For us ducks out of water

[Show Me the Wire]

LONG POST SEPERATED IN TO TWO POSTS

I do not understand the preoccupation to make horse racing more difficult than it really is. Horse racing is a business for most participants i.e. trainers, jockeys, agents, breeders, track management, and some owners and a hobby for some i.e. most owners and some trainers. By understanding, which operations are business oriented, it is possible to look past the apparent randomness and see the logicalness.

I know the following is elementary to most PA posters, but I will continue anyway because I do not understand the fascination with 78 factors and all these large databases when these methodologies tend to isolate the competitive event from the economics driving the competitive event. Removing the economics that drive the competitive event surely will make the competitive event look random and further the illusion throwing darts at the past performances will give similar a roi as if you handicapped a race using multiple factors.

Understanding the economics of the horse racing business clarifies contender selection, during handicapping activities. Having an understanding of any economic transaction influences the parties’ actions and decisions. For example when dealing with a sales people the parties know the salesperson is financially rewarded for making the sale and the buyer understands the salesperson may use hyperbole to influence the purchaser and the savvy buyer should consider the possible use of hyperbole by the salesperson in account during the buyers decision making process.

Additionally, savvy investors understand the economics of businesses they are contemplating investing in or buying. The successful investor must understand the financial structure to have a strong chance of making a profit. With this in mind it is essential to incorporate the economics of the horse racing business into the handicapping process to clarify the parties’ intentions.

The owners economically drive the daily competitive events. The owners are the consumers, buying services from trainers, jockeys, vets, buying products to feed and care for the horses, and provide the racing product at no upfront charge to track management. Under this economic system everyone makes guaranteed money except the owner. One-way the entrepreneur (owner) makes a return on the investment by the horse earning a piece of the purse from the competitive event

Continued in next post

[Show Me the Wire]

First, lets look at the economics driving the owner – trainer dynamic. As we all know trainers make money through charging owners a specific amount a day to feed, care and train a race horse and earning a commission on the earnings of the horse. Because of this financial structure it is important to know which type of owner the trainer represents.

The trainer representing an owner that views horse racing as a hobby, usually has an owner that doesn’t care if the horse wins or earns it keep. The hobbyist owner usually won’t pay for premium food, vitamin supplements, monthly shodding, any vet care and EPO. The hobbyist owner places no expectations on the trainer, except to come to the barn and pet the horse, watch a work out or two, stand in the paddock, and then brag how much money he spent to feed the nag. Another type of hobbyist wants a pet and instructs the trainer to never run the horse in a race in which it might be claimed. Operating under this financial structure there is no pressure on the trainer to fully condition this horse to be competitive, because this financial structure encourages the trainer to place the horse in losing spots. The trainer’s cash flow from the day rate keeps on rolling in from the happy hobbyist as long as the hobbyist owns the horse. And to insure the monthly fee keeps on flowing in the trainer will over value the horse to prevent a claim, which makes the horse’s chance to win even more slim as the horse will be running against superior animals.

Cash strapped owners are even worse types. Financially, they cannot pay for quality care of their horse and eventually the trainer will cut back on taking care of the cash strapped owner’s horse, in order to recapture, some owed money.

Business oriented owners want to earn a return on their investment. Therefore, they tend to invest more in care and expect their trainer to have the horse ready to earn money for the owner or at the very least to cover the monthly expenses. The trainer representing this type of owner is more likely to have a fit horse competitively placed on race day.

Okay all of the above is nice to know, so Show Me the Wire I am not convinced what you said has any impact on the competitive event. Well I am not one to say tune in next time for an answer, so I will give a quick example.

Unfortunately for and to the surprise of the trainer his hobbyist horse in its last race start jumped up and ran a competitive race and speed figure. Next time out the horse will be a loser, because the trainer will move the horse up enough in class to force a potential buyer to pay a premium to take the horse and for good measure he probably work the horse harder in the morning to deplete its energy and/ or run it at the wrong distance to insure a loss to further convince other trainers that the hobbyists horse is not worth claiming.

Predictably the horse losses its next race it runs. The owner is happy because he keeps his horse, the trainer is happy because he keeps a paying client, the racing secretary is happy because he filled a race, the potential buyers are happy because they did not make a bad investment, and the bettor holding a losing ticket is unhappy because enough of his isolated factors selected the horse as a contender.

Through understanding what financially motivates the trainer can help you handicap, which horse is more likely be fit and competitively placed in today’s contest.

Another time, if there is interest I will continue how economics is part of handicapping.

Regards,
Show Me The Wire

Perception is reality

[karlskorner]

So far your doing great. I would like to inject one thought. Yours "no up front charge to management". Management provides the stalls, electricity, water, housing for help, a non-profit kitchen, waste management, training tracks, the track itself, maintainence crews, the entire facility and numerous other things that don't come to mind immediately, even before the first horse set foot on the track.

I am waiting for the next installment

[BillW]

Show Me The Wire,

Keep it coming.

Bill

[Handle]

This is a very interesting view, but I think a bit of caution is necessary when assigning such a rigid "taxonomy of owners".

You might look at handicappers as an anology. There are those that go to the track with money that they don't care about, more or less. They go to have a good time with others and they're chances of winning are particulary low. This is your "hobby owner who wants pet". Then there's the Karls Korner who's out there, the shark in the sea. In between you have all of the folks who have great aspirations, who have good runs, and bad runs, who think of themselves as pros when they're hot, and hobbyists when they skid. These people are dangerous at the windows -- they're not going to lose on purpose, that's for sure. I think most of the "hobby" type owners are like this. They may not be as good as the Englanders and Gills in the biz, but they sure don't want to lose. Do they view their stable as an investment? Probably not, as the stats show that the chances of an owner making money aren't very good. But, do they want to win? Do they think they can? You bet, just about every one of them does. They just lack the motivation, skill, time, and/or money to win more often.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Handle
.
In between you have all of the folks who have great aspirations, who have good runs, and bad runs, who think of themselves as pros when they're hot, and hobbyists when they skid. These people are dangerous at the windows -- they're not going to lose on purpose, that's for sure. I think most of the "hobby" type owners are like this. .

These type of owners are investors, as you said not all investors have the same skills.

What I find interesting is that you think my view is unique. I am intrigued that a majority of people do not view horse racing as the business it is and they do not understand the scenario I described in my post happens daily.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[kenwoodall]

Of course it is a business! Tracks get the use of the horses, hen rent them for $2 to the losers for 1 race!! Then tracks screw around with the tracks to make sure the same horses do not win All the time!!

