Human Judgement

[Capper Al]

This thread is about human judgement when one can't go by the numbers? I'll kick it off with Pace. I know we have a love fest here for Pace figures, so let me start off with my disclaimer first. I use pace figures with my comprehensive approach to handicapping. My pace figures have out performed my speed figures several times. One needs to be a contrarian when wagering, and I mean no disrespect toward those committed to any numeric system. Let's refer to these by scenario number.

Scenario #1: Last race horse had a good run to the second call and dies out.

Judging a race by pace the early pace could be in the top of today's field, but on the bottom of the list for late pace when compared to the other horses. The barn might have given the jockey instructions to only exercise the horse and not go for the win. Or the horse might have tried. Or the horse could have surprized and the barn who didn't have any money on the horse. Whatever the case, the numbers will say good early speed and poor overall performance. It is up to the handicapper to use judgement to anticipate today's race. How would you do it?

[cj's dad]

1- was his last race a class drop, step up or same level

2- race run at horses normal distance of ground

3- has a declining form cycle or was last race a sudden drop off

4- workout pattern since last race

5- M/L odds vs. post time odds of last race and todays M/L

[michiken]

Al, You pose a good but difficult question.

I would profile the horse and see how it normally distributes its energy:

a. If the horse was clearly running out of its ESP style and does not have other speed figures that are competitive, I might think twice. Once a quitter, always a quitter. These types are nothing but Pace Factors.

b. If the horse is clearly an early or early/presser AND cutting back in distance, I would agree with your analysis about the excercise. It's a bonus if the same jock that rode on the excercise ride is riding today because he should help the horse distribute its pace for a better finish.

c. If the horse is a confirmed router and used this as a workout, I would consider it as a positive sign.

d. Lastly, it is important to know the track and distance energy requirements that you are playing. Cheaper tracks like Beulah, Mountaineer and Evangeline downs have these types winning at large prices all the time.

Let the odds be another guide, I would demand 8-1 or higher.

[Greyfox]

I don't mind pretending "as if" the four furlong mark was the finish line.
Suppose for example the horse was first at the four furlong mark and lost the race by 8 lengths.
Using that 8 lengths I can determine a "hypothetical" Speed figure or Beyer.
If that number is lower than other animals who have shown better performances, that horse likely won't win no matter what it's odds. If it's higher look it over carefully in the post parade. Today may be a send.

[Capper Al]

1- was his last race a class drop, step up or same level

2- race run at horses normal distance of ground

3- has a declining form cycle or was last race a sudden drop off

4- workout pattern since last race

5- M/L odds vs. post time odds of last race and todays M/L

Good considerations. It might be easier if the horse dropped in distance and class today with a change to a top jockey.

[Capper Al]

Al, You pose a good but difficult question.

I would profile the horse and see how it normally distributes its energy:

a. If the horse was clearly running out of its ESP style and does not have other speed figures that are competitive, I might think twice. Once a quitter, always a quitter. These types are nothing but Pace Factors.

b. If the horse is clearly an early or early/presser AND cutting back in distance, I would agree with your analysis about the excercise. It's a bonus if the same jock that rode on the excercise ride is riding today because he should help the horse distribute its pace for a better finish.

c. If the horse is a confirmed router and used this as a workout, I would consider it as a positive sign.

d. Lastly, it is important to know the track and distance energy requirements that you are playing. Cheaper tracks like Beulah, Mountaineer and Evangeline downs have these types winning at large prices all the time.

Let the odds be another guide, I would demand 8-1 or higher.

More good considerations. The emphasis on being a router is especially nice. As far as the energy goes in this scenario, most of it is used up to the second call and then dies. The odds may be tricky also. What if the horse opens as the second favorite on the first flash of the tote board after going off at 8 to 1 or more in the last race?

[Capper Al]

I don't mind pretending "as if" the four furlong mark was the finish line.
Suppose for example the horse was first at the four furlong mark and lost the race by 8 lengths.
Using that 8 lengths I can determine a "hypothetical" Speed figure or Beyer.
If that number is lower than other animals who have shown better performances, that horse likely won't win no matter what it's odds. If it's higher look it over carefully in the post parade. Today may be a send.

Would you mind sharing an example of this? Thanks.

[Capper Al]

The point to all these considerations is that the numbers may not indicate the true value of the horse in question. When I see post of charts indicating that their program predicts the outcome of the race, I have to stop and think of situations like this. The numbers have to be wrong if this horse is now ready. There is a saying about charts on Wall Street. There are a lot of charts to be found in sunken vessels at the bottom of the sea. This holds true for horse racing.

Scenario #2 Maiden Claimers -- Horse's ran one good MSW race in it's second start and came in second beaten by 4 lengths. After 6 attempts and all other races having a sub par effort, the horse drops to Maiden Claimers. It retains the same jockey, distance, and surface through out; but it has been 7 months since its good race. The charts and the numbers will probably show this horse as a non contender. The horse could be a good claimer or the field where he came in second just pulled up. How would you figure it?

[Greyfox]

Example

Horse A
Hol 6 f 21.6 44.2 1:09.4 1 1 3 7 SR 76 TV 08 Beyer 46

This horse has ran first for four furlongs. He then lost by 7 lengths.
Had it continued on and won the Speed Rating would be 7 points higher and
the Beyer would be 7 x 2.5 = 17 or so higher.
So the hypothetical speed rating would be 76+ 7 = 83, the hypothetical Beyer would be 46 + 17= 63.
If several runners in the race have ran at the 44.2 pace before and earned higher Beyers, this one would not be considered except for being a pace factor.
If the 63 Beyer appears competitive with the top two or three in the race, the horse would be considered.

