What % of horses.....

[racko]

that return in 30 days win? Thanks

[kenwoodall]

Your question assumes you count all horses including non-contenders. I do not know the %, but probably negative ROI. In my research horses out for mor than 90 days lose a lot more. That is because more than 90 days means major injury, requiring some re-training. Nickname Loser? Why?

[hurrikane]

over a year..

starts 404249
wins 48984
ROI is not even worth considering.

Seems low but there are, of course, a lot of dups in most races.
layoffs can be used a lot of different ways.
if you are looking for winners the layoff may be important, esp compared to distance.
if you are looking for roi layoffs mean little as layoff horses are usually underbet and pay better prices.

one thing that is certain..the longer a horse is layed off the more important his trainer becomes.

[Fastracehorse]

Contenders off a lay-off??

I imagine this angle would be meritable.

fffastt

[hurrikane]

it is fffasst....but you have to know the connections. And you have to be very patient. Getting a good look at the horse before the race is always a big plus!

[Foolish Pleasure]

I don't think there is a bigger underperforming chalk than one off >200 days.

[hurrikane]

yeah foolish....I look for these guys every day. great to go against.

[Foolish Pleasure]

Great point,

You have devine power to determine which back fitted nonsense is credible and which isn't?

Really want to go against?

How about I'll start a thread, every time I see a favorite that is off >200 days, I'll add to the thread. I see about 12 cards a day on weekends and almost every card on the weekdays.

Come April 1, 2004 if they have produced better than expected return, I'll donate a grand to the charity of your choice and if they underperform you donate a grand to the charity of my choice?

afterall if they grossly underperform as a group, why on all earth would you be wading around looking for those precious exceptions?

[Foolish Pleasure]

So it's up to you,

unless you would prefer just providing the rationale behind looking for higher variances in a subset that is already behind the eight ball.

[Foolish Pleasure]

Glen,

I apologize for putting you one the spot.

I happen to read and post at HTR from time to time,

not as much since G is gone.

I usually enjoy your posts and if not, at least enjoy your enthusiasm.

So rather then putting you on the spot with a bet, which I'd really rather not have to monitor for 12 months.

How about you just tell me what in the sentence that favorites off>200 days grossly underperform provides reason to go against? It's been that way for over 15 years, was that way last year and unless you know of some fundamental change will most likely be that way this year.

In fact it figures to get worse not better, as trainer information proliferates the planet.

[GameTheory]

Foolish --


What are you talking about? You said chalk coming back >200 days underperform, and hurrikane agreed with you. He said he likes to bet against such horses, as I'm sure you do as well...

[Foolish Pleasure]

I dunno.

I guess I misunderstood his post.:confused:

Sorry Hurrikane-just getting antsy waiting for Keeneland.

[hurrikane]

well, I'm glad I missed that whole discussion.
No problem Foolish...KEE can do that too you.
By the way, I'm not Glen.

[Tom]

Who are you at HTR?

[Foolish Pleasure]

Too embarassed to say.;)