Valuable Lessons

[Amazin]

Several posts have mentioned that they would like to see selections with reasons for them.But I think there is as much or more to gain with post analysis.My major strengths in handicapping have come as a result of figuring out why some longshot won and building on the angle or turning it into a system.Case in point today's 8th at GGF.Turf race,winner pays 28.00.Reason for win:This race was for four year olds and up.This horse's turf races were only 3 or 4 speed points(according to Bris)less than the favorite,but the field was competitve and large(11 horses).However this horse is a newly turned four year old.His turf races were last seen when he was a three year old!Projecting the maturity in age to increase his speed points and he becomes your top rated horse.The late Ridersup mentioned this angle in his pre race analysis when he handicapped a couple of races shortly before he died.I made a mental note of him at that time.This kind of analysis does not matter whether it comes before or after a race for the enlightenment of a handicapper.I know that everyday you handicap a card,it becomes a handicapping lesson that no book can teach you.There's allways one angle or situation that stands out where you could have cleaned house.I find that if I don't write them down,I forget and make the same mistakes.It would be refreshing to see more post analysis of everyday races that intrigued you when you had real money on the line and what you learned from it.

[Whirlaway]

Amazin', I've certainly post-race handicapped thousands of races, and there is some value to it, particularly if you're relatively new to the sport. However, the human brain has a need to make order out of chaos, and there's a strong tendency to find patterns where none exist.

Read through the archives of Ray Talbout's articles at winsports.com (http://www.winsports.com) and you'll see the work of a man who devoted his life to that kind of aproach to racing. Unfortunately, to the extent that they're testable, most if not all of Talbouts angles will prove to be losers.

The reason is that the fact that some winners fit a certain pattern tells you nothing about how many horses who don't win exhibit the same pattern. Without statistical validation, you're lost.

To give an example from my own play, in using the Sartin methodology I noticed that a lot of winners at reasonable prices would look like this:

AP EP SP F(X) LP
1 4 1 1 1

It's a pattern that literally jumps off the printout at you. High EP and #1 ranking in every other category. Unfortunately, after aquiring access to a database I was able to test the pattern and discovered that it was a loser: 22% wins and a -12% ROI. That doesn't mean that I've stopped looking for similar patterns, just that now I insist on statistical validation to back up the evidence of my eyes. And that, I think, is the key.

[rastajenk]

Man, I don't know about that "newly-turned 4yo" business. It's nearly April. If 3yo's can be expected to compete with older ones in the later part of the year, I don't see very much enlightening about a 4yo winning a 4-and-up race in late March.

[hurrikane]

I"m curious just what adustment you make for 'maturity'. What is it based on? You need to know the month the horse was born to make the adjustment I assume.
Maybe fffasst can give us some insight into this adjustment.

[sjk]

I use 1.5 pts per month through May 1 of 3yo season and .5 pts per month for the next 6 months.

[rmania]

Originally posted by Amazin
...There's allways one angle or situation that stands out where you could have cleaned house.I find that if I don't write them down,I forget and make the same mistakes...
Why are more and more handicappers looking for an angle?

Do you really believe that any “angle” could be a consistent factor?

For a logical “non-angle” approach to finding longshots, I offer the following:

The majority of horses DO NOT repeat the same form from one race to the next.

Those that are capable are usually your Stakes types and, in case you haven’t noticed, Stakes races (on average) constitute 1 race on a card. Of course, there’s always the exceptions as some are capable of stringing a few repeat efforts together.

So, for the rest of the races on a card you typically have a collection of horses that are (again in most cases) in a state of constant improvement AND regression.

Let’s say you have two horses (A and B) coming out of the same race. Horse A was the winner of that previous race by 3 lengths. Horse B finished 8th by 6 lengths. Horse A is sent off as the 6/5 favorite today. Horse B is overlooked and goes off at 15/1.

If Horse A, off that last race, regresses 3 lengths (which is considered minimal) and Horse B, off that last race, improves 3 lengths (again considered minimal), well now the possibility of an upset exists.

In this scenario, Horse B is probably overlooked because in that previous he finished 8th. Had he finished 3rd by 6 lengths his odds today would be much shorter.

If you can discipline yourself NOT to pay attention to a horse’s relative position at the wire and concentrate on how fast the horse actually ran, you will hit you’re share of longshots.

[The Shipper]

The "newly turned 4 year old" seems to vague to appeal to me.
No doubt that there was some maturity since his last year's 3 year old turf races.
He also had already appeared twice in 2 dirt races this year.