[Greyfox]

Scenario #2 Maiden Claimers -- Horse's ran one good MSW race in it's second start and came in second beaten by 4 lengths. After 6 attempts and all other races having a sub par effort, the horse drops to Maiden Claimers. It retains the same jockey, distance, and surface through out; but it has been 7 months since its good race. The charts and the numbers will probably show this horse as a non contender. The horse could be a good claimer or the field where he came in second just pulled up. How would you figure it?

Even if the horse hadn't ran one good MSW race before, the drop from MSW to MCL means that it has to be taken seriously before tossing out.
The drop may bring the runner into a pack where he's more comfortable and he may show braver run.
The DRF gives the trainer's percentage wins for MSW to MCL. If the trainer has had 20 % or higher success with the move consider. How does the good MSW line compare to today's field?
It helps to know a bit about the trainer's previous history.
That's why I find it important to limit my plays to specific tracks, rather than sampling from the entire smorgasbord of simulcast venues that most sports bars have available. For that reason I have "a sneaky trainer list" and am aware of their moves.
The horse of course may be a dud. It's nice to look them over in the Paddock, but in some instances such as Pick 3's you don't get that option.
If in doubt, put him in your Pick 3 plays. A few extra bucks on the wager, can sometimes magnify payouts at the other end and you won't be saying wudda, cudda, shudda.

[Overlay]

This thread is about human judgement when one can't go by the numbers.

I agree that quantitative measures (no matter how sophisticated) will never catch all the possible nuances that the experience, intuition, and subjective judgment of an expert can find. Despite those limitations, however, the aspects that tilt me in favor of making maximum use of hard data and its analysis by automated means come down to:

availability of the technology

speed of calculation / increased volume of play / consistency of application within and between races (all of which I view as at least partially compensating for the subtleties that automation can't pick up on)

the value of one's time

more precise probability calculations for all horses (not just any particular horse), allowing greater assurance of detecting betting value (in both straight wagers and exotics)(again, coupled with speed and volume), and also deciding what level of return you require for the betting risk that you are taking

[jasperson]

If the horse is racing at arlington or keenland these tracks are closing tracks and late pace is more dominate. On dirt tracks I would do the following
1 Is the distance right
2 has he run the race par in one of his last 3 starts at this distance
3 Did he have trouble in his last start
4 has any other horse ran a better speed figure in his last 3 starts.
a. Did he do it at this distance and class.
B. Did he have trouble in his last start
5 How many other early pace types do we have in the race
6 Was he wearing front bandages for the first time in his last race
7 Did he change barns since last race

[Capper Al]

Example

Horse A
Hol 6 f 21.6 44.2 1:09.4 1 1 3 7 SR 76 TV 08 Beyer 46

This horse has ran first for four furlongs. He then lost by 7 lengths.
Had it continued on and won the Speed Rating would be 7 points higher and
the Beyer would be 7 x 2.5 = 17 or so higher.
So the hypothetical speed rating would be 76+ 7 = 83, the hypothetical Beyer would be 46 + 17= 63.
If several runners in the race have ran at the 44.2 pace before and earned higher Beyers, this one would not be considered except for being a pace factor.
If the 63 Beyer appears competitive with the top two or three in the race, the horse would be considered.

Thanks. I'm with you.

[Capper Al]

I agree that quantitative measures (no matter how sophisticated) will never catch all the possible nuances that the experience, intuition, and subjective judgment of an expert can find. Despite those limitations, however, the aspects that tilt me in favor of making maximum use of hard data and its analysis by automated means come down to:

availability of the technology

speed of calculation / increased volume of play / consistency of application within and between races (all of which I view as at least partially compensating for the subtleties that automation can't pick up on)

the value of one's time

more precise probability calculations for all horses (not just any particular horse), allowing greater assurance of detecting betting value (in both straight wagers and exotics)(again, coupled with speed and volume), and also deciding what level of return you require for the betting risk that you are taking

Don't get me wrong. I like my numbers. The point is that the numbers are not the alpha and omega of handicapping. Human judgement is needed also. Numbers are more like the alpha or the beginning. Detective work is needed after that. In the previous posting by GreyFox, he points out a good use for these intuitive plays -- in the pick 3!

[Capper Al]

If the horse is racing at arlington or keenland these tracks are closing tracks and late pace is more dominate. On dirt tracks I would do the following
1 Is the distance right -yes
2 has he run the race par in one of his last 3 starts at this distance -No
3 Did he have trouble in his last start -no
4 has any other horse ran a better speed figure in his last 3 starts. -most
a. Did he do it at this distance and class. -no. he's dropping to MC
B. Did he have trouble in his last start
5 How many other early pace types do we have in the race
6 Was he wearing front bandages for the first time in his last race
7 Did he change barns since last race -no

Hi Jack,

I know you study the numbers from our previous discussions. Given this scenario #2, I have highlighted our assumptions. They are good questions.

[Capper Al]

Okay, I've started scenario #1 and #2 where the charts or the numbers might not work. Let's see if we can hear for other forum members where the charts or numbers might not work. I will say that sticking by the numbers I do hit more winners over the long run. Guessing to jump off the statistical horse hasn't been profitable for me. I find most of these opportunities after the race rather than before. Anyone want to submit a scenario #3?