[Handle]

I don't know why you said that I think that you're view is unique. I don't think that I implied that. I said that I thought it was interesting, as in a topic of interest.

I don't think that these owners are properly "investors". Investors, when they are in a losing proposition, get out. Many of these types of owners are there because they enjoy being in it, and they want to win, and hopefully make money at it, but that's not primary. See the toba.org web site. They use the word 'investment' once for every 10 times they talk about "the thrill of ownership". They're not trying to lure in owners with the lucractive financial gains of thoroughbred ownership. Its just not in the cards for most.

I think that the vast majority of owners are like this, and yes, the economic aspect are part of horse racing. More importantly, however, are the egos, or competitive spirit, of the people in the game. Most of them. No, all of the them, have the money to begin with -- nobody goes to school to get a degree in Thoroughbred ownership. While I think that what you are saying about the amount of care being equivalent to the amount of cash is true (and not a unique perspective), I don't think that there are a tremendous amount of owners out there that just want a pet.

I would suspect that these pets you describe would not even look capable of winning by any "numbers based" handicapping approach. The whole concept is pathetic (not your construction of the argument, mind, but the idea that a trainer would run a horse into the ground so that he just can't win anywhere to satisify an owner that wanted to keep him. What would this horse look like on the form? 50/1 shot? Ok, that's fine). This is a good description of how owners go about handling their horses:
http://www.toba.org/ownership/entering_races.html

I do think that there are an overwhelming amount of owners who want to compete at higher levels than their horses are capable of, and think that their horses are far more capable than they are. That's typical for any type of competitive event -- you don't go into the game thinking that you're going to lose. If you do, then you get out of the game. Claiming races have a tremendous economic impact on this pre-disposition -- owners certainly don't want to lose a horse for less of a price than they think the animal is worth. If their horse were to be claimed, esp. after not being given an "adequate" shot at the higher levels, then that would just justify their conviction -- see, someone else got my horse because we let it go at a bargain price. In reality, perhaps the horse really belongs at the price he was claimed for -- and that's what claiming races are about. You're saying that trainers get horses into higher level claiming races so that they won't get claimed, and also won't have a prayer of winning, and everyone is fine with that. The outcome may be the same -- a lot of horses are overmatched -- but I don't think that they are overmatched because so many of these owners don't care about winning and just want to keep their pets. I think they are overmatched because, as the TOBA site says, these guys need to "get real" and it can be tough to do.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Handle

I do think that there are an overwhelming amount of owners who want to compete at higher levels than their horses are capable of, and think that their horses are far more capable than they are. That's typical for any type of competitive event -- you don't go into the game thinking that you're going to lose. If you do, then you get out of the game. Claiming races have a tremendous economic impact on this pre-disposition -- owners certainly don't want to lose a horse for less of a price than they think the animal is worth. If their horse were to be claimed, esp. after not being given an "adequate" shot at the higher levels, then that would just justify their conviction -- see, someone else got my horse because we let it go at a bargain price. In reality, perhaps the horse really belongs at the price he was claimed for -- and that's what claiming races are about. You're saying that trainers get horses into higher level claiming races so that they won't get claimed, and also won't have a prayer of winning, and everyone is fine with that. The outcome may be the same -- a lot of horses are overmatched -- but I don't think that they are overmatched because so many of these owners don't care about winning and just want to keep their pets. I think they are overmatched because, as the TOBA site says, these guys need to "get real" and it can be tough to do.


Whoa Handle, you are getting ahead of me. You are correct and understanding the economics of this class of ownership impacts on contender selection. As you aptly stated horses are misplaced and over matched because certain owners and /or trainers do not have the same skills as other investors. Knowing the tendencies of these types of operations to mismanage their stock helps eliminate those horses as viable contenders.

The difficulty applying the economics driving the competitive event is that you must be familiar with the players in the circuit



Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[karlskorner]

Over the years I have known and know dozens of owners and not one came in off the street and said "I think I'll buy a horse" for a pet. The majority were/are "players" who belived they are "investing". True some are into hanging out in the Turf Club and bringing their friends to get their picuture taken, but most are serious about the business of racing horses. It's when the bills pile up that the majority admit they made a mistake and get out and there are others who plod along. lIke the story I told awhile back, I read to an owner in the next box that the DRF reported he had earned $700,000 in purse money the previous year and he replied "Yeah, it cost me $800,00 to do it".

When you run down the PP's and see "previously trained by......" you know the owner, in most cases, realized he was for many "reasons" with the wrong trainer.

[Show Me the Wire]

Karl:

When I said pet, I did not say the original intention was to buy a pet horse. Pet horses are a sub-classification of hobbiest. The original intention was to own a horse as a hobby not really caring about winning and losing, but for some reason the owner fell in love with the horse. This does happen and I know quite a few owners with pet horses.

Once, an owner falls in love with his horse it no longer is a financial investment of any type, it becomes a pet and is treated as such.

In my geographical location owner initiated trainer changes are rare, so I guess the owners around here feel they are with the right trainer.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[so.cal.fan]

Interesting read here men.
Knowing about owners and their motivations/methods has often been downplayed by writers of handicapping books and articles.
Show Me The Wire gives us some interesting facts.......being an owner himself........he knows of what he writes.

[takeout]

Originally posted by karlskorner

When you run down the PP's and see "previously trained by......" you know the owner, in most cases, realized he was for many "reasons" with the wrong trainer.
Either that or he sold the horse altogether. I wish they would put the owner's name with the "previously trained by" (like they do with the claims) so you wouldn't have to go digging back in the charts to see if the horse actually changed ownership or just changed trainers. It can sometimes be an important distinction.

Now and then I notice what appears to be a trainer "protecting his day rates" by continually running a horse over its head so as not to lose his "meal ticket" via the claim box. I can't think of any other reason for it. Some of these "previously trained bys" must be the owners finally wising up.

What blows my mind is when I see a horse that's handled like this and the trainer is also listed as the owner. In that case I have to go with the pet and hobby theory because he appears to be throwing his OWN money down a hole.

[Handle]

In all of this conversation about owners and economics, don't forget about tax writeoffs for being a good sport, so to speak....

[plainolebill]

Originally posted by takeout
What blows my mind is when I see a horse that's handled like this and the trainer is also listed as the owner. In that case I have to go with the pet and hobby theory because he appears to be throwing his OWN money down a hole.

The trainer isn't paying the day rates so if he's got a reasonably sound horse that gets a lot of minor awards he's probably coming out ahead on the deal. A steady paycheck for a guy who's not a real talented trainer.