Using Dr. Quinn's parameters of "lightly raced"
horses in Allowance races (N1X or N2L)
here's how the TURF win % stacked up in the GG 8th:

1 1/8
2 1/17
3 1/17
4 0/1
5 2/4 (the longshot winner)
6 1/5 (fave)
7 2/4
8 0/3 (U.S. turf record only)
9 0/1
10 0/0
11 1/8

You can see the 5 horse Gent has had some
good turf performances that hinted at turf prowess.


And oh, those long regular workouts weren't too shabby either:

March 5
March 12
March 18
March 24

CHART of Golden Gate 8th (http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?type=inc&country=USA&track=GG&date=2003-03-29&race=8)

[Tom]

I think Amazin is right on here. This game is changing and what worked in 1999 probably doesn't today, in many cases.
If you look at enough longshots, and start to see things repeating, then you might be ahead of the crown when it happens again.
As to the Sartin pattern, I guess I don't agree with the db results. Not that over a large sample it was a lserr, but that over a large sample you are not going to bet every race blindly. And that, IMHO is the biggest flaw with databases-it cannot think, only follow strcit rules and never varry. People can. If you were winning betting 14111 horse, and you records showed it, then what do you care about the races you aren't betting? I think the best data is race you personally handicapped and made all your normal decisions on. I would sooner belive records of real bets that said 14111 won 34% of the time and returned a 10% profit when I actaully bet them. That is a population, not a sample.

[rmania]

Originally posted by The Shipper

...Using Dr. Quinn's parameters of "lightly raced"
horses in Allowance races (N1X or N2L)
here's how the TURF win % stacked up in the GG 8th:

1 1/8
2 1/17
3 1/17
4 0/1
5 2/4 (the longshot winner)
6 1/5 (fave)
7 2/4
8 0/3 (U.S. turf record only)
9 0/1
10 0/0
11 1/8

You can see the 5 horse Gent has had some
good turf performances that hinted at turf prowess....



CHART of Golden Gate 8th (http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/instant.cgi?type=inc&country=USA&track=GG&date=2003-03-29&race=8)

I bet on the #7 :confused:

[Tom]

Originally posted by sjk
I use 1.5 pts per month through May 1 of 3yo season and .5 pts per month for the next 6 months.

Bris or Beyer?

[sjk]

The adjustments I mentioned are scaled to Beyer; multiply by 60% if you prefer Bris.

[cj]

I do something similiar with a maturity adjustment, but I also account for distance. A horse who runs a 105 Beyer as a young 3 yo won't run much faster as he ages, but a horse who runs a 105 in a route will improve more as he ages.

I won't bore anyone with my formulas, but where a sprinter improves an average of about 6-7 points over their 3yo season, a router will improve from 12-15 Beyer points.

CJ

[anotherdave]

I do post-race analysis. And I learn things from it. I won't disagree there. But it is like 30 years ago when I would spend months looking through old racing forms looking for the "secret". I remember getting Jerry Stokes free newsletter where someone would write and ask him how anyone could pick so-and-so who won the 4th at Gulfstream AT 30-1 yesterday. Jerry would go through it and explain how. And he seems knowlegable, but it doesn't help me in the least. It is almost like redboarding. He always seemed to make it look like an obvious bet. Now when Jim Lehane's newletter comes he goes through the race before and shows what he is looking for. That is 100 times better (to me anyways) than after the race.

But I have an amazing ROI on post-race analysis. Unfortunately, my pre-race analysis is not nearly as high. I can't make a bet on post-race analysis only on pre-race analysis. That's why I don't understand the need to post SA R2 3-5-2. What can I learn from that? If I put it down what does anyone else learn from me? Only whether I am a good handicapper or not? Not how I handicap.

Think about the Kentucky Derby. Talk about pre-race analysis! We've pretty well decided who is going to the lead and what pace they will run and everything else. Now that's informative. And then there is the Derby post-race analysis. Last year it was mostly about whether the pace was slow or not. Too late for me. If it was too slow I would have liked to have figured it out before the race and maybe I'd have bet it!

AD

[Chico]

Originally posted by Amazin
Several posts have mentioned that they would like to see selections with reasons for them.But I think there is as much or more to gain with post analysis.

I kinda like the idea you put forward. Here's one
I spotted from a couple of weeks ago (taken from memory:)

Fairgrounds - The Louisiana Derby.
The race had a reasonably large field (about 10 horses) all but three horses could be easily eliminated from a class, talent or form study.
Three horses seemed to be the class of the field.
Kafwain was the big fave, going off at about even
money. The second choice (about 8-5) was a horse Kafwain easily handled in a prior race. Third choice (4-1) was a Bobby Frankel horse which had showed not much on dirt as a two year old but was coming off 3 excellent races from the turf.
To me Kafwain was highly suspect. At Santa Anita
he had won very convincingly with a high Beyer number, but it was run at an abominably slow pace
for the half mile (46.0 secs.) By extension, the second choice horse, coming from the same race, was just a weak, or weaker. The only question remaining was how good Frankel was at bringing turf horses back to dirt.
The upshot was that Frankel's horse destroyed
the pretender, Kafwain and paid over $10.