[jasperson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperson
If the horse is racing at arlington or keenland these tracks are closing tracks and late pace is more dominate. On dirt tracks I would do the following
1 Is the distance right -yes
2 has he run the race par in one of his last 3 starts at this distance -No
3 Did he have trouble in his last start -no
4 has any other horse ran a better speed figure in his last 3 starts. -most
a. Did he do it at this distance and class. -no. he's dropping to MC
B. Did he have trouble in his last start
5 How many other early pace types do we have in the race
6 Was he wearing front bandages for the first time in his last race
7 Did he change barns since last race

-no

Hi Jack,

I know you study the numbers from our previous discussions. Given this scenario #2, I have highlighted our assumptions. They are good questions

I will not bet on a maiden unless he has run within 2 speed points of the par for this race. I will bet a first timer against him if the best starter in the race has shown a speed rating in his last race within par. Under that condition I will not bet the first time starter unless I get 10-1 or better.
This is what I use on all races.
I am not a pace handicapper per say because when I run Brohamer's Calculations on the horses I selected speed last race beats Brohamer's average pace hands down. Granted Brohamer's caluclations had the winner of the Belmont but in under of winners vs speed last race it falls down. As you say I am a numbers man and compare the number and let them speak for them selfs. I am an engineer and if something works I will use it. If it doesn't work try to find something that does. I throw Speed almost completely out on truf races because it does work. How can you caluclate a track variant of 2 races per day and not at the same distance and them throw in about distances? I try to keep an open mind to handicapping theories and have tried most of them and kept records on them. My records still say speed is dominate over all other handicapping methods. The horse that won the race was the one that ran the course the fastest. And the horse that win this race will be the one that ran the race the fastest period. As Andy Beyers said It isn't how fast the horse ran in his last race, but how did he run fast in his last race. The worst thing a handicapper can do is devote emotional loyality to some method and try to make it work. I have seen it it football, baseball and with BB. I made a lot of money betting against my team the Bud Grant Vikings because they would win but not cover the spread.

[Greyfox]

[QUOTE=jasperson]Quote:
As Andy Beyers said It isn't how fast the horse ran in his last race, but how did he run fast in his last race. QUOTE]

Can you point me where Andy Beyer ever said that?

[Greyfox]

Quote:
I throw Speed almost completely out on truf races because it does work.
Hmmm? Somehow I don't believe that for a minute and you still haven't sent back where Beyer ever said the quote you attributed to him.


The horse that won the race was the one that ran the course the fastest. And the horse that win this race will be the one that ran the race the fastest period. .

More hmm?

I have questions jasperson about all 3 comments that you have made, none of which I believe or play. If you're winning with those beliefs great. Personally, I do well using other stuff.

[ranchwest]

I've never seen a hypothetical horse run a hypothetical race.

Everyone keeps talking about dissecting actual races, but this is what we always discuss. Horse A and horse B.

I'll tell you what, I have a 98% win rate on these.

I wish someone would pick out a race two days out and then everyone follow it through to post-race.

[riskman]

I've never seen a hypothetical horse run a hypothetical race.

Everyone keeps talking about dissecting actual races, but this is what we always discuss. Horse A and horse B.

I'll tell you what, I have a 98% win rate on these.

I wish someone would pick out a race two days out and then everyone follow it through to post-race.

Why--did you have a scratch, DQ, or an error in PP'S or download? :)
Handicapp a race that is scheduled two days in advance ? Sounds good to me.

[ranchwest]

Why--did you have a scratch, DQ, or an error in PP'S or download? :)
Handicapp a race that is scheduled two days in advance ? Sounds good to me.

I only get 98% so that I can show my human shortcoming. :lol:

[Tom]

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
------------George Carlin


I agree - a real race BEFORE it is run would be worth more than 10,000 posts about what if.

[asH]

nice card at Pha tomorrow, 7 out of 9 on turf at Cnl too

[Capper Al]

Scenario #3 -- Second time turf. A 3 year old who has good turf breeding, a good turf trainer is trying turf for the second time today. Last turf race he came in the bottom half of the field. The horse has a total of 5 PP lines with the best a 4th place finish by 3 lgts in an 8 furlong dirt race out of an 8 horse field. In this race the horse flashed a late charge. Do you consider him? Again the point is that if you do support him, the numbers aren't there to validate him.

[jasperson]

I just read your first post with this question because I had other things to do. The quote is in his book Beyers on Speed Chapter 8 A week in Las Vegas. I will have to reread that chapter to give you exact page
Jack

[Greyfox]

I just read your first post with this question because I had other things to do. The quote is in his book Beyers on Speed Chapter 8 A week in Las Vegas. I will have to reread that chapter to give you exact page
Jack

I hope so because I've seen that comment many times before, but not from Beyer.

[Tom]

Scenario #3 -- Second time turf. A 3 year old who has good turf breeding, a good turf trainer is trying turf for the second time today. Last turf race he came in the bottom half of the field. The horse has a total of 5 PP lines with the best a 4th place finish by 3 lgts in an 8 furlong dirt race out of an 8 horse field. In this race the horse flashed a late charge. Do you consider him? Again the point is that if you do support him, the numbers aren't there to validate him.

Depends on the other horses in the race.
2nd time turf, good breeding, turf trainer, I'd not throw him out unless something else looked really good. His dirt form is meaningless. You want poor
dirt form to build the odds.

Did he close or fade first time turf? Did he run with or against the turf profile? Even in the bottom half, what was his final fraction compared to today's field? Any other changes - blinkers, shoes, rider? Is this a pattern match for the trainer? Was there trouble in the last race?

The only think I look at here is 2nd time turf, good breeding, turf connections. This is not a race I would use pace, as proven turf losers will probably show better ratings. But if his lone try was copetitive, then that is a plus for him. I expect improvement. Using pace on young developing horses is often one race too late to cash a ticket.

[jasperson]

Hmmm? Somehow I don't believe that for a minute and you still haven't sent back where Beyer ever said the quote you attributed to him.



More hmm?