Bill

[SAL]

Interesting thread, though I don't really look at the owners when I'm handicapping.

I knew a guy a few years ago that invested $5k for a cheap claimer, and had to get out after a couple of months because the horse wasn't earning his keep. Likely because he employed a below average trainer. But the day rates for a 20% trainer are likely to be higher than the day rates for an 8% trainer. But the difference in win percentage is reflected in the quality of care.

[Show Me the Wire]

Earning a living by operating a public stable is a difficult vocation. The majority of these trainers operate on a shoestring financially and cannot afford to lose clients, especially through the claim box. A claimed horse means an empty stall and a significant reduction in cash flow to the operation. When a trainer loses a horse through the claim box he has to convince his owner to claim another horse or find a new owner. For these public stable trainers it generally is difficult to find a new owner, because the owner pool is pretty small. People usually do not walk off the street looking to purchase a racehorse. Usually, a horse lost through the claim box means a permanent reduction or at the least a long-term reduction in reduction in the trainer’s business.

Trainers like any businesspersons want to maintain and grow their income and will operate along the income producing lines.. The most effective way to keep income is to prevent a loss through the claim box. The sure way to prevent a claim box loss is to over value the horse. The trainer like a good salesperson convinces and encourages the owner to believe the horse is better than it actually is so the trainer can justify running the horse at a specific value determined by the trainer. When the horse loses the trainer usually has a good excuse for the performance ranging from poor racing luck to it is a mystery why the horse failed to fire today. The owner usually accepts the explanation, because the owner really wants to believe the horse is worth more than the original purchase price. If the trainer is adept at placing the horse he will avoid the claim and get a check for the owner.

Understanding this economic reality and identifying which stables cannot afford to lose customers will help you determine if a horse is a viable contender for the win spot. Remember the way to win is to place the horse in a race against slower horses and by attempting to win the trainer risks losing his customer via the claim box.

This knowledge is especially important when certain stables suddenly drop a horse significantly in price. The horse is dropped because usually there is some serious physical problem with this horse and should be eliminated as a viable contender. Selling a horse through the claim box is not the preferred way to sell a horse, because the trainer will not earn any income on the sale.

If an owner wants out the trainer rather broker a private deal to sell the horse, for a fee, or possibly sell the horse through one of the many sales. Additionally, the trainer establishes goodwill with the owner by selling the horse privately.

The important thing is to identify which stables cannot afford to lose its racing stock and learn how adept the stable is at placing the horse to avoid the claim and yet earn a check.

Through understanding the economics of the individual stables will make your decision making easier.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[kenwoodall]

A race in the DRF I have shows a Hollywood MD claimer for $62,500.00 with a $27,000.00 purse. I guess to encourage owners to put MDs in claimers!

[Show Me the Wire]

Continuing saga of how the business of racing impacts handicapping.

Premise your handicapping method with the idea every day horses are placed into races intentionally knowing they will lose and relate it to the individual circumstances applicable to today’s race. Understanding how the business works can guide you in making sense of class moves within a 45 day period. Owners usually have an opportunity to run their stock at least once every 30 days in the right spot.

If a horse is moving up in class more than 30 days since its last race and closer to 45 days it probably means the racing secretary did not give the profit minded owner an opportunity to enter his horse in a income producing spot and today’s race is not the day on the class rise coupled with a historically unfavorable distance, especially if the field contains legitimate class droppers.

The following scenario happened and similar ones happen every day due to the economics and limited opportunities.

A realistic owner knows his horse has distance limitations beyond ¾ miles. The owner has been patiently waiting for an appropriate spot to run his horse. However, the racing secretary has other idea and keeps writing races in excess of ¾ miles. The horse has been training well and no races that fit him have been written in a 45 day period.

Now the owner is forced to run his horse in a race that the horse will lose, because the horse needs a race to take some of the edge off. As a result the horse is entered at a higher claim price to protect the investment and has to run 6 ½ furlongs. The owner and trainer are hoping the horse may run 3rd or if real lucky 2nd, while using the race to take a little edge off the horse.

Instead the horse gets involved in a speed duel with a class dropper runs for about 5/8 of a mile, quits and loses by 30 lengths. The class dropper on his way to the wire equals the 3 year track for ¾ of a mile, while dueling through a 44 half mile with the intentionally misplaced horse. What effectively happened is the misplaced horse got a 5/8 mile work, translating into 10 lengths faster than the horses usual ½ mile velocity and hung around for 5/8 mile on a pace that is 15 lengths faster than the horses usual ¾ mile time.

Within the next 30 days the racing secretary finally wrote a ¾ race at the appropriate level for the horse. The horse wins going away under a hand ride from the 5/16 pole.

The lesson is horses usually have an opportunity to race at least once every 30 days and economically driven owners do not like to wait 45 days or more to race their horse, because it means potential loss of income, because of these factors the intervening race may become an unintentional public work. Recognizing these unintentional public works (pace 10 to 15 lengths faster than usual for the horse resulting in double digit length loss) can bring home some good prices within the next 30 days.

This is the last post I will make explaining how the the economics and business influence the individual event. By this time I am sure I have bored most of you becuase this thread is not based on db research, mathematical formulas, adjusted speed figures, par making, etc. I wanted to open a different window to let anyone who is interested see a different view, because I am a duck out of water on this board.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

This is the last post I will make explaining how the the economics and business influence the individual event. By this time I am sure I have bored most of you becuase this thread is not based on db research, mathematical formulas, adjusted speed figures, par making, etc. I wanted to open a different window to let anyone who is interested see a different view, because I am a duck out of water on this board.


I, for one, would love to see dozens of more posts exploring this view.

I'm disconcerted by the above comment though, which is a little insulting and also plainly untrue. You may or may not be a duck out of water here, but if so it is because of your experience in the side of the business which most handicappers don't have. Why in the world you would think the rest of us would be bored and wouldn't want to hear more of what you have to say is beyond me. But if you're looking for positive reinforcement, then I'll just say that I think we have far too few of these kinds of discussions here, and that is a prime reason I'm much more fascinated than bored with them. Talk of adjusted speed figures I'm quite bored with, however...

[Rick]

SMTW,

I agree with GT. This kind of thing is much more interesting than the usual rehashed handicapping theories. Keep it coming.

I just pulled out one of my old copies of "National Railbird Review" by John Meyer from 1979 where he looked at owner ratings. His sample showed 17% wins and 18% profit just betting the top rated owner in each race. Pretty amazing. Maybe we should look into this factor more.

