine Island had been through a pair of fairly tough 10 furlong races.
But no, I don't disagree that Bushfire looked like a very unlikely winner. But on paper, I wouldn't have expected her to back up THAT badly. And as for betting that she'd finish behind Last Romance, I can see the value in using LR in the tris instead of her, but just betting that matchup straight-up would have seemed unecessarily risky.

[classhandicapper]

Devil's advocate could say that she'd been freshened while Pine Island had been through a pair of fairly tough 10 furlong races.
But no, I don't disagree that Bushfire looked like a very unlikely winner. But on paper, I wouldn't have expected her to back up THAT badly. And as for betting that she'd finish behind Last Romance, I can see the value in using LR in the tris instead of her, but just betting that matchup straight-up would have seemed unecessarily risky.

I think there's a think line between a helpful freshening and having a tough time bringing a horse back 100%. I can't say I know exactly where it is, but at the very top (Grade 1 races) I tend to start discounting a horse's chances once you get past 2 months.