PDA

View Full Version : separating contenders


motorhead
06-20-2008, 12:52 AM
here's the scenario

non-mdn sprints
fast tracks only

let's say you are making selections based on separating contenders from pretenders and get the field down to three choices

what factors would you use to go from three contenders to one?

i understand about dutching as a possibility as well as watching the odds and betting the overlays but i am seeking something more 'mechanical'

thanks

BCOURTNEY
06-20-2008, 01:01 AM
Are you trying to reduce the 3 selections to a single win bet? What if the best play is using all 3 in an exacta or trifecta. Are you just interesting in picking one horse and betting in a particular pool, win place or show?

motorhead
06-20-2008, 01:42 AM
my first thought was to see if i could find something in the win pool

but i am not against using exotics

Tom
06-20-2008, 07:10 AM
Early speed to the second call.

KMS
06-20-2008, 07:44 AM
Last speed rating much superior to any other horse's last speed rating, especially if it was within 2-3 weeks of today. If the odds are too low to bet on it, you may not want to bet against it.

Good performance two races back, bad performance at higher class level last race, back to previous class today.

Good performance on dirt two races back, bad performance on turf last race, back on dirt today.

Two most recent races were both bad, but both had a speed rating that would be competitive in today's race.

The first is self explanatory. The other three are examples of a horse's connections trying to disguise sharp form. There are lots of others. Some are easy to spot, most are less so.

There's also something Andy Beyer calls a Double Advantage Horse, which he says is the closest thing to a lock in this game. I don't remember the criteria, but you can probably google it.

Overlay
06-20-2008, 08:12 AM
The factors that I would use to try to make a distinction would be favoring horses with an early-speed running style over those that would have to come from off-the-pace to win; horses ridden by one of the top five jockeys at the current race meeting over those that aren't; a horse starting from post position one (if the race is six furlongs or less); and a horse that engaged in a duel for the lead in the later stages of its latest race (leading or trailing the leader by one length or less at the final two or three calls). (I'm assuming that you would have already weeded out horses that didn't measure up on class, condition, and overall speed.)

Also, if you had the field narrowed down to three horses (which would imply that you didn't think that any one of them had a 100% guarantee of winning), I think that, before you narrow the field any fiurther (which would tend, in my judgment, to steer you toward a horse that was likely to be overbet), you should look at the relative winning chances of each of the three (based on the past performance of your handicapping method; probabilities associated with the horses' performance characteristics; intuition/educated subjective judgment; or whatever) to gauge which of the horse's was likely to go off at odds that offered the best value in light of those chances.

thelyingthief
06-20-2008, 08:59 AM
a horse starting from post position one

these are maidens. outside maidens win more than their fair share. inside maidens lose more than their share.

tlt

Overlay
06-20-2008, 09:27 AM
these are maidens. outside maidens win more than their fair share. inside maidens lose more than their share.

The first post in the thread said specifically, "non-maiden sprints".

What's your source for your maiden data? I understand about the possibility of a less-experienced horse being adversely affected by starting from the rail like that, but I hadn't seen hard data that distinguished maidens from other horses in that regard.

Tom
06-20-2008, 10:34 AM
Ooopps.

I thought said "maidens."
Scratch my reply.:blush:

Overlay
06-20-2008, 10:48 AM
I dug out my copies of Quirin and Nunamaker. Quirin didn't address maidens specifically, but his comment on two-year-olds was, "Post position is especially important in five- and five-and-a-half-furlong dashes for juveniles, because they start much closer to the turn than do the more frequent six- and seven-furlong races. The effect of post position in sprints starting relatively near a turn was studied in Chapter 4." (In that chapter, Quirin found a statistically significant general advantage for Post Position 1 in dirt sprints of six furlongs or less that were run around one turn.)

Nunamaker did study maidens, and his findings on post position showed that maidens three years old and up breaking from post position number one in a sprint had an impact value of 1.03, indicating that such horses "held their own" as far as winning percentage. Post position number one in two-year-old dirt sprint races (with no distinction between maiden and non-maiden) produced an impact value of 1.22, which was the highest value for any post position in two-year-old races (the next highest being 1.06), and mirrored Quirin's findings as to the advantage of post position one in that type of race.

Light
06-20-2008, 11:34 AM
There's really no secret to any race as far as contenders. Best speed ratings,best Beyers,etc are going to be favored and will win most races.The top 3 SR horses will win most races. No brainer.

The problem is finding the 25 to 30% of winners who do not come accross with a BB type of obvious SR relative to their field . What propels them to a big race? The answers are complicated and individualistic. Certainly class drops,changes in distance,troubled trips,claims,new surfaces,equipment change,drugs,layoffs,form cycles,pace etc. can seriously affect a horses performance for better or worse. But you have to take the microscope out to find out which way. I could give examples but the scenarious are almost astronomical and thats why this game is tough. But when you find some of these niches,you will be well rewarded.

sally
06-20-2008, 11:39 AM
I dug out my copies of Quirin and Nunamaker. Quirin didn't address maidens specifically, but his comment on two-year-olds was, "Post position is especially important in five- and five-and-a-half-furlong dashes for juveniles, because they start much closer to the turn than do the more frequent six- and seven-furlong races. The effect of post position in sprints starting relatively near a turn was studied in Chapter 4." (In that chapter, Quirin found a statistically significant general advantage for Post Position 1 in dirt sprints of six furlongs or less that were run around one turn.)

Nunamaker did study maidens, and his findings on post position showed that maidens three years old and up breaking from post position number one in a sprint had an impact value of 1.03, indicating that such horses "held their own" as far as winning percentage. Post position number one in two-year-old dirt sprint races (with no distinction between maiden and non-maiden) produced an impact value of 1.22, which was the highest value for any post position in two-year-old races (the next highest being 1.06), and mirrored Quirin's findings as to the advantage of post position one in that type of race.

Yesterday Hollywood 8th race Maiden 5 furlongs Smokey Lonesome won from the 10th post-- this is what's sooo frustrating about horse races-- those darn exceptions!!

46zilzal
06-20-2008, 11:43 AM
Simple: find those contentious to the 2nd call. From that group ( and a track profile), which has the best chance FROM THAT POINT.

2nd call leaders win often at most tracks having enough left generally to hang on. Best at 5, 5.5 and 6.0, and speed favoring tracks you can extend that to 6.5.

Strangely, same idea works for most 8 and 8.5 routes.

Overlay
06-20-2008, 12:05 PM
Yesterday Hollywood 8th race Maiden 5 furlongs Smokey Lonesome won from the 10th post-- this is what's sooo frustrating about horse races-- those darn exceptions!!

I agree with you, and the key for me in that regard is avoiding making any one factor the go/no-go determinant of whether to eliminate a horse completely, consider it as a "contender", or bet on it. Instead, I look at the probabilities associated with how all the horses in a race compare with each other on a range of key handicapping factors, in light of the weighted relative importance of those factors in differing race scenarios. Then I base betting decisions on a comparison of my judgment of a horse's or combination's overall probability versus the public's assessment (as reflected by the odds or probable payoff), looking for cases where I think that the bet has a greater chance of winning than the public is giving it credit for (regardless of whether it's the "best" horse or combination in the field (i.e., the one most likely to come in) or not).

Robert Fischer
06-20-2008, 12:33 PM
this sounds like a simple question but there are ten million ways to die. My number one answer is to watch replays for those three contenders. After you get a reasonably accurate estimate of their ability, you have to look at the odds.