I have questions jasperson about all 3 comments that you have made, none of which I believe or play. If you're winning with those beliefs great. Personally, I do well using other stuff.
I made some typing errors in my post that I should have caught but I think you got the gist of it
Yes I don't give much attention to speed rating on turf. That old saying that is as old as horses racing "Bet the class on grass", and that is what I do. The big question is how do you define class? I have my own method that seems to work. Turf and maidens are my big money winners. Claimers and stakes race are tuff for me so I rarely bet them. I am willing to learn anything new that works that is why I bought Brohamer's book and programmed his calculations using bris data. Also I read that articles published by franson (allways) and tried to incorporate it in to my handicapping, but it just didn't work for me. Presently I have modified one of my programs to change early pace and replace it with late pace for use with artificiall tracks like ap and Woodbine.

[Greyfox]

As Andy Beyers said It isn't how fast the horse ran in his last race, but how did he run fast in his last race. .

Okay, I accept that you made spelling errors and left words out, but I got the message.

But I did take exception to attributing the above comment to Andy Beyer.
I don't disagree with the comment. I'd just be very surprised if Andy ever said that.
That comment is a very important premise from people who do PACE handicapping. Andy pays attention to trips and Speed. For most of his life he has basically been a Speed handicapper and in more recent years has conceded to the value of pace. That's why I don't think that Andy made that comment and you can read all of his books until you are blue in the face and you won't find it coming from him. He may mention that someone else said it, but it wasn't him. That's all. All the best.

[Capper Al]

Okay, I accept that you made spelling errors and left words out, but I got the message.

But I did take exception to attributing the above comment to Andy Beyer.
I don't disagree with the comment. I'd just be very surprised if Andy ever said that.
That comment is a very important premise from people who do PACE handicapping. Andy pays attention to trips and Speed. For most of his life he has basically been a Speed handicapper and in more recent years has conceded to the value of pace. That's why I don't think that Andy made that comment and you can read all of his books until you are blue in the face and you won't find it coming from him. He may mention that someone else said it, but it wasn't him. That's all. All the best.

I'm on the road or I would look up the quote, but I believe it is in Beyer on Speed. He makes that statement, or something similar, when he comes to accept the Pace cappers point of view as plausible.

[Capper Al]

Depends on the other horses in the race.
2nd time turf, good breeding, turf trainer, I'd not throw him out unless something else looked really good. His dirt form is meaningless. You want poor
dirt form to build the odds.

Did he close or fade first time turf? Did he run with or against the turf profile? Even in the bottom half, what was his final fraction compared to today's field? Any other changes - blinkers, shoes, rider? Is this a pattern match for the trainer? Was there trouble in the last race?

The only think I look at here is 2nd time turf, good breeding, turf connections. This is not a race I would use pace, as proven turf losers will probably show better ratings. But if his lone try was copetitive, then that is a plus for him. I expect improvement. Using pace on young developing horses is often one race too late to cash a ticket.

I agree. The point is that we're off the charts or any numeric system here. The problem now becomes demanding mimimun odds can become counter intuitive when we need to be intuitive. If the horse is ready and the barn goes crazy he might go off below 8/1. If he goes off at 8/1 or more he might be a dud. This highlights another exception to wagering that of knowing when or when not to set miminum odds. No author or software program, that I know of, makes this distiinction when discussing wagering.

[Capper Al]

How about others finding scenarios where numbers probably won't work. There must be more stories.

I'll kick off another one that most of you probably read.

Scenario #4: Graded winner returning after a layoff in an Optional Claiming or an Allowance race. This horse will most likely have the best numbers and be on the top of the charts for today's race but the barn is probably only going to excerise the horse. Do you hunt for another horse? Would you make an exotic including the graded winner?

[Niko]

[QUOTE=jasperson]Quote:
As Andy Beyers said It isn't how fast the horse ran in his last race, but how did he run fast in his last race. QUOTE]

Can you point me where Andy Beyer ever said that?

It wasn't Andy Beyer-my money is on Ray Talbout who wrote all the old angle columns for ATM. I still had an old article with the quote a short while ago, I'll have to see if I can find it.

Others may have said it before I'm not sure? Others have used it after

[jonnielu]

How about others finding scenarios where numbers probably won't work. There must be more stories.

I'll kick off another one that most of you probably read.

Scenario #4: Graded winner returning after a layoff in an Optional Claiming or an Allowance race. This horse will most likely have the best numbers and be on the top of the charts for today's race but the barn is probably only going to excerise the horse. Do you hunt for another horse? Would you make an exotic including the graded winner?

For both scenarios, you will find the additional information that you need in the paddock and on the track in pre-race warm-up.

If the horse looks great physically, and gets the benefit of a complete solid warm-up again where horse and rider look great together, the stable has left nothing to chance and is attempting to win this race on purpose. If you do not see this, you do not bet.

Horses win without it, but usually those are the ones where you are wondering how and why they won.

jdl

[jonnielu]

I've never seen a hypothetical horse run a hypothetical race.

Everyone keeps talking about dissecting actual races, but this is what we always discuss. Horse A and horse B.

I'll tell you what, I have a 98% win rate on these.

I wish someone would pick out a race two days out and then everyone follow it through to post-race.

7th Belmont, Thursday

[46zilzal]

Numbers, however they are calculated do not stand alone: they have to be in context and broken down in distribution. I see many favorites with a rising % median and static or lower total energy (the Sartin definition) finish out all the time.

[jasperson]

I hope so because I've seen that comment many times before, but not from Beyer.
I reread that chapter and couldn't find that statement by him so it don't know where I got it. I don't by that drf so it must be off from tvg or hrtv. Sorry
Jack

[jasperson]

Okay, I accept that you made spelling errors and left words out, but I got the message.

