long term capital plays 07-25-2009

[formula_2002]

7/25/2009

I CAN ONLY RECOMEND CAPITAL PLAY PLACE BETS.
LONG TERM, I EXPECT THESE PLAYS TO BREAK EVEN.

TRACK RACE # PGNO NAME ML POST TIME N155 N156 N219 sum N228 N227
SUF 3 3 SNUCK IN THE 6.00 1:39 31.927 14.959 9.00 55.89 0.500 0.257
CRC 6 7 SOTHEREIWAS 3.50 3:12 35.752 16.110 11.00 62.86 0.522 0.314
CBY 3 4 MR. MESO 3.00 3:35 30.825 15.668 5.00 51.49 0.277 0.143
FLX 7 7 JUST ANOTHER 4.00 3:52 34.026 17.032 12.00 63.06 0.749 0.343
PHA 10 11 IZZIES HALO 4.00 4:16 36.632 16.370 14.00 67.00 0.499 0.400
CRC 10 7 GOLD TIME 6.00 5:08 30.324 14.558 10.00 54.88 0.476 0.286
BEL 9 6 CASANOVA MOV 4.00 5:17 32.677 12.730 5.00 50.41 0.358 0.143
CRC 12 1 JESSICA IS B 3.00 6:02 32.800 15.932 14.00 62.73 0.735 0.400

[markgoldie]

Hi Formula. Forget your name. I apologize. Have seen this free service you have been offering and want to commend you for it. I really haven't analyzed the horses you have picked.

However, today, I have a bit of extra time on my hands so I decided to look closely at the horses you selected (at the tracks where I have wagering interest, which excludes Philly and Belmont), just to see if I could get a quick handle on how your selection process works. Or a least what it looks for in a selection.

First off, it is obvious from the morning line odds of your selections that one of the key factors you are handicapping for is value, and since you are selecting well before the race, the indicator of value you are factoring in is the morning line. While morning lines vary in construction (some choose more "realistic" ML odds, where others rarely put a horse below 8-5) and quality of handicapper, I think we may reasonably assume that over a long haul, there is a degree of consistency in these numbers such that they should have a reasonable correlation to off-time odds.

Since you are handicapping for relative value, the selected horses are therefore by no means "best bets" based on strength advantage over competition, but "best bets for the stated odds". Still, we might get an idea of the handicapping criteria used by assuming that the selected horses maintain a certain advantage or near-advantage over the field, which coupled with a workable ML odds, makes them good value picks.

That being said, I plunged straight into your selections' pps.

Starting with Calder R6: #7 Sothereiwas. Here we have a minor ML favoritism of 3.5 - 1, probably based on the size of the field. But a quick glance reveals that this ML odds will never hold even without scratches. I base this on the Bris PP advantage of 5.5 which is a great indicator of post time odds. Even without scratches and if all 12 go, I think this means 6-5 off-time odds or less. If some are scratched, even lower. In an 8-horse field, for example, I would predict ballpark 1-2 closing odds.

Other than that, Sothereiwas shows a dominate last fig over all horses who have been recently active. #6 Coaching shows the same number but has been off for nearly a year. Form is good, speed profile is acceptable. My own handicapping regimen would never lead me to this horse, however. In fact it will probably lead me to bet against. Why? Because I have found value in betting against high Bris PP advantage horses where the recent class level of the target horse is questionable. That is clearly the case here as Sothereiwas racked up recent numbers in far inferior races to the competition. I am looking at horses such as #5 Sir James, #9 Behind the Pew (who may have bounced a bit in last off a top effort), and even the returning #6 Coaching as possible upsetters.