Regards,
Chico

[cj]

The Frankel horse paid $20.80, not $10.

CJ

[andicap]

Originally posted by anotherdave
.

Think about the Kentucky Derby. Talk about pre-race analysis! We've pretty well decided who is going to the lead and what pace they will run and everything else. Now that's informative. And then there is the Derby post-race analysis. Last year it was mostly about whether the pace was slow or not. Too late for me. If it was too slow I would have liked to have figured it out before the race and maybe I'd have bet it!

AD

And what that pre-race analysis on the Derby, most of us still lost!

:D

[cj]

Hey andi,

I tried to sway you guys on War Emblem, but all anyone wanted to do was argue with me...I stated over and over again his Illinois Derby was a very fast race, early and late.

CJ

[freeneasy]

yeah and I put in my 2 cents worth in handicapping the pre race stratigical aspects of what to expect and the riding orders the joks will be prepped to respond with. Yep WE made good sense to win the KD on those senarios.

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Hey andi,

I tried to sway you guys on War Emblem, but all anyone wanted to do was argue with me...I stated over and over again his Illinois Derby was a very fast race, early and late.

CJ

That's what I'm trying to say. Cj tells us this before the race and we can talk about it and use the information to help us handicap the race. Some people disagreed, some agreed. But we made our own decisions and talked about it and then then they run a race and we see what happens.

If he would have first told us this after the derby, what good would it do us? I can look back and see why Tampa Bay was a great bet for the Super Bowl, but what's the use?

AD

[cj]

Not trying to brag, I've been wrong enough times here too. But I love the debates before the race, then a review afterwards to see where maybe I went wrong, or someone else saw something I didn't. I don't think we get enough of the before here on the board.

CJ

[Fastracehorse]

<If you don't pay attention to beaten lengths and pay more attention to how fffastt the horse ran ( you said this ) - you would do well - a para-phrase.

That my good friend is an angle - many mis-communications are simply semantics. You may scoff at an angle - but you just de-lineated a very powerful, yes - ANGLE!

That is an important part of my speed figure (beaten lengths).

What is an angle anyways?? An angle can be a description of a set of happenings that can lead to a good effort by a horse.

An example - a good example, because it is easily understood:

(A hot trainer's horse runs an extremely good dirt race two races back. Then is beaten soundly on the turf. Now he's back on the dirt again.)

A few things about the above:

1). A hot trainer is an angle in itself.
2). Turf to dirt is a famous angel and very interesting if the horse's form is darkened.
3). The horse should be pricey - another angle.

An angle could be described as one piece of a larger puzzle - if the pieces fit to form a puzzle, a handicapper is born.

fffastt

[rmania]

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
If you don't pay attention to beaten lengths and pay more attention to how fffastt the horse ran ( you said this ) - you would do well - a para-phrase.....

Sorry fffastt if I wasn't clear with what I previously wrote. When I said "realitive position" I meant "1st", "2nd","8th"."9th" etc.. NOT lengths behind.

Again, sorry for the confusion..

[rmania]

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
<If you don't pay attention to beaten lengths and pay more attention to how fffastt the horse ran ( you said this ) - you would do well - a para-phrase.

That my good friend is an angle - many mis-communications are simply semantics. You may scoff at an angle - but you just de-lineated a very powerful, yes - ANGLE!

That is an important part of my speed figure (beaten lengths).

What is an angle anyways?? An angle can be a description of a set of happenings that can lead to a good effort by a horse.

An example - a good example, because it is easily understood:

(A hot trainer's horse runs an extremely good dirt race two races back. Then is beaten soundly on the turf. Now he's back on the dirt again.)

A few things about the above:

1). A hot trainer is an angle in itself.
2). Turf to dirt is a famous angel and very interesting if the horse's form is darkened.
3). The horse should be pricey - another angle.

An angle could be described as one piece of a larger puzzle - if the pieces fit to form a puzzle, a handicapper is born.

fffastt
I apologize for the double reply to your post fffastt (see my previous post) but I felt a more comprehense reply was in order.

First, "beaten lengths" is some the most important information provided as without that information one wouldn't know how fast a horse actually ran (unless it was the winner).