But I did take exception to attributing the above comment to Andy Beyer.
I don't disagree with the comment. I'd just be very surprised if Andy ever said that.
That comment is a very important premise from people who do PACE handicapping. Andy pays attention to trips and Speed. For most of his life he has basically been a Speed handicapper and in more recent years has conceded to the value of pace. That's why I don't think that Andy made that comment and you can read all of his books until you are blue in the face and you won't find it coming from him. He may mention that someone else said it, but it wasn't him. That's all. All the best.
I stand corrected. I couldn't find it. Whoever said it first it is a true statement and I wish I had said it first. You have chastised me correctly and I will say 50 hail Tom Brohamer's to repent my transgressions.

[DRIVEWAY]

Numbers, however they are calculated do not stand alone: they have to be in context and broken down in distribution. I see many favorites with a rising % median and static or lower total energy (the Sartin definition) finish out all the time.

Please alert us!!

[ranchwest]

7th Belmont, Thursday

I like the class drop on the 5. Looks like he wasn't in his element last out, went out fast which should be a good conditioning element.

Coa is listed on the 1 and shows some nice form.

I see some improvement on the 2 and 6. I'm questioning the barn change on the 6.

7 has a good barn and works.

I'll go with 5 to win.

Give me a wide exacta on 1,5/1,2,5,7 for $6

For a tri, I'll take 1,5/1,2,5,7/1,2,5,6,7 for $18

GL.

[Greyfox]

I stand corrected. I couldn't find it. Whoever said it first it is a true statement and I wish I had said it first. You have chastised me correctly and I will say 50 hail Tom Brohamer's to repent my transgressions.

Thankyou. All the best with your handicapping. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

I'm on the road or I would look up the quote, but I believe it is in Beyer on Speed. He makes that statement, or something similar, when he comes to accept the Pace cappers point of view as plausible.

Has anybody looked through Beyer on Speed for the quote? I'm in France until mid July or I'd look it up myself. I'm almost sure you'll find the quote there.

[Capper Al]

For both scenarios, you will find the additional information that you need in the paddock and on the track in pre-race warm-up.

If the horse looks great physically, and gets the benefit of a complete solid warm-up again where horse and rider look great together, the stable has left nothing to chance and is attempting to win this race on purpose. If you do not see this, you do not bet.

Horses win without it, but usually those are the ones where you are wondering how and why they won.

jdl

I agree with what you say except with this scenario #4. The horse should look better than the rest of the field and warm up well, but it is highly likely that the barn is going to hold this horse back.

[Capper Al]

Numbers, however they are calculated do not stand alone: they have to be in context and broken down in distribution. I see many favorites with a rising % median and static or lower total energy (the Sartin definition) finish out all the time.

I agree with this analysis for play in general, but what we are looking at so far here are numbers that are more likely not to reflect a horses true ability in today's race. The charts will have a number for these horses but they can't be taken serious.

[Capper Al]

I like the class drop on the 5. Looks like he wasn't in his element last out, went out fast which should be a good conditioning element.

Coa is listed on the 1 and shows some nice form.

I see some improvement on the 2 and 6. I'm questioning the barn change on the 6.

7 has a good barn and works.

I'll go with 5 to win.

Give me a wide exacta on 1,5/1,2,5,7 for $6

For a tri, I'll take 1,5/1,2,5,7/1,2,5,6,7 for $18

GL.

How did you do?

[jonnielu]

I like the class drop on the 5. Looks like he wasn't in his element last out, went out fast which should be a good conditioning element.

Coa is listed on the 1 and shows some nice form.

I see some improvement on the 2 and 6. I'm questioning the barn change on the 6.

7 has a good barn and works.

I'll go with 5 to win.

Give me a wide exacta on 1,5/1,2,5,7 for $6

For a tri, I'll take 1,5/1,2,5,7/1,2,5,6,7 for $18

GL.

For me, legitimate class drops are bad news, but, it depends on whether or not the horse is actually established at the higher level or not. In recent years though, I believe some stables are risking it because it is such an obvious negative signal. I'll consider how the horse has been going for the past couple of months, and get all I can out of physicality if such a horse is a contender for me. #5 is my "fast" contender, as such, I see him as not fast enough early to go all the way on the lead.

The #1 sits pretty with my best "run" rating and showing middle early speed from last, the post can only be seen as positive for a 6f distance. If Coa is a positive rider switch, that earns another check mark. It would make sense that if #1 just picked it up early today, #5 and #7 can be kept outside, and that may be all that #1 needs to do up to the quarter pole. That may be what the rider switch is about.

The favorite, #7, is always the favorite, but #7 has a lotta mo running to do then anyone else here, and although he is my "slow" contender here, I believe he is too slow and too far outside for as fast as the wire is going to show up.

As far as PP's, ratings, and similar supporting factors, I see no great advantage for any, and advantage for #1 more then the others.

For betting purposes, I would not win bet any, unless #1 showed the sharp physicality signs that I want to see. Such is the nature of win betting in the 21st century. A significant edge for one, that is not obvious to all, is hard to find. And, the bettor should not reach for it when it is so often not there.

Three legitimate contenders, with relatively equal ability is all that the industry needs to insure larger handle and something for everyone in any race. Considering the odds, I would win bet #1, if I could find some more advantage for him thru physicality. If not, my win bet would be a group bet on these 3 contenders in a Pk3, since that is one good way to group bet within the "win" perspective.

#1 may show enough advantage here to support some vertical exotic group betting on this race. #5 can get in on that too, along with #2, and #3. Both of them should run with #1 and #5 and have the ability to hang in through the stretch, #3 actually shows some dig in and move ability in the stretch, I'd have to check him out physically at 50-1.

Vertical would be Ex box 1,2,3 - Tri box 1,2,3,5

[jonnielu]

I agree with what you say except with this scenario #4. The horse should look better than the rest of the field and warm up well, but it is highly likely that the barn is going to hold this horse back.