Race 10: #7 Gold Time. This is a particularly puzzling selection. Here we have a horse with very little turf experience, returning to that surface after only 1 lifetime start on the lawn and following a series of deteriorating-form races on the dirt. This horse has been a beaten favorite in 5 of its last 6 races and in fact the only race in which it wasn't the fav. recently was in the turf race in which it finished 3rd going shorter. Here we go at 7.5 f, farther than the horse has ever tried and potentially past its distance limit. We switch to an inferior jockey and the whole scenario cries out desperation on the part of trainer Laura Posada. Even though the horse is listed as a P style, I think the proper designation should be E/P (or even E) because the horse has backpeddled from better positioning in the late stages of races. In current form, the horse has no late punch on a surface and distance that has been favoring late kick. The only good news is that the field itself is suspect, but several others appear much more likely and so I am at a loss to discern the handicapping process that selected this horse.

Race 12 #1 Jessica Is Back. This is the type of horse and circumstance that I would have thought your programs would have highlighted. Here we have a very in-form, hard-hitting professional mare from an excellent barn, returning to class after a trouble line in a Grade 1 stake. Running style is perfect at 1 1/16 mi., which is a return to her best distance. Fig numbers are very potent for this group and about the only thing wrong is that the ML oddsmaker has blown this one completely by putting a so-so Calif. shipper who probably prefers turf or synthetics and who sports a totally wrong running style as the favorite. This won't happen in my opinion. Jessica Is back will be the heavily-backed fav. Probably 7-5 and only that high because East-coast players somehow think that Calif. horses are always better than the local product.

Suf 3: #3 Snuck In The Back. This is clearly a contender, although Bold Ballado will probably grab the wagering attention. I like the actual "class edge" that this horse holds over the competition. In fact, this is the kind of stuff that I often look for. The better fig numbers in this race were earned mostly by horses in lower classes. So while Snuck In The Back may not appear to be as fast as some of the competition, he may well be be a superior horse. That said, there are some problems here. One is the terrible inactivity of the animal. Rarely races. In fact, this race comes off a 55-day layoff, following another layoff. So the current condition of the horse is something of a questionmark. Since, Bold Ballado will probably simply out-speed Snuck In The Back, you're asking him to beat all the rest just to get a place ticket home. So while I might take a flier here, it wouldn't be for a low-payoff place wager. I would use the horse in the gimmicks and hope his current form is good.

Cby R3 #4 Mr. Meso Another curious selection in one major sense. This would appear to be a 2-horse race between 2 out-of-town shippers in for a Stake race. Purely on the basis of class-faced and recent performance, I would prefer #1 Calm and Collected a Pen Nat shipper to Mr. Mesa a Del Park shipper. However, both horses are in razor form and the race could go either way. The problem is, whichever way it goes will probably be decided on the basis of liking for the Cby surface more than anything in the form. Therefore, If I were to make a play in this race, based on ML odds, it would be the #1. But here again, I think the ML has it wrong. Both horses will be strongly backed over the field, probably in the 7-5 area and I strongly suspect that Calm and Collected will be the fav. Not that that's a bad thing for wagering on Mr. Mesa. It's just that looking at this and basing a play on ML odds, I would think your prog. should be more attracted to Calm and Collected.

FL R7 #7 Just Another Story. This is an understandable pouncing on what I think is a badly flawed ML. This 8-5 rating on #3 Informa is out of whack for several reasons, not the least being an unfavorable speed match-up in a short field. Clearly, there are only 3 major contenders on paper for this race, the numbers 2,3, and 7. The Bris PP agrees with your selection but there is a potential problem with the addition of blinkers to the #2. This could set up a speed duel, in which case the ML pick would benefit. At any rate, whatever happens, this is certainly an understandable call based on ML odds value.

As for an overall analysis, this is just what I see off the top of my head. Take it for what it's worth or disregard as you see fit. I think you might want to tweak the part of the program that takes into account experience and ability on different surfaces. The selection of Gold Time tells me that the surface-ability factor is not high on the list of your prog. There could be a problem with distance-ability. Also, this race could point out that you are not looking at jockey ability, which would seem simple enough to plug into the handicapping. The selection of Snuck In The Back makes me wonder about acceptable activity levels in the program, although his high ML odds may have overridden this concern. Other than that, not sure how Mr. Mesa received a higher rating than Calm and Collected, especially considering that the latter has higher ML. odds, but this disagreement could be within acceptable parameters. Probably the biggest question about what you are doing revolves around your recommendation to play the horses to place. Strong place bets, IMO, should be derived not solely on the strength of the horse vs. the competition and potential value based on Ml odds. Instead, a premium should be put on consistency and running style in the target race's pace match up. However, it doesn't look to me like your program is set up to maximize the chances of a horse finishing at least second.