[ranchwest]

The fact that most of the professional handicappers I've come across are better sleuths than mathematicians should tell us something. Find knowledge and you'll be standing next to money.

Good thread.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

The lesson is horses usually have an opportunity to race at least once every 30 days and economically driven owners do not like to wait 45 days or more to race their horse, because it means potential loss of income, because of these factors the intervening race may become an unintentional public work. Recognizing these unintentional public works (pace 10 to 15 lengths faster than usual for the horse resulting in double digit length loss) can bring home some good prices within the next 30 days.


That's very interesting, because when judging "recency" in terms of fitness I look at within 30 days as a good thing, 45 to 90 days as nothing to worry about, but 30-45 days as a bad thing. My reasoning being if the horse raced within 30 days it is probably sound, and if it was off 45 to 90 days it probably just needed a rest or was given (proper) time to recover from a minor injury. But 30-45 days I figure the horse probably had a problem and it needed to recover from something, but now they're rushing back to the races a bit too soon in the hope of earning a check and not giving the horse the full time it needs.

So I wouldn't bet the horse either, but for a totally different reason....

[andicap]

Great stuff, Show Me.

Since you obviously know a lot about the claiming game, can you give me your opinion of the Steve Collision book about claiming races?

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory:

My statement was not intended as an insult. Probably, not phrased in the best vein, but at least to me it seems difficult to convey the intended meaning via the keyboad.

Actually, it was meant as an apology in advance based on my past experiences. In the past I have been told I was to esoterical, etc. and I did not want anyone to think I find a certain method of handicapping faulty so I try to cover all bases

Thank you for the positive reinforcement, although I was not seeking any, but always nice to hear kind words.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

Actually, it was meant as an apology in advance based on my past experiences. In the past I have been told I was to esoterical, etc. and I did not want anyone to think I find a certain method of handicapping faulty so I try to cover all bases.



I think you got thrown for a loop when you first arrived here assuming there were a bunch of fellow owners and/or horsemen here and all you found were a bunch of crazy handicappers and their computers. Which makes your experience and opinions all the more valuable because you are a duck out of water. So I would hate to see you hold your tongue...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by andicap
Great stuff, Show Me.

Since you obviously know a lot about the claiming game, can you give me your opinion of the Steve Collision book about claiming races?

My only knowledge comes from experience, so I don't know if I really know alot. I am sure there are many more experiences waiting for me. However, I thank you for the compliment.

I think his book is a must read for every handicapper. The stuff he writes about really happens.

I have said in the past every handicapper should own a race- horse as it is the best educational experience.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[corp1956]

Hey, Show me...
I hurried home to read the next chapter....keep it coming...and, it's great reading. Thanks

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by GameTheory
I think you got thrown for a loop when you first arrived here assuming there were a bunch of fellow owners and/or horsemen here and all you found were a bunch of crazy handicappers and their computers. Which makes your experience and opinions all the more valuable because you are a duck out of water. So I would hate to see you hold your tongue...

I actually, arrived here because of peopleplayer. At that time peeps was on the trainer intent quest and sheet type speed figures. And yes, I was thrown for a loop by all the db users and their search for the "black box".

I tried to spark many a discussions about trainer intent, the economics of the game, and sheet type speed figures. However, the majority of posters were more interested in equations and acquiring large dbs. So I became a duck out of water and stuck around, because without a doubt this is the best handicapping board, populated with great personas.

I did leave the board for awhile to cool off, due to being accused of attacking fellow posters, becuase of my asking questions. However, that is all past history.

I do enjoy the discussions here, even though I do not, for example, understand what motivates people to use hundreds of factors, which none are related to the economics driving the business, to analyze an event contingent upon the economics.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Handle]

Now, don't take this as an accusations that you are making a personal attack, but I'm confused about your preoccupation with the notion that people here are only interested in stats, databases and such. You keep bringing this up while I find that most everyone here is interested in all aspects of handicapping - just look at the responses you get from about this thread from all sorts of folks, "propeller heads" included.

But, if someone comes on and says MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY, well, I would expect that person to be greeted with little enthusiasm. I see more people, your post included, talking about how all of this database stuff and stat stuff is useless (not necessary) then I see people saying trainer intent and such isn't important. Frankly I don't get it -- to me it seems more like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

I guess there are more posts about stats and stuff (I haven't counted), but I don't think that this means these same people aren't interested in the way that connections can be used in the handicapping process. In other words, I think your "duckedness" is a product of your imagination, and not something that anyone here is going to go out of their way to label you with just because you are not interested in it. Of course, by repeatedly insinuating that people who do use 100s of factors are WRONG in their ways, you may be picking a fight with the people that do use them.

-Nathan

[Suff]

Very wealthy owners....or investors. Spend wildly to buy and Maintain thier Thoroughbreds. And ROI is Equal to the Thirst for a Triple Crown or Kentucky derby winner. In NY.....Extremely Wealthy Owners Like Mary Lou Whitney would'nt be affected at all if any of her Horses went two years without a win.....and she'd still spend crazily to treat her stock first Class.

I worked for a time for Centennial farms. Owners of Belmont Stakes Winner Colonial Affair (Julie Krone) and many other top thoroughbreds. That structure is what is Most common in ownership of Top Thoroughbreds. Limited Partnerships that pass on Monetary and Tax benefits to the Individual Owners of "Shares" in the Partnership. This adds another Cost to the owners because the General Partner charges the Limited Partners fees for administering the Venture.

Centennial was on the High End of the game. Raising capital in the 100K to 250K from each investor. Pooling 5-7 Million Dollars and purchasing 2 - 5 Horses for the Partnership. When one fund closes..they open another...Buy more horses and so on. At any Given time Centennial Might have 5-10 Limited partnerships in action.

Most of theses owners have no clue....nor interest in the Day to Day Barn fees and related issues. Centennial makes all those decisons. And with My experience no stone went unturned in the search of quality care of thier Stock. And a Profitable Partnership was extremely rare while the Stock was racing. Most Partnerships were operated at and liquidated at, a loss to the Limited Partners. Some Gains were realized through a Private Sale of Horse or through Stud Fees. But to operate at a Positive Cash flow through Purse earnings was rare.

My point being is that There is a Large Class of ownership That treats thier stock great and operates at Negative Cash Flow. Bear in Mind.....20% of the Cash raised to start a Partnership is set aside for Boarding and training of the Animals.

It may sound odd.....but these owners win alot of races. But when you pay 1.5 Million for a Yearling...and barn him and train him and feed him for two years,,,,,Your not gonna turn a profit winning Allow56000C races.

So profitable ownership is not synonomous with TOP OWNERSHIP.