There is no holding back in the sense that you are thinking of it. It is too simple to lose intentionally. "Holding back" as you see it in your mind is not necessary.
"Holding back" as you see it, is primarily done easly enough by simply taking a cold horse into the gate. Nobody needs to engage in any shenanigans.

If a stable wants to get good work within a race, it is just too simple to spot the field 15 lengths in the opening 2f, then let the horse work for 5 or 6f. He could run his eyeballs out to finish 5th by 6 lengths, insuring a lousy speed rating to boot.

There is no particular need to manipulate a graded winner this way though. If a graded winner shows up ready, and warms up well, he is running to his ability, unless prevented by something that happens on the track. Graded winners can be beaten by good allowance horses, that is where the graded winners come from.

jdl

[jonnielu]

How did you do?

Hey Al,

The race is later this afternoon, and the soup is still cookin', if you want to get your noodle in.

jdl

[Capper Al]

There is no holding back in the sense that you are thinking of it. It is too simple to lose intentionally. "Holding back" as you see it in your mind is not necessary.
"Holding back" as you see it, is primarily done easly enough by simply taking a cold horse into the gate. Nobody needs to engage in any shenanigans.

If a stable wants to get good work within a race, it is just too simple to spot the field 15 lengths in the opening 2f, then let the horse work for 5 or 6f. He could run his eyeballs out to finish 5th by 6 lengths, insuring a lousy speed rating to boot.

There is no particular need to manipulate a graded winner this way though. If a graded winner shows up ready, and warms up well, he is running to his ability, unless prevented by something that happens on the track. Graded winners can be beaten by good allowance horses, that is where the graded winners come from.

jdl

Again I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you are hearing me. I agree with you that usually a race is run to win. But in the case of scenario #4, it is likely an excerise. The barn wants to save the horse for the graded races where the money really is. This is legal and is different from holding a horse back in a claiming race to get higher odds next time out. This tactic will invalidate the horse with the best numbers or charts. Horse and racing sense trumps statistics play. This is the big difference between the intermediate and advance player. The advance player knows when to hold them (the numbers) and knows when to fold them. The intermediate player has just come to understand the numbers within their context. When I get predict 1 out of 3 times where the numbers won't work, I will consider myself an advance player.

[Capper Al]

Hey Al,

The race is later this afternoon, and the soup is still cookin', if you want to get your noodle in.

jdl

I normally I would jump in but I'm on vacation where I find a computer when I can. Thanks.

[nobeyerspls]

The 7th at Belmont is not playable for me. Surface is my first screen and I note that #7, the probable favorite, has neither run or worked on the Belmont track. She could air at a low price or be off the board. Recency, my second screen, favors the #1 horse as she has been off a month (I take an opposite approach with colts). Both of these horses will be under 7/2 so I cannot play either straight. With uncertainty over #7, I won't construct vertical exotics either.
I can start a pick 3 with them and the sequence is 1,7- with 3- with 3,5,7,8.

[jonnielu]

The 7th at Belmont is not playable for me. Surface is my first screen and I note that #7, the probable favorite, has neither run or worked on the Belmont track. She could air at a low price or be off the board. Recency, my second screen, favors the #1 horse as she has been off a month (I take an opposite approach with colts). Both of these horses will be under 7/2 so I cannot play either straight. With uncertainty over #7, I won't construct vertical exotics either.
I can start a pick 3 with them and the sequence is 1,7- with 3- with 3,5,7,8.

Wouldn't #3 have some long price appeal to you?

[ranchwest]

Wouldn't #3 have some long price appeal to you?

You keep coming back to the 3. I know she's 8 days out, but that's all I see. Her speed figures have never suggested being competitive with this group. This year, last year, fast, life, track. She doesn't even meet mediocre standards very often except on an off track. Is it wet at Belmont today?

What do you like about the 3?

[Tom]

The 2,4,and 6 will make it crowded up front, so I look for an other than early horse to win it.

1 meets the Beyer par of 72, and closes, and was just claimed into good connections that win first off the claim, too.

The best fig the 5 has improved off of is a 65, and look at the pattern match his recent 70 has to his previous 72. Not on my list today.

The 7 meets par on both poly and dirt, but is a question mark, as NBP said. He does close well, and will not be a surprise to win, but probably as an underlay. If I see him at 8-1, however, he gets something from me. But I’m not holding my breath.

The 8 is interesting. Draw a line through his inner dirt races, his turf race, and his $35,000 race just before a layoff and you have a consistent horse who meets this par or close to it on numerous occasions. One start off a rest, with trouble, and a ball park Beyer number.



My picks are 1-7-8. Bet the two highest odds, if 4-1 or better.

[asH]

Ambling Rose- Luzzi rates in back of speed and fade types asks the question at the top of the stretch. Faced better in Pha. first time at Aqu after bump moved on for 3rd, excellent works ran giant next 2, Coa usually gives upwhen things dont go right for him (20 lengths last one) , trainer/jock(luzzi) 16-5-0-0 (31%) in sprints since 06'.

Mt Langfuhr-likes speed, was best in last Gomez couldnt
overcome lack of speed in race.

exacta 5-6

[asH]

Stress Free- first time Bel,has been facing lowly bottom of Cali claimers, Cal bred

Positives : 32% trainer 1stw/trn, trainer/jock


wait-n-see for me

[ranchwest]

How did you do?

5 win - $9.40
5-2 Ex. - $100.00 on $1
5-2-1 Tri - $300.00 on $1

[jonnielu]

You keep coming back to the 3. I know she's 8 days out, but that's all I see. Her speed figures have never suggested being competitive with this group. This year, last year, fast, life, track. She doesn't even meet mediocre standards very often except on an off track. Is it wet at Belmont today?

What do you like about the 3?