Anyway, no offense intended here to your hard work. Just some possible suggestions.

Mark

[formula_2002]

wow, i have to delve into all of that Mark

thanks

[formula_2002]

I have to do a recap as soon..

7/25/2009

I CAN ONLY RECOMEND CAPITAL PLAY PLACE BETS.
LONG TERM, I EXPECT THESE PLAYS TO BREAK EVEN.

TRACK RACE # PGNO NAME ML POST TIME N155 N156 N219 sum N228 N227
SUF 3 3 SNUCK IN THE 6.00 1:39 31.927 14.959 9.00 55.89 0.500 0.257
out

CRC 6 7 SOTHEREIWAS 3.50 3:12 35.752 16.110 11.00 62.86 0.522 0.314
out



CBY 3 4 MR. MESO 3.00 3:35 30.825 15.668 5.00 51.49 0.277 0.143
out



FLX 7 7 JUST ANOTHER 4.00 3:52 34.026 17.032 12.00 63.06 0.749 0.343
out

PHA 10 11 IZZIES HALO 4.00 4:16 36.632 16.370 14.00 67.00 0.499 0.400
Philadelphia - Race 10 Chart
# Win Place Show
11 $6.60 $3.80 $3.20

CRC 10 7 GOLD TIME 6.00 5:08 30.324 14.558 10.00 54.88 0.476 0.286
out


BEL 9 6 CASANOVA MOV 4.00 5:17 32.677 12.730 5.00 50.41 0.358 0.143
out


CRC 12 1 JESSICA IS B 3.00 6:02 32.800 15.932 14.00 62.73 0.735 0.400
Calder - Race 12 Chart
# Win Place Show
1 $4.60 $3.40 $3.00

[markgoldie]

The only thing I might add is this: If you're going to try to mount a place-play campaign, you should stay away from horses changing tracks, like Mr. Mesa because we don't need any negative surprises when we're going for small mutuels. Mr. Mesa obviously did not like the switch to Canterbury which could be more than just the track surface- it could also be an adverse reaction to a long truck ride. Yes, he could just have easily loved the new track and won the race, but the point is we don't need these question marks while shooting for low payoffs.

Don't use horses like Snuck In The Back who's current form is questionable because the risk-reward just isn't there.

Don't use horses switching surfaces who do not show strong and consistent figs on the surface in the past. Even though Gold Time's race was taken off the turf, this is a good principle to remember. Also be careful with quitting types who are stretching out a bit past where they've ever raced before. I mentioned high % to low % jockeys. Vice versa is also true.

That's about it.

GL Mark

[formula_2002]

Mark, unfortunately my computer that contains the horse racing data is down, trying to recover from a glitch.
But one thing I could comment on from memory;
Starting with Calder R6: #7 Sothereiwas. Here we have a minor ML favoritism of 3.5 - 1, probably based on the size of the field. But a quick glance reveals that this ML odds will never hold even without scratches. I base this on the Bris PP advantage of 5.5 which is a great indicator of post time odds. Even without scratches and if all 12 go, I think this means 6-5 off-time odds or less. If some are scratched, even lower. In an 8-horse field, for example, I would predict ballpark 1-2 closing odds.
In a rather large sample, picks whose ml odds >=4-1 and whose finale tote odds are <2-1 return better roi's than shorter ml odds whos final odds <=2-1.
statistically significant? probably not.

[markgoldie]

Frankly, I was shocked that Sothereiwas went off as high as she did. Forget what it was (could look it up if it really mattered), but it was around 2 - 1 as I remember. I am very interested in how and why the money gets bet, as well we all should be because this is what our wagering "competition" is doing. Assuming that the "whale" programs are driving much of this action on a regular basis, it makes sense to try to figure out what their programs like and don't like. That way we can possibly find the chinks in their armor.