I did read the thread from Formula about his 178 Factors or 78 factors. And I saw where two or three people kinda went at each other about it. But I think whatever one wants to do to enjoy the game or turn a profit at the game is his or her own choice. I think Formula is a Student of the game. He does his thing. Its not what I what do...but I would'nt criticize him or diminish his efforts by sayings its pointless. Its what he Likes to do...More power to him. I read all his threads and I follow his Selections in the selections Forum..and I think he's Tremendous.

And I think all the replies to this Thread are equally tremendous.

[Suff]

http://www.centennialfarms.com/investor.asp

http://www.centennialfarms.com/history.asp

[andicap]

if Baltimore wins the division, I'll take you and your family to Siro's.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Handle
.

Of course, by repeatedly insinuating that people who do use 100s of factors are WRONG in their ways, you may be picking a fight with the people that do use them.

-Nathan

I said I do not understand, not that they are wrong. There are many ways to win a horse race ,but the universal underpinning of all races is the economic drive of the business.

Additionally, I did not say dbs are useless. I have used dbs of my own making in the past to track specific factors.

I said I do not understand why, in my opinion, there seems an proccupation to make the game harder than it actually is. I stated for anyone, in my opinion, to be successful in any business that person should have an understanding of the economics of the business.

I am not insinuating anyone is wrong and that my way is the way.
Anyway, specifically Formula's posts were not about any handicapping methods, just his research showing you can't win.

I pointed out the fact that maybe he is trying to measure an unknowable variable and that is my opinion.

I did not take your post as an accusation regarding personal attacks, and my response is intended to clarify my prior statements.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Handle
.

Of course, by repeatedly insinuating that people who do use 100s of factors are WRONG in their ways, you may be picking a fight with the people that do use them.

-Nathan

I tried to edit my prior post to include the following but I missed the time frame:

I am adopting Rick's philosophy, every one I am the autor of nothing and a seller of nothing, so I have no motivation to convince any poster I am right and they are wrong.

Handle, if I am not mistaken you authored a nifty program that shows a positive roi. That is a terrific accomplishment and I hope you recoup your time and money investment through your marketing. Your effort shows there are many ways to win and I guess cast doubt on research saying it can't be done.

What I am implying in my posts is that by understanding the core economics of the business any type of handicapping may become more profitable.

Regards
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[cj]

Originally posted by andicap
if Baltimore wins the division, I'll take you and your family to Siro's.

Win or lose, I figured the O's to drop 110 this year. They look much better on the field than they did on paper, maybe they are turning it around finally. Guess I was spoiled in the 70s and early 80s as a kid when they were the most consistent team in baseball.

CJ

[Show Me the Wire]

Still in awe of Brook Robinson's skills playing third base.

I guess there is more to me than horse racing, but not too much more.

And for you Yankee fans, and Suff. Moose Skowron is a personal acquantance, okay now I am bragging.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Handle]

SMTW,

I'm cool - I just don't understand why you feel so out of place on this board with your subject matter. Sorry if I misunderstood - it seemed you were complaining about feeling out of place while talking about the way other guys use lots of factors in a way that, to me, insinuatee that you thought a pursuit along these lines has no worth. I know that you literally said that you didn't understand it, but I read your remarks as less than generous to what you didn't understand. No big deal, and sorry if it seems I'm trying to start an argument. I've really enjoyed your topic here and the way that you've presented it.

Sorry, no positive ROI playing every race mechanical. Last I looked it will beat the take playing every race, but its not a golden goose.

Best,
-N

[Suff]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

And for you Yankee fans, and Suff. Moose Skowron is a personal acquantance, okay now I am bragging.



I won't blow his Cover....... But there is member of this Board who Pitched 6 or 7 Years in the Majors. 4 with the Red Sox. He's a great guy and a Great Horse player and he's Out here often.....I'd never blow his anonimity.... alot of the regulars know him as a Good Horse player. Not to many know he was the #2 Starter Behind Roger Clemens for a bit.

[Storm Cadet]

Duck...let's keep this thread going. .

But being a horse owner, I, like you, also keep in mind all the different reasons we enter horses, (purse, workouts, prepping for the big race down the road, trying new surfaces).

Also, working with different trainers and partnership groups have given me a new outlook on the game also. As one of the previous posters discussed Centennial Farms, I remembered trying to figure out how much each of their LLC's would need to earn just to break even with their high costs. Thats why 95% of each LLC LOSE money, after yearling purchase markups to investors, then add in the marked up trainers expenses, then monthly management fees, and all the other misc. marked up vet expenses charged to investors. Many LLC's are forced to run the 2 and 3 YO's at higher class levels, just to get a share of the purse, to impress present and future investors. They all post on their web sites their current stats, wins, in the money %'s. Thinking of the horse and could he win was many times NOT the prime reason to enter a race. They're always looking down the road, especially with our better horses.

As we discussed, owner and management companies will enter horses in races just for the publicity too as the go after investors. Doesn't it look great that company X had a horse that was Derby or Breeders Cup nominated or ran in a stakes race. They most certainly enter horses just for the prestige, and people sit all night before a race handicapping in the DRF or whatever else they use to handicap, I sit now and wonder how many people are going to put $$$ down on one of my companies horses. People should all read Cot Cambells-Lightening in a Jar. He's the long time owner of Dogwood Stable. We can all get a great lesson in horse playing after reading that book.

I now usually only wager on my horse or another of my associates horses, and that's only if we get the go sign...and hope for a little racing luck to go along with him!!!

Talk to you soon!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Storm Cadet
Duck...let's keep this thread going. .
I now usually only wager on my horse or another of my associates horses, and that's only if we get the go sign...and hope for a little racing luck to go along with him!!! Talk to you soon!

And we expect you to post when you "get the go sign" so we can join in.....

[Rick]

Sufferin,

I can see why he'd rather be anonymous. We already have enough celebrities on this board.

[Show Me the Wire]

Contrary to my prior statement, I am posting another post regarding the economic structure’s impact on handicapping the single competitive event. I was torn between continuing on about ownership syndications or jockeys. There are two very informative posts about large ownership syndications from Suff and pace Cadet, so I am going with jocks. Some excellent posts already touching on the core economics of the business under Jockey agents.

Jockeys earn their living basically through commissions, paid by the owner from the purse. Yes, jocks get paid a nominal payment for each mount, but is pretty tuff making a living $45. a race. The real money is getting 10% of the 1st place purse. Just think about the difference in monetary reward in the same race. For example the winning Jock will receive $1,000, from $10, 000 winners share and from 4th and down depending on the track the jock will earn $45. Big difference. Before I go on I understand this is a general discussion and the jock mount fees and percentages vary from track to track.