I fail to understand how the use of this information constitutes an angle.

Second, your example of an angle is a good one. However, I view only parts 1) and 3) as coming under the classification of an angle.

If what you are saying is accurate then one should consider a horse that is changing surfaces only if the trainer is hot and the price is long?

These are the types of "angles" that I have problems with :)

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Hey andi,

I tried to sway you guys on War Emblem, but all anyone wanted to do was argue with me...I stated over and over again his Illinois Derby was a very fast race, early and late.

CJ

I tried to build up the odds on WE...I said he would finish last by 30 lengths. Ha!

[GameTheory]

RMANIA --

I'm confused with this angle talk. Could you define what *you* mean by angle?

[rmania]

Originally posted by GameTheory
RMANIA --

I'm confused with this angle talk. Could you define what *you* mean by angle?
It’s highly possible that my definition of an “angle” is different from others.

I define an angle to be method for determining a wager/selection based on something that has nothing to do with the horse or the race.

To me, examples of angles are:
- any decision based primarily on trainers, jockey or combination thereof
- any decision based on averages
- any decision based on odds (except in rare cases for 1st time starters)

I guess I’m just to logical of a thinker (all those years of programming)...

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by rmania
It’s highly possible that my definition of an “angle” is different from others.

I define an angle to be method for determining a wager/selection based on something that has nothing to do with the horse or the race.

To me, examples of angles are:
- any decision based primarily on trainers, jockey or combination thereof
- any decision based on averages
- any decision based on odds (except in rare cases for 1st time starters)

I guess I’m just to logical of a thinker (all those years of programming)...

I understand what you're getting at, but of course many angles do involve the horse and/or the race. For instance, a lightly-raced 3 year old with improving figures; trying turf for the first time and bred to love turf, a horse dropping to a new low claiming price, etc.

I think angles are wonderful things -- angles allow you to bet on lots of horses that have nothing going for them and make money anyway. It seems to be really hard for some people to bet a horse unless they know just what THIS HORSE is going to do IN THIS RACE with a HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. It is really the degree of certainty that turns more "fundamental" handicapping into an angle -- with an angle we never quite know if today is the day or not, it is more like spinning a roulette wheel. But if there was a wheel paying the usual 35-1 odds that only had 20 numbers on it, you'd certainly bet on that, wouldn't you? Why stay away just because it is based on averages? If they're in your favor, they're in your favor. The house betting on the other side of real roulette wheels certainly don't mind. Where's the lack of logic?

[rmania]

“I understand what you're getting at, but of course many angles do involve the horse and/or the race.”

If it is based on the horse or the race then I don’t define it as an angle.

“For instance, a lightly-raced 3 year old with improving figures; trying turf for the first time and bred to love turf, a horse dropping to a new low claiming price, etc.”

If the horse has shown ability and the competition is suspect then these (to me) are not angles. They are just a few of the many things handicappers should consider when handicapping. Too bet blindly into these scenarios is a different story.

“I think angles are wonderful things -- angles allow you to bet on lots of horses that have nothing going for them and make money anyway.”

I think you’ll find through post-race analysis that 99.99% of all winners of a race did indeed have something going for it. It just wasn’t overwhelmingly obvious prior to the race.

“It seems to be really hard for some people to bet a horse unless they know just what THIS HORSE is going to do IN THIS RACE with a HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. It is really the degree of certainty that turns more "fundamental" handicapping into an angle“

The trick is to develop a HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY as to what EVERY HORSE is going to do IN THIS RACE.

“..with an angle we never quite know if today is the day or not, it is more like spinning a roulette wheel.”

I agree...

“But if there was a wheel paying the usual 35-1 odds that only had 20 numbers on it, you'd certainly bet on that, wouldn't you? Why stay away just because it is based on averages? If they're in your favor, they're in your favor. The house betting on the other side of real roulette wheels certainly don't mind. Where's the lack of logic?”

I’m all for getting the odds in my favor. Give me an angle that produces a winner more than 50% of the time with odds of 3/2 or better and I’ll bet it every time.

[Fastracehorse]

Oh no no no no.

This is not what I was saying at all: "If what you are saying is accurate then one should consider a horse that is changing surfaces only if the trainer is hot and the price is long?"

I was pointing out that the word 'angle' is an encompassing word for the term handicapping.

Angle to me simply means what works. Betting the fastest horse in a race because you like the fastest horses is an angle.

Sound stupid?? It may be but gets the point across. You need a reference point from which to begin the selection process and that's what angles are.

If a guy bets the program selections, poor sod, then that's his angle.

