Problem Putting a # To Certain Categories

[Space Monkey]

I'm messing around with formulating my own program using my preferred criteria and putting a # value to each. The problem I'm having is putting a # to Form Cycle and Recent Speed.

The landscape of horse racing has changed. There was a time when horses coming off layoffs rarely won. Nowadays its very common for horses to win first time out after long (3-6 months) layoffs. So if you give a low rating for Recent Speed and obviously the horse doesn't have any Form Cycle unless its 0, it unfairly punishes them in the overall rating. Do you give a high Form Cycle rating if the trainer has good win/layoff #'s and the horse shows some good works? Another situation is when a horse comes off a layoff, and runs poorly first time back. Sure you expect it to improve, but how do you reflect that? I'm having trouble reaching a balance.

[raybo]

I'm messing around with formulating my own program using my preferred criteria and putting a # value to each. The problem I'm having is putting a # to Form Cycle and Recent Speed.

The landscape of horse racing has changed. There was a time when horses coming off layoffs rarely won. Nowadays its very common for horses to win first time out after long (3-6 months) layoffs. So if you give a low rating for Recent Speed and obviously the horse doesn't have any Form Cycle unless its 0, it unfairly punishes them in the overall rating. Do you give a high Form Cycle rating if the trainer has good win/layoff #'s and the horse shows some good works? Another situation is when a horse comes off a layoff, and runs poorly first time back. Sure you expect it to improve, but how do you reflect that? I'm having trouble reaching a balance.

Most people don't put a numerical rating on form cycles, if they even analyze cycles at all. Some just add a "+" or "-" after their rating to denote improving or declining form. Here's something I've used, in the past, for form cycles:

-4, if horse is at the bottom of his cycle
-2, if it is between bottom of cycle and the baseline (0)
0, if he is on baseline (mid cycle)
+2, if he's between baseline and top of cycle
+4, if he's at the top of cycle

You can then apply a weighting factor to these.

Concerning returns from layoffs, you could develop a workout rating system, speed number or form number, etc.

The trainer success rate after layoffs, either 1st after or 2nd, or 3rd, after, you could use the trainer's success rate and weight that for the 2 or 3 possible post-layoff scenarios.

[Space Monkey]

Thanks Raybo, very helpful. Time to rework the formula,,lol.

[plainolebill]

I compare the trainer's layoff stats against his normal win rate to add or subtract from form. Another thing to consider is class drop, a slightly improved last race (assuming the horse isn't completely hopeless) along with a drop deserves some sort of credit.

[Dan H]

Ada Kulleck anwers your question in "Beat the Track." She prescribes a method that assigns a numeric value to her preferred criteria. Her pencil and paper method got me started in handicapping. You may use this reference as a model for how she applied her numeric values and then adjust for your criteria.

William Scott also assigns a value to "form cycle" in each of his handicapping books, but it's not numeric. He uses a letter/symbol to measure form cycle as positive, negative, or neutral. If my memory serves me right, he prescribes that a negative form cycle can be overcome by a positive PCR rating (or ability time).

I believe the Thomas Racing System has tabs for both the Kulleck weights and the Scott form cycle.

Happy handicapping, hope this helps.

Dan H

[Dave Schwartz]

What did you think of that book? (Beat the Track)

[Space Monkey]

I just read some reviews of Beat the Track. The general opinion was its good for beginners or people with limited handicapping experience.

[Dan H]

What did you think of that book? (Beat the Track)

I was drawn to this book because it was a paperback and is listed at $6.99. As I stated above, it was my first handicapping book.

In about 190 easy-to-read pages, Ada took me from "pick the grey horse" to "open up the form, dummy, and let's mark it up!"

The copyright is listed as 1988, 1990 and my copy is a revised 1992 edition. The PP art is pre-Beyer, yet meets all of Ada's objectives. She is very careful to point out there are no "systems" that pave the way to the cashier's window. I like an honest author.

She uses 95 pages to walk her readers through what is really an 11 step handicapping process. She begins with common sense eliminations. Her steps read like, "Credit 1.2 for racing within the last eight days." Step 10 is to multiply the credits for each horse. Her final step helps you distinguish horses whose totals are close to each other.

I was able to crib her 11 step process down to a laminated index card. It remains in my wallet as a life-line just in case I wake up on a deserted island with nothing but a daily DRF and and a laptop with a Twinspires account.

It is my opinion that Ada's tome was the right book for me as a starter, which I think was her goal. I trusted her writing and still do. Ada's introduction to this book makes me think she is the that old gal that we pass at the track, who sits a table and quietly enjoys the puzzle solving aspect of handicapping. She's the one with a calculator and colored markers pouring over each line in the PP until she finds that one kernel of information that gives her a edge. She can't wait to tell someone. After years of finding a trend in those kernels, she simply decides to share her findings in a well-written instruction book for pre-Beyer handicappers.

The sharpies here at PA would find her method a little pedestrian for a pen-and-ink" process and a little too "chalky," The artistic handicapper here would shun her method because it requires a calculator. The programming handicapper would find her steps easy to program with a few conditional strings in their code. And our database guys would probably analyze her method as less effective than many of the modern analysis tools at our disposal.

I look back at her book as the whack upside my head that says each handicapping factor does not have to carry the same weight, nor is it equal for all races. This could be the birth of impact values, or maybe just her way of communicating them to her novice readers.

The book has a fifteen page section on harness racing. Although not tested by me, her premise is percentage based. The third section is money management, and judging from my bankroll, her instructions didn't stick with me.

And finally, I believe her book took me from being the "dummest" money in the mutual pools to "I'm feeling alot better about my chances" when I bet this horse.

It is the book I would give my wife if she ever showed an interest in this sport.