Everyone has probably heard bet the best jock in the race theory. Well it is based in reality, because the best jocks want to ride the most likely winner and the soundest horse. The owner and trainer hopefully want the best jock to ride their horse. Conversely, due to the economics the unproven jocks and lower tier jocks ride the less likely winners.

This is a pretty solid approach in the “meat and potato” races i.e. claiming races (preliminary allowance races depending on the circuit). See the posts there regarding jockey agents are good handicappers and a top jock taking a mount from a lower tier trainer. A top jock usually has an agent that knows every horse on the grounds, the relative fitness of the horse and the trainer’s ability to train.

The good agent generally isn’t going to risk his meal ticket riding an unsound, sore horse from a lower level barn and the jock wants to earn “real money” not change.

However, the top jock may not be out to win with an expensive maiden, and other allowance types (see the posts about syndications). The jock’s first job is to take care of the horse and teach the horse what is expected of it, the second job may be to get a check.

The jock is hired to do a specific job, the job may or may not try to win.

This topic could go anywhere so I am going to stop here and I have no feel which way I should follow.. If anyone is interested in pursuing the topic of jocks, I would like to use a question and discussion format to gear the discussion towards the greater interest.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Rick]

SMTW,

How common is it for a jockey to bet on his own mount? Aside from that it seems that a jockey and his agent would want to maximize his number of wins per year since it seems to be so worthwhile to do so. I've always theorized that the best jockeys are those who get the most mounts because they're the most in demand. It does seem to be significant if a jockey has a high number of mounts with the trainer, especially in maiden races.

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

It is against the rules of racing for a Jockey to bet on his mount, so I would say it is not common. However, that doesn't mean the agent can't and they do.

Truthfully, most of the successfull jocks I know really do not wager through friends or anyone else on the races.

Quick response right now, I will formulate a response to the rest later.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Rick]

SMTW,

I thought it was OK for a jockey to bet on his mount but not against it. Trainers do bet though don't they?

[Show Me the Wire]

Rick:

Some trainers do and some don’t, it is important to know which ones do, because the wagering trainers use the mutuals as part of the profit structure for the business.

I hope the following answers your questions:

What makes a jockey good? Generally, a good jockey is considered as someone who won’t lose the race. Very few jockeys actually are good enough to win races, such as Bailey, Day, Stevens, and P. Val. The majority of good jockeys don’t lose the race, meaning they limit their mistakes enough to win, and the lesser jockeys actually make enough mistakes to lose the race. Of course everything is relevant to the riding colony and within a riding colony there can be a stand out like Rene Douglas, the past two years. At AP Douglas actually won races with his riding, but somehow he does not have the same success outside AP and may not have the same level of success as in the past.

A jockey really wants to maximize the amount of money not the number of wins. Jerry Bailey is a perfect example fewer mounts than most and the most money. Riding his physically hard, and dangerous so the less you ride the less chance of injuries and reduction in wear and tear on the knees, legs, and arms. However, to get to the less rides more money you have to amass quite a few wins in the beginning.

The way it generally works is that every barn with decent stock has their go to guy and the other jockey agents are constantly trying to steal the business away. The barns with the lesser stock settle for the lower tier jocks. So it is important to note when a lower tier barn gets one of the top jocks to ride.

Probably the better move is the lower tier barn moves up to the second level of jock in the colony, everybody is a little hungrier for the win.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[plainolebill]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Rick:

Some trainers do and some don’t, it is important to know which ones do, because the wagering trainers use the mutuals as part of the profit structure for the business.



SMTW I agree that it's important to know the betting stables, but other than rumor, where would that information be available?

Bill

[karlskorner]

One more injection. You showed the Jock winning a 10K purse and 1K going to the Jockey, deduct 25% to Jocks agent and 10% to Jocks valet, still not a bad piece of change.

[hurrikane]

I got to tell you this is one of the most interesting and informative threads I've read in a long long time.

Not one metion of odds or number of records or redundant samples.

how refreshing. It's nice to learn something up here. Doesn't happen as often as it use too.

[Pace Cap'n]

Suppose a rule was passed, and somehow miraculously enforced, prohibiting any of a horse's connections from wagering on their horse or any other. Purse structure would remain the same, and all scheduled races would still be run.

What percentage of owners and trainers do you suppose would still be in business at the end of the first year?

I agree with hurrikane. One of the best threads to come along in some time.

[Show Me the Wire]

Karl:

Thanks for adding the commission structure paid by the jock to the mix. .I know I am bound to skip over a thing or two somewhere along the line.

Plainolebill:

Rumor is a good start, and watch the betting patterns. I believe this angle has been talked about before on this board. It usually involves the dropping off odds from 3 races back, in each successive race. You may notice the in the pps the only time the horse wins or comes close to winning is if the odds are significantly lower than in any other races. On those occasions it is usually the barn wagering and not the publics. Sometimes it is just as simple as watching the trainer or assistant trainer got to the window after saddling the horse.


Sometimes it is good to know what connections wager, in order to avoid wagering on the race. Hint at AP no rumor the Catalano connections wager heavy. If you think their horse is going to win, you are better off not playing the exotics of any form i.e. exactas, tris, supers, and muli-race exotics, as the payoffs are ridiculously low. Over the weekend I believe one super paid $48 and pick 3s can pay about $25 frequently.

Pace Cap’n:

Really have no idea. Horseracing started as owner versus owner and probably pretty still prevalent at the smaller circuits. Probably, a good guide is the purse structure to answer your question. Remember, it is a big economic investment at any level to own a race-horse and if the purse structure is not enough to cover the expenses and show a little profit, the connections need to wager to cover their economic outlay. I would guess these types of operations would be more inclined to leave the game.

That is why it is important to know the type of owners a trainer represents. Are the y hobbyist, an economic driven owner, syndication, or just plain old wealthy? Everyone has different agendas.

Hurrikane:

Glad you are enjoying the thread.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

While on the subject of wagering trainers, I like to highlight the competitiveness of this business. A lot of times the wagering trainer will not tell the owner that the horse is ready and in the right spot. The trainer does not want the owner to spoil the payout, by betting a large sum of money and by letting the word out to his friends. Adds up to a nice bonus to the trainer, courtesy of the benevolent owner.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Rick]

I've heard it said that one can tell how good a jockey is by looking at the ratio of wins to second place finishes, the theory being that the jockey can make the difference when it's a close finish. Probably no jockey could make, say, five lengths difference but one lenghth, maybe. Has anyone researched this idea?