I just don't have a 50-1 win to brag about, so I figure that I should mention every 50-1 until I get one.:D

# Win Place Show
5 $9.40 $4.80 $3.60
2 . $15.20 $6.70
1 . . $3.10
Wager Type Winning Numbers Paid
$1.00 Exacta 5-2 $100.00
$1.00 Trifecta 5-2-1 $300.00
$0.10 Superfecta 5-2-1-7 $99.40

Looks like you nailed it on the class drop, this is becoming something that you can't automatically take as negative lately. The tri covered my stabs, I'm wondering what you saw in the #2? #2 had a good rating for me, one that suggested some late run, that is what I saw. Since the first of the year, I am only taking limited peeks at PP's and I didn't have any for BEL.

jdl

[Tom]

Well, I nailed that one! :rolleyes:

Look at the bright side, I got to enjoy watching the race a hell of a lot longer than Ranchwest did. :D

[Tom]

Check out gm10's rating for this race....he quitely nailed the winner.
Nice website....ratings look worth looking into.

http://www.latekick.com/


Nice job!:ThmbUp:

[jasperson]

Thankyou. All the best with your handicapping. :ThmbUp:
That is not to say I might sin again.:D

[ranchwest]

I just don't have a 50-1 win to brag about, so I figure that I should mention every 50-1 until I get one.:D

# Win Place Show
5 $9.40 $4.80 $3.60
2 . $15.20 $6.70
1 . . $3.10
Wager Type Winning Numbers Paid
$1.00 Exacta 5-2 $100.00
$1.00 Trifecta 5-2-1 $300.00
$0.10 Superfecta 5-2-1-7 $99.40

Looks like you nailed it on the class drop, this is becoming something that you can't automatically take as negative lately. The tri covered my stabs, I'm wondering what you saw in the #2? #2 had a good rating for me, one that suggested some late run, that is what I saw. Since the first of the year, I am only taking limited peeks at PP's and I didn't have any for BEL.

jdl

The 2 was mostly a "throw it in and see". She was the career EPS leader and coming off a career best SR (TSN) after running on 9 days off and coming back in 27. At the 16k level, I like taking chances on horses with some improvement, especially if they've got reasonable breeding like this one.

The class drop on the 5 has to be taken in context. Two back the horse was claimed. The new trainer puts the horse in very optimistically and sends it and the horse fails as most would expect. The horse was claimed out of 20k NW3 in which she was .7-1 and won. Now she's in an open filly 16K at a lower purse than the race she won. I was looking for her to run similarly to her win, not her 5th place 11 days ago. My software picked the win as the pace line.

As the thread topic says, Human Judgement, but based in large part on numbers.

[ranchwest]

I just noticed that the 1 and 7 were claimed out of the race.

[Capper Al]

That is not to say I might sin again.:D

Hey Guys,

That quote you are looking for is either in Beyer on Speed or Pace is the Race by Huey ?? When I get back from vacation, I'll look it up.

[Capper Al]

The 2 was mostly a "throw it in and see". She was the career EPS leader and coming off a career best SR (TSN) after running on 9 days off and coming back in 27. At the 16k level, I like taking chances on horses with some improvement, especially if they've got reasonable breeding like this one.

The class drop on the 5 has to be taken in context. Two back the horse was claimed. The new trainer puts the horse in very optimistically and sends it and the horse fails as most would expect. The horse was claimed out of 20k NW3 in which she was .7-1 and won. Now she's in an open filly 16K at a lower purse than the race she won. I was looking for her to run similarly to her win, not her 5th place 11 days ago. My software picked the win as the pace line.

As the thread topic says, Human Judgement, but based in large part on numbers.

You bring up another point, the divide between numbers(statistcs) and horse/racing logical isn't black and white; and it is not either/or. These are the hardest calls to make, but I believe necessary to be profitable over the long run. I get my butt kicked making these calls. It is far easier to stick with the numbers and take the hits.

[raybo]

1- was his last race a class drop, step up or same level

2- race run at horses normal distance of ground

3- has a declining form cycle or was last race a sudden drop off

4- workout pattern since last race

5- M/L odds vs. post time odds of last race and todays M/L

Very nice! Couldn't have done a better job myself.

[Capper Al]

Would anyone like to post another race? One where you believe the high number horse is unlikely to win?

[ranchwest]

Would anyone like to post another race? One where you believe the high number horse is unlikely to win?

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean one where the high speed rating horse will likely lose?

[Capper Al]

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean one where the high speed rating horse will likely lose?

I left it open for whatever style of play a person has. If one is a pace capper or a class capper or a speed capper -- whatever style. If they find a top rated figure that they wouldn't bet, pass it on. For example, if I'm a speed capper and I won't bet on the highest speed figure horse -- let us know the race and tell us why. Thanks.

[thelyingthief]

The point is that the numbers are not the alpha and omega of handicapping. Human judgement is needed also.

on the other hand, judgment is too often "wrong" as to be trustworthy. say you intuit an outcome contrary to the values your method produces, AND you cash, how do you know if you were omniscient or merely lucky? too often this leads to repeated instances where you doubt, over-ride, or allow wishful thinking to cloud the picture, and for every dime you have won by an insight, you lose a dollar pursuing a repeat of it.

in schweiger's "New Market Wizards", an interview with Eckhardt makes the following salient point: if you find yourself too often over-riding your system or method, generally this indicates something that you have failed to include in it. it is THAT which must be analyzed, and acted on, not the judgment, per se, nor its promptings.

frankly, i have found this to be true in my own handicapping. when i have tried to see through my figures to another reality, so to speak, or find a more "attractive" possibility, i merely produce aberrant viewpoints, and the equivalent of "white-noise" in the data. i have found, at least in every instance where i repeatedly question the accuracy of my numbers, a need to review and redefine my method.