More angles - more winners.

fffastt

[rmania]

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Oh no no no no.
...
I was pointing out that the word 'angle' is an encompassing word for the term handicapping....


fffastt
If that's your definition of "angle" I accept that. :)

I've just always considered the word "angle" to mean something that goes against the general guidlines of handicapping (i.e., bet on grey horses when the track is sloppy).

[Fastracehorse]

No wonder you hate the word.

An angle is simply a situation in which horses find themselves running really, really well.

fffastt

[Derek2U]

Fast u truly got a less tread view of the world.

[Fastracehorse]

May I suggest to you that a less tread view in handicapping isn't a bad thing??

He heeee.

fffastt

[SandyE]

Dude you out done yourself on the multitude of posts,in fact 8 of them in a row. Too funny dude.:p
SandyE

[Fastracehorse]

That multitude of posts was an accident.

fffastt

[SandyE]

I know I just thought I'd bust your chops about them. That's all:p
You know that SandyLEM and me are one and the same right?
I couldn't get SandyE because someone else had it. Funny thing is I haven't seen anyone else posting there with that name over the last year or so. I probably used the wrong password over there. I ought to go see if I can use that name.
Later,
GSTAWD!
SandyE

[TurfRuler]

Originally posted by rmania
I bet on the #7 :confused:


Using The Shippers percent of grass races in the money, then I would have bet the 7 and the 5, both to win.

[SandyE]

The 5 horse Gent would have been one of my bets because of sentimental reason. It was my Grandfather's #. The horse according to the chart had a perfect trip. From what I gleaned from the post race anylisis there are two who could end up first at the wire next time out, and those are Saucy Cat and Silent Regent. Both had bad trips so if they get a confident ride next time out that is if their not slated to race against each other will see them will. Or a well fought victory for one of them. As for Gent this could be a good beginning for him. Good fractions throughout the race. These horses came out of this race in good form with something left for the next time out. First quarter in 24 not bad fractions for the opening quarter. They set honest fractions and noone got fried so to speak.:) I wouldn't be surprised if for Spanish eyes next race there is a rider change. some horses are multidementional but you got to know where to be and how far out you can ride from the rail that won't use up to much of your horse. Then of course at times ya cant help being out in the 5 path because of others being strung out from the rail, aka wall of horses. :D
GSTAWD!
SandyE

[GameTheory]

The generally understood, if unspoken, defintion of the word "angle" is neither rmania's or ffast's -- not quite. It does not neccessarily imply that a horse will run really well, although that is the goal of course. It could be a crappy angle but an angle just the same. And it certainly doesn't mean things that don't have anything to do with the horse or the race.

It refers to situations which only come up periodically -- you can't "apply" an angle to all the horses in a race like pace analysis or something more fundamental. The horse either "fits" the angle or he doesn't -- he is in first time for a tag today, he's 2nd off a layoff, etc. Angles have rules, sometimes rigid, sometimes not. An angle doesn't mean an automatic play either, just a "special factor" that this horse has that has been positive or negative in the past.

Agree?

[rmania]

Originally posted by GameTheory
The generally understood, if unspoken, defintion of the word "angle" is neither rmania's or ffast's -- not quite. It does not neccessarily imply that a horse will run really well, although that is the goal of course. It could be a crappy angle but an angle just the same. And it certainly doesn't mean things that don't have anything to do with the horse or the race.

It refers to situations which only come up periodically -- you can't "apply" an angle to all the horses in a race like pace analysis or something more fundamental. The horse either "fits" the angle or he doesn't -- he is in first time for a tag today, he's 2nd off a layoff, etc. Angles have rules, sometimes rigid, sometimes not. An angle doesn't mean an automatic play either, just a "special factor" that this horse has that has been positive or negative in the past.

Agree?

I agree whole heatedly with everything you say.
My definition was, of course, an exaggeration.
I’m sure that there are some angles that work, on average, which point to a possibility that a horse may improve. However, any improvement that materializes, based on the angle, may not be enough to hit the board (let alone win).
So if you find yourself betting blind based on an angle, well...good luck :p

[TurfRuler]

Hey Sandy: My response had more to do with pre-race and post race analysis. By looking at the grass race stats that The Shippers posted, then pre-race and post race they were the same. The results show that the #5 won, my view is that by having a higher percentage on the grass than the other runners his chances improved in that race. Although you have done a post race analysis and conclude that certain of the runners will run well next time, I'd be sure to check out the competition by looking and comparing the grass race stats before making that bet.

[Fastracehorse]

However, any improvement that materializes, based on the angle, may not be enough to hit the board (let alone win).

That is handicapping - it also MAY be enough to win.

GTheory - Is a bad angle an angle??

fffastt