[karlskorner]

I have know a few Trainers who "failed" to tell the owner that the horse was "ready", they are not employed by those owners anymore.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

A better judgement is win percentage in photo finishes.

Dave

[Rick]

Dave,

Obviously that would be much better information but where would one come by it easily?

[Dave Schwartz]

RIck,

I never said it was easy. It will be in my upcoming book, however. <G> (Shameless plug)

Dave

[Speed Figure]

Dave,

What's the book about?

[Rick]

Dave,

Are you really writing a book? If you are I'm sure it would be great. Although some may think that I'm against everyone who writes books or sells horse racing products, that's not really the case. I only make fun of those who have been associated with disreputable people or made incredible claims that can't be duplicated by others.

[Dave Schwartz]

Speed Figure,

Well, it starts with "It was a dark and stormy night..."

I am sure you are looking for an answer that goes deeper than "It's about horse racing" so I'll just say that it is a deep look into the major factors of racing... where they apply and where they don't... with some innovative stuff like the jockey/photo finish stuff.

BTW, that jockey/photo finish thing was Gordon Jones' idea. I actually tested it a few years ago and it was quite illuminating.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Rick]

Dave,

When will it be published and by whom? You're one of the good guys and I'm sure you have a lot to say. I guess I owe you lunch sometime but never seem to get around to it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Well, it starts with "It was a dark and stormy night. when I was born to the beast"


If you like maybe I could author a chapter or two for you!

Regards,
Show Me the WireI

[Dave Schwartz]

SMTW,

LOL - That would sure make my life easier. <G>


Rick,

Give a call sometime. The Peppermill is still there. <G>



Dave

[Show Me the Wire]

The economies of the game:

Who really sets the final odds line? What criteria are used? Does the favorite really lose approximately 33% of the time?

Any opinions on the above?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Pace Cap'n]

Certainly the general wisdom is that the "public" sets the odds line. Of course the final odds are determined by the public at large, but not everyone has an equal vote when making that determination. The odds are most likely skewed by the heavy hitters. An extreme example:

Ten people show up to watch and wager on match race.
Nine of those like horses "A" and bet $2.00 to win.
One person likes horse "B" and bets $20.00 to win.

The "Public" has overwhelmingly chosen horse "A", but the win pool shows horse "B" with the most money wagered. Not a true indication of public opinion.

It would be interesting to know how many tickets were sold on each horse, along with the dollar amount.

Regarding the % of winning favorites, I would be interested to know the % of winning favorites going off at even money or less.

By the way, I love betting against false favorites, and especially
off- the- board favs.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
Certainly the general wisdom is that the "public" sets the odds line. Of course the final odds are determined by the public at large, but not everyone has an equal vote when making that determination. The odds are most likely skewed by the heavy hitters. An extreme example:

Ten people show up to watch and wager on match race.
Nine of those like horses "A" and bet $2.00 to win.
One person likes horse "B" and bets $20.00 to win.


What if the above example is not extreme and is the the rule and not the exception?

Regards,
Show Me the Factor

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Does the favorite really lose approximately 33% of the time?



No, the favorite loses approximately 67% of the time.

[Show Me the Wire]

ranchwest:

LOL at my error.

Thanks for the correction. I meant do the favorites really win only approxiamtely 33%. I really believe it depends on how you define favorite.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

Thanks for the correction. I meant do the favorites really win only approxiamtely 33%. I really believe it depends on how you define favorite.



It is only defined one way -- the horse with the lowest final odds. If you want to define it another way, you should choose a different word or add some adjectives.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
What if the above example is not extreme and is the the rule and not the exception?

Regards,
Show Me the Factor

The term "extreme" related to the small field and number of bettors.

I do believe that situation to be the rule. One large bet sure will cancel a lot of small ones, in terms of public opinion.

The question in my mind remains--"What is the winning % of the handicappers' top choice?" Knowing that it is impossible to quantify, do you (or anyone) suppose it to be greater or lesser than the "favorite's"?

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory:

It is possible for two horses to go off at equal odds on the board, for example both going off at 2:1. However, one will actually have a little more money bet on it and conventially that horse will be considered the favorite for the charts. Does that extra few dollars really mean the favorite lost, if the other 2:1 horse won the race.

It would make a difference. Yesterday at AP, if you use the "common" definiton the favorite would have won approxiamtely 44% of the races. Certainly a better than average day for the favorite and there were alot of strong favorites. However, if you treat the 9th race as being equal in odds, the favorite winning percentage increased to aproximately 55%. This to me is a significant increase in winning favorites.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
The term "extreme" related to the small field and number of bettors.

I do believe that situation to be the rule. One large bet sure will cancel a lot of small ones, in terms of public opinion.

The question in my mind remains--"What is the winning % of the handicappers' top choice?" Knowing that it is impossible to quantify, do you (or anyone) suppose it to be greater or lesser than the "favorite's"?

Actually, I believe winning favorites win at a higher clip than approximately 33% of the time and it is pretty equal to the handicappers top choice.

Of course it has to do with the definition of the favorite as Game Theory accurately pointed out. I bekieve it would make more sense for statistical studies and your own record keeping to define the favorite as paying at least $1. or more than the second lowest paying horse. This belief has to do with my definiton of the public.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
However, if you treat the 9th race as being equal in odds, the favorite winning percentage increased to aproximately 55%. This to me is a significant increase in winning favorites.


And, if they pay off on photo finishes, I'm rich.

If you stretch the definitions of terms, then you really end up with a distortion of the facts.

[Show Me the Wire]

ranchwest:

The photo finish indicates equality to an extent. However, I think it is a little apples versus oranges discussion.

If you are making investment decisions based on the theory of: I can win if I beat the favorite and it is possible to beat the favorite 67% of the time, you may be disappointed in your roi.


If two horses final odds are both 8:5 doesn't it really mean the favorite has approximately a 72% chance to win this race and the 33% winning favorite statistic is skewed if the 8:5 horse with $50. less is bet on him wins? The statistic is not reflective of the real world. The betting public felt two horse had an equal chance to win and since won of the two won the public was right assigning a 72% chance the favorite would win.

I guess this sounds some what akin to Mitchell's 80/20 theory, but it really does reflect the true economies of wagering.

What I am saying the only true overlays in my opinion can be found either when the barn overestimates its chance of winning or the general public, not the stables, account for the final odds line.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

We've discussed numerous times that there is a loose but consistent correlation between odds and winning percentages in large samples.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ranchwest
We've discussed numerous times that there is a loose but consistent correlation between odds and winning percentages in large samples.

