Documenting Reasons Why A Horse Won

[cmoore]

It's always easy to find a reason why a horse won a race after it's over.. But how many of us write these reasons down and check this list later when the same type of race comes up? I don't, that's for sure. I would think that certain patterns would occur over short periods of time. I bet maiden races at all tracks. Records at any particular track would take longer to accumulate..But each track has 2-4 maiden races a day and over a week or so. You could compile a list of 10 races or more. These are some of the things that would be on the list for the winning horse.

Dropped in class or claiming price
Easy pace
Lone speed or benefited from a crowded front end
Positive or negative jockey change
Medication or Blinkers change
Trainer change..positive or negative according to overall win %
Jockey change..
Number of workouts
Speed of workouts...length And rank
Post position
Perfect trip
Age of winner
Runstyle
Sire
Average winning distance of sire
SPI figure

For example... If a mdn claiming sprint is coming up. You have 11 races documented for that track...44 mdn claiming races documented for all tracks. A horse shows a very fast bullet work in his last workout. Say there were only 2 winners out of the 44 races that won with a very fast bullet work recently. This would not be a particularly favorable angle. Such great works must not be that good if the horse is for sale..Now this is just an example and some tinkering will be needed..But I think this would be helpful in eliminating false favorites as well as certain long shots..I'll start with a few tracks and see how it goes..

[GameTheory]

Actually, I don't see how lists of winning characteristics are very helpful without knowledge of how many other horses in those races also had those characteristics (i.e. without impact values). In your example, what if those bullet works were the only ones and they both won? Then maybe it is important after all...

[illinoisbred]

I agree with having the impact value on each category.Also,I would consider days since last race with maiden claimers and look at third starters when the second race speed figure is a little better than their first,Len Ragozin has always maintained these are one of the best bets in racing.My experience tells me they're better bets when looking at 3 or 4 year old maiden special races.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think two things should be looked at with documentations or without. Why the winner won, what would have took for you to pick the winner, and why did the horse you pick lose.

[cmoore]

Actually, I don't see how lists of winning characteristics are very helpful without knowledge of how many other horses in those races also had those characteristics (i.e. without impact values). In your example, what if those bullet works were the only ones and they both won? Then maybe it is important after all...

I understand what your saying..If 5 winners out of 44 races won with the blinkers off move. Then how many horse got blinkers off in total..Now that would be very time consuming to do. My way wouldn't break it down to an exact math figure like your saying. But it would still give the handicapper a better idea of what wins..Especially if one would stick to a certain type of race..

Brisnet sumary sheets show impact values of different run styles..But each race is made up of a mix of different run styles..Some of those winners might of been the only early speed..Some may have rated behind the other 3 speed horses in the race..These impact values focus on run style only and don't break down each races different run style make up. So by your standards..This is flawed also..

I could even mention the winners beaten lengths at each call..How many horses were within the winning beaten lengths figure that lost..We could go on and on..For someone to find an exact science why a horse won would be an endless feat..

I still think winning profiles would help even though your not counting losers that had the same winning profile..Now odds would play a big role in this also.

[Marlin]

Be careful. Handicapping leads us to pick winners because of reasons we believe. Why a horse actually wins may not be related to the reasons we selected the winner. We think a winner won because of X. However it may be Y or Z that actually proved to be the winning variable. Sure 5 out of 44 won with blinkers off. However maybe those 5 also just had a joint "tapped" before the race. We can never know for certain why a horse won. We can only really guess.

[kenwoodallpromos]

For me this is a tough thread for me to comment on without being tenpted to be negative.
The truest thing I ever read on Paceadvantage is the the bottom line is the ROI. We have to find factors a horse has that in combination will beat the crowd by 25%. I do not mind using "winning factors", except that around 10 of yours takes about 5 seconds to note from the PP's, and many of those are the basis of M/Ls and crowd betting; And I only want to bet with the crowd and the crowd's factors when if I can also bet against them often enough to produce a good ROI. Otherwise I am wining 33% on favs.
"Dropped in class or claiming price
Positive or negative jockey change
Medication or Blinkers change
Trainer change..positive or negative according to overall win %
Jockey change..
Number of workouts
Speed of workouts...length And rank
Post position
Age of winner
Sire"
Most of these are on the PP's.
"Easy pace
Lone speed or benefited from a crowded front end
Perfect trip
Runstyle
Average winning distance of sire
SPI figure" These are not always so obvious.
TRACK SPEED,CONDITION; HORSE'S LIMITATION DUE TO INJURY, DISTANCE, ENERGY AVAILABLE; SET UP FOR HORSE'S PREFERENCES.
IMHO the factors I highlighted in capitals are among those that can cause the fav to lose 66%.
The only way I keep a +ROI (I pick often, do not bet often) is to apply % probabilities based on a combination of high % factors against mitigating factors that either change the pick for potential ROI or lessened winning chance (basically subtracrt factors in capital letters from your factors). Ther are many specific factors not mentioned because there are so many. Then when a couple of picks win you have to determine if the factor really helped? Any longshot given too big a lead can screw up many factors!!
In another thread I commented on a MSW that that 2 horses had much less works, low m/l odds, so those to should do well. I also pointed out that one of those, the #2 had faster works, and the #2 won. I did not handicap the race, so really had no idea what other factorse were involved.