I've found that the best way to try to do so is to use another general handicapping program as a standard and compare their plays to what this other handicapping standard says. The best I have been able to find for day-in day-out general handicapping is the Brisnet Prime Power number.

So I use the Bris number as a benchmark, so to speak and I try to see what correlation it has to the whale programs when it comes to setting a horse's final odds. And the answer is, there is a very close correlation. But not perfect as Sothereiwas shows. Something in her form kept the major money away from her. One possible explanation could be the size of the field, which was large. Possibly the whale programs prefer smaller fields. But also, as I pointed out, there was a class deficiency in her form. Maybe that's what held the big dollars back.

At any rate, this type of thinking hopefully leads me to a position where I can develop my own "negative counterpunch" so to speak. I want to look for and find situations where the whale money says 'yes' but I can say 'no'. This, of course, is no small task, but one that's necessary if I'm going to get value.

Now. As far as your handicapping using various programs. Nothing at all wrong with this. However, you have to make sure that you're simply not just trying to "re-invent the wheel." That is, if you're trying to adjust a program that uses basic handicapping principles to make solid selections race in and race out, you're going to wind up killing yourself to produce something that the whales already have. Instead, what you shoud do is start with what the whales are playing and then try to find some weakness that you might exploit.

You are already doing this, except that your target is not the whales but the ML oddsmaker. Essentially, you are looking for discrepencies between the handicapping processes being used by ML oddsmakers and the selections of your programs. The problem here is that you are chosing a very weak target to attack. Yes, there is a general correlation between the ML odds of a horse and it's closing odds. But the correlation is weak at best and only exists because the ML oddsmakers are using more or less the same general handicapping techniques as the rest of the public. ML odds have a certain correlation to predicting favorites, but in the DEGREE of favoritism, this correlation becomes even weaker. That's because when the serious money moves, it is with total disregard to ML odds. The day where Mr. Twobucks provided the majority of money in the pools are long since dead. Mr. Twobuck may have been influenced by ML odds, but the whales are not.

It therefore makes sense to target the whales weaknesses, if there are any. I say "if there are any" because we can rest assured that they are constantly reviewing the performances of their selections so as to tweak their plays toward greater profitability. They are always trying to weed out their mistakes. That's why today's game is so difficult because the average guy is like the Afgan rebels against the U.S. Air Force. There is a monster gap in resources and technology. It is also the reason that I have long ago given up any hope of doing anything worthwhile in the win, place, or show pools. All my efforts are in complex gimmicks.

That doesn't mean that what you are trying to do is impossible. Just very, very difficult.

[formula_2002]

In a rather large sample, picks whose ml odds >=4-1 and whose finale tote odds are <2-1 return better roi's than shorter ml odds whos final odds <2-1.
statistically significant? probably not.

212 such plays returned a 1.076 roi.
all like plays returned .90 roi in 10660 plays.

[formula_2002]

Cby R3 #4 Mr. Meso Another curious selection in one major sense. This would appear to be a 2-horse race between 2 out-of-town shippers in for a Stake race. Purely on the basis of class-faced and recent performance, I would prefer #1 Calm and Collected a Pen Nat shipper to Mr. Mesa a Del Park shipper. However, both horses are in razor form and the race could go either way. The problem is, whichever way it goes will probably be decided on the basis of liking for the Cby surface more than anything in the form. Therefore, If I were to make a play in this race, based on ML odds, it would be the #1. But here again, I think the ML has it wrong. Both horses will be strongly backed over the field, probably in the 7-5 area and I strongly suspect that Calm and Collected will be the fav. Not that that's a bad thing for wagering on Mr. Mesa. It's just that looking at this and basing a play on ML odds, I would think your prog. should be more attracted to Calm and Collected.

i use a cut off falue of 30 for a play. that is >=30 is a play.
Calm and Collected was 29.6 or abouts.