I do not understand what does that mean?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

It is possible for two horses to go off at equal odds on the board, for example both going off at 2:1. However, one will actually have a little more money bet on it and conventially that horse will be considered the favorite for the charts. Does that extra few dollars really mean the favorite lost, if the other 2:1 horse won the race.


Well, yes. You've got to draw the line somewhere. There will always be borderline cases. (If I lose a basketball game by 1 point, did I really lose it?) It's a stat -- that's all. If you want to calculate it another way, that's fine, but let's not make ambiguous existing terminology that has an unambiguous meaning now. Or else the NTRA will have to form a committee, and that's never good. (Lori Petty?)


It would make a difference. Yesterday at AP, if you use the "common" definiton the favorite would have won approxiamtely 44% of the races. Certainly a better than average day for the favorite and there were alot of strong favorites. However, if you treat the 9th race as being equal in odds, the favorite winning percentage increased to aproximately 55%. This to me is a significant increase in winning favorites.


Actually, not quite that much. 4/9 = 44% and 5/9 = 55%. But if you allow more than one favorite per race, you really ought to consider it 5/10 = 50%.

But now you're thinking, "Yeah, but it was only 9 races, and people say that favorites win 33% of the races." But the same people that were saying that were thinking that it was only possible to have one favorite per race so that "race" or "favorite" were interchangeable in the calculation of the stat: 1/3 of the races, 1/3 of the favorites = same thing.

But here you've gone and changed the definition of favorite, so you should count them both (5/10). So any race with more than one favorite also has at least one guaranteed losing favorite. Furthermore, it means that if neither one of them had won, you've have to count that as two losing favorites, bringing the total back closer to 33% again. Now look what you've done.

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory

I not saying I have an answer. I am putting forth some observations and seeing if they make sense, with the understanding these thoughts apply to the meat and potato races.

Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere when you parameters are rankings. The team that loses by 1 point loses although the game was evenly played. The structure of the competition requires fixed rankings.

Investing in horse racing, i.e. wagering is not necessarily based on the rankings of the post time favorite and what percentage the favorite wins or loses. The example of two favorites in every race would be valid if everything is symmetrical, but in reality it is not.

So what impact does this have? I am not sure. (talking to myself and answering, a bad sign), but if I understand that I need to win at least 3 out of ten races I wager on at average odds of at least 3:1 to make a 20% return on my capital, I need to find races where the favorite (all horses of equal odds) really has 67% chance of losing.

I think the above would be significant, if I could discern who the wagering public is and take my chances beating the favorite selected by the non-barn public as opposed to the barn public or conversely if the barn is notorious for over estimating its horse’s chances.

Does this make any sense?

Regards,
Show me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ranchwest]

SMTW,

Whoa! Go back to handicapping the trainers, bro!

33% is a month-end stat. It is not a stat for the race at hand. Pick winners, not odds.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire

Does this make any sense?


Yeah, makes sense -- I was just giving you a hard time over the terminology.

Bottom line: you're looking for races that are easier to beat than others. You figure that is more likely to happen when you've only got one horse with low odds to beat rather than two. Fair enough.

Now, that's take that idea and set it aside and talk about your other one: How are we to determine where the money is coming from -- the public or the stables? I make guesses by asking questions like:

How do favorites do running for this trainer? Do they win as much as they're supposed to (according to their odds)? [Look formula_2002! I'm using the odds!] If not, did they come close? Or did they "disappoint big"? And then do they come back and win after their odds have gotten higher? Or do they only win when the odds are low? Are their winners bet-down more than usual? [Most winners period are bet-down.] Any unusual exotic activity (you've got to save toteboard info for that)? Is there only a pattern with certain owners? Etc. etc.

If I see a strong pattern, then I can guess when the stable is betting and when they aren't. If no pattern, then either I missed it (well hidden in the exotics, maybe) or they aren't much of a betting stable.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ranchwest:

My thoughts had nothing to do with handicapping. I still evaluate the horse and the trainer intent. I am trying to formulate some guidelines on wagering based on the theory the real overlays are caused by the non-barn public and/or overly optimistic barns. Using this philosophy I did not wager on Friday on AP as I could not find any overlays described under my theory and under my definition 8 out of 9 races were won by the favorite. However, Saturday was another story. It looked like a lot of non-barn public money selected the favorite and there were overlays.

Actually, I started thinking along these lines because of Formula’s posts about favorites and not being able to beat the take and since he did all that research I felt I had to do something with it.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality.

[ranchwest]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I think a few overlays are from overly optimistic barns, but there are a lot of times when the public (barn, others?) is expecting a horse to do something it is not likely to do.

Some horses are just not going to switch distances well and the public will fall for it every time. If the horse has good speed ratings, people today figure that the Beyers adjust for distance so the ability at the new distance is built into the Beyers.

There are horses that are at that point in their form cycle where you can tell they're going to run second as the favorite. Many of them flatten out up the lane.

There are other horses that are at the point in their form cycle where they're simply not likely to run well at all.

The public doesn't seem to try to anticipate; the approach to handicapping is reactive instead of proactive, so that the public is always a race behind where they should be. Last out's winner probably won't repeat, but the public will be on it.

Another public weak point is the things you've pointed out, the business of racing. For instance, claims. Most people think that claims are to be ignored or that all claims are good.

While a lot of people understand that there are horses that are strong on the front end or strong closers, there aren't very many who understand the dynamics of pace match-ups. The public often misses speed duals and sometimes falls for late runners, especially late runners that are stretching out.

Sometimes the public goes for horses with equipment that is a significant sign of bad things to come.

The public usually misses physicality.

Sometimes, previous races are not evaluated accurately. I can still recall having won money by noticing previous races in which a horse ran well against Risen Star or was in a race with Yankee Affair and the horse went on to win that day's race. In this regard, most people miss key races.

That's a few of the things that come to my mind. Most of this stuff is right there in the PPs. Some, you have to look at the horse. Other things, you have to keep records to know.

Everyone scoffs at the people who use 78 factors in their computer. Well, in a good handicapper's mind, there may be a lot more than 78 factors being processed, possibly thousands. It is simply a matter of how you put those factors together. Do you always weight all the factors? Are some factors mutually exclusive? Are some factors only powerful in tandem? Do some factors or combination of factors appear to be positive when in fact they may be negative? What are the situations in which a factor is significant?

It's a tough game. Friday I beat it, Saturday it beat me. That's the way it goes for most of us.