tlt

[ranchwest]

on the other hand, judgment is too often "wrong" as to be trustworthy. say you intuit an outcome contrary to the values your method produces, AND you cash, how do you know if you were omniscient or merely lucky? too often this leads to repeated instances where you doubt, over-ride, or allow wishful thinking to cloud the picture, and for every dime you have won by an insight, you lose a dollar pursuing a repeat of it.

in schweiger's "New Market Wizards", an interview with Eckhardt makes the following salient point: if you find yourself too often over-riding your system or method, generally this indicates something that you have failed to include in it. it is THAT which must be analyzed, and acted on, not the judgment, per se, nor its promptings.

frankly, i have found this to be true in my own handicapping. when i have tried to see through my figures to another reality, so to speak, or find a more "attractive" possibility, i merely produce aberrant viewpoints, and the equivalent of "white-noise" in the data. i have found, at least in every instance where i repeatedly question the accuracy of my numbers, a need to review and redefine my method.

tlt


Most of my best scores have been based on some odd fact on which I've depended.

I've run numbers out until I'm blue in the face. I'd guess that 7 years ago I was doing more what-if's than probably 90+% of the people on this board. Even though I don't have much time for it these days, I still run out computer numbers. In fact, for a little while I was very successful in straight up computer play.

Still, I find numbers to be an aid. Something that points me in the right direction.

The trick is to know the difference between going looking for a more attractive possibility and letting the attractive possibility find you.

[Capper Al]

Here's another place where the top figure is unlikely to work.

The top figure horse won it's last race 24 days ago by a neck. It did not set a new top speed for itself. The second figure horse is 2 speed points slower and finished third by 2 lengths in the last race 30 days back. (2 speed points is statistically significant.) In today's race everything stays the same -- class, distance, surface, jockey, and trainer. Both horses are E/P 6, and are the only two E/P horses on an E/P favoring track. The morning line picks them one/two with the top fig horse as the favorite. What one would you lean towards?

[Tom]

How often will that scenario come up?

[ranchwest]

Would anyone like to post another race? One where you believe the high number horse is unlikely to win?

If you have the July 4th CD R2, I thought the favorite (#6, Stoney's Lad) was a very poor bet at odds on. The horse kept getting bet and losing with decent speed figures. He had lost with that pattern enough times that I figured that this was a case where the speed ratings didn't mean much. The horse seemed to not be able to close out a race -- at least that seemed true enough to where it was a bad bet at 4/5.

The downside is that I found no clearcut way to get on the winner, the 3. A good argument is that the favorite had a class rating much higher than the other horses, so if you don't like the favorite then a FTS (first time starter) has to get some consideration. FTS'ers don't get class ratings. Another good argument was that the odds were right.

[Capper Al]

How often will that scenario come up?

It's about a horse needing a rest after a win and trying to figure out the trainer's intentions. I am trying to focus on the principle not an actual event.

[Capper Al]

If you have the July 4th CD R2, I thought the favorite (#6, Stoney's Lad) was a very poor bet at odds on. The horse kept getting bet and losing with decent speed figures. He had lost with that pattern enough times that I figured that this was a case where the speed ratings didn't mean much. The horse seemed to not be able to close out a race -- at least that seemed true enough to where it was a bad bet at 4/5.

The downside is that I found no clearcut way to get on the winner, the 3. A good argument is that the favorite had a class rating much higher than the other horses, so if you don't like the favorite then a FTS (first time starter) has to get some consideration. FTS'ers don't get class ratings. Another good argument was that the odds were right.

I thought about this after I posted it. The favorite is as likely to win as the second favorite in this scenario. The favorite might be even money and the second favorite 5/2 making the second favorite the play on odds or a pass.

[Tom]

The favorite is as likely to win as the second favorite in this scenario.

How can you make a general statement like this without any data to back it up?

RW, FTS DO have work out ratings and pedigree ratings, as well as other ratings in HTR, so there are objective ways to measure them. I'll look at the that race tonight - I never look at CD races, so this one escaped me.

[ranchwest]

How can you make a general statement like this without any data to back it up?

RW, FTS DO have work out ratings and pedigree ratings, as well as other ratings in HTR, so there are objective ways to measure them. I'll look at the that race tonight - I never look at CD races, so this one escaped me.

I realize that there are objective ways to measure FTSers. My point was that the class ratings in my data files indicated the favorite was rated far more highly than the other starters except the FTSer, which doesn't get a rating. To me, when I didn't like the favorite that suggested that there is an argument there for looking for value in the FTSers.

[ranchwest]

I thought about this after I posted it. The favorite is as likely to win as the second favorite in this scenario. The favorite might be even money and the second favorite 5/2 making the second favorite the play on odds or a pass.

Why the second favorite? There's nothing to inherently indicate that the second favorite is any more attractive than the favorite.

[Tom]

I realize that there are objective ways to measure FTSers. My point was that the class ratings in my data files indicated the favorite was rated far more highly than the other starters except the FTSer, which doesn't get a rating. To me, when I didn't like the favorite that suggested that there is an argument there for looking for value in the FTSers.

Gottcha....like when nothinghas rum to par, look at FTS. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

Why the second favorite? There's nothing to inherently indicate that the second favorite is any more attractive than the favorite.

It was implied in the scenario that the second favorite was also the second best numeric choice as well as the trackmans.

[ranchwest]

It was implied in the scenario that the second favorite was also the second best numeric choice as well as the trackmans.

I wasn't involved in the fake scenario discussion, so your response should have been directed to someone else.

[Capper Al]

I wasn't involved in the fake scenario discussion, so your response should have been directed to someone else.

Sorry, my mistake.

[ranchwest]

Sorry, my mistake.

No problem, just wanted to clear up any confusion.