Horse Didn't Run Last Time Out

[cobraz41]

If a horse didn't run its last time out, do you take it that the horse is in for a downward trend? Lets say the horse doesn't have any real excuse, it just didn't run at all. The horse wasn't running at a higher level and it had been competitive prior to the most recent start. Just wondering what the general thoughts are on this type of situation.

[Pell Mell]

If a horse didn't run its last time out, do you take it that the horse is in for a downward trend? Lets say the horse doesn't have any real excuse, it just didn't run at all. The horse wasn't running at a higher level and it had been competitive prior to the most recent start. Just wondering what the general thoughts are on this type of situation.

It's all according to what is termed an excuse. Some of my best bets are horses that seemed to have no excuse last time. It takes a lot of experience to interpret what was or wasn't an excuse.
http://backstretchtalks.blogspot.com/
;)

[thaskalos]

If a horse ran a seemingly inexcusable last race...I look at the race prior to that. If the second race back is impressive, and the horse has not taken a suspicious layoff coming into today's race...then I excuse the horse for its bad last race, regardless of circumstances.

The widespread belief that a horse's last race is the best indicator of its current form is the biggest myth in the game, as far as I am concerned.

[JustRalph]

you might find that there are some startling statistics when it comes to what a horses chances are today, depending on where he finished last out.

I have many databases full of data on this.

I am anticipating the comments in this thread

[plainolebill]

I bet these 'too bad to be true' horses if the odds are right and the horse would be a contender based on his penultimate race. I prefer this pattern with younger, lightly raced horses.

[Valuist]

This is where physicality can come in. If a horse ran an inexplicably poor race last time, I would want to see how he/she looks in the paddock and post parade. If the horse looks very sharp (and it doesn't hurt if they are alive on the board) physically, I will excuse the last race. Otherwise, I won't excuse it and assume the horse is going off form.

[Robert Goren]

I need a price to bet a horse who ran a dull race in its last out. There is just no way for the DRF better to know what happen. I think most of the time it a bad sign.

[JustRalph]

I need a price to bet a horse who ran a dull race in its last out. There is just no way for the DRF better to know what happen. I think most of the time it a bad sign.

and you would be right.


95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race. I have a UDM in Jcapper that basically only allows me to consider horses who were 4th or better in their last start. It has not let me down much at all. Every once in a while I get a winner that was worse than 4th last out. And that was usually a very good race or the horse had some kind of weird trouble.

[Light]

95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race.

If horse racing was that easy,pk6 carryovers wouldn't exist. The TVG dudes would hit most of their pk4's, and nothing would pay over $10.A quick check found only 70-75% who ran 4th or better in their last race won.

[toetoe]

100% at GGF. ;)

[bigmack]

.A quick check found only 70-75% who ran 4th or better in their last race won.
How comprehensive is your database and how many races & conditions did you query?

[toetoe]

He did it at the Lucky Store. 12 items or fewer, okay ?

Hey clerk lady --- three's a crowd, eh ?

We need a bagger or baguette on Can Alley for a massive Dinty Moore Beef Stew cleanup, a.s.a.p.

[Robert Goren]

100% at GGF. ;)That because they only run 4 horse fields there.:rolleyes:

[bigmack]

We need a bagger or baguette on Can Alley for a massive Dinty Moore Beef Stew cleanup, a.s.a.p.
:lol: :lol:

[toetoe]

That because they only run 4 horse fields there.:rolleyes:



You get me. You really get me. (:Sally Field voice.) Fear not; I will tell no one.



My latest resolution, spoken in Michael Moriarty's voice:

"From now on, I rag nobody." [Dream on, Mr. Toe.]

[Ocala Mike]

The widespread belief that a horse's last race is the best indicator of its current form is the biggest myth in the game, as far as I am concerned.


Amen, brother. The hardest thing for most players to do is to draw a line through that last poor effort. Horses, like people, have bad days.


Ocala Mike

[Light]

How comprehensive is your database and how many races & conditions did you query?

Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.

[bigmack]

"From now on, I rag nobody." [Dream on, Mr. Toe.]
What a gem. :ThmbUp:

Though techniknockly it was: From here on in, I rag nobody.

But I ain't here to rag. :rolleyes:

Skip the facts, just gimme the details.
Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.
Whoa there fella. Lighten-up.

I was just axin' how ya got in the 70's. (Toes avg. golf score)

[Light]

Whoa there fella.



Why does everyone talk like they're on some ranch in Waco Texas.

[bigmack]

Why does everyone talk like they're on some ranch in Waco Texas.
If you're insinuating some of us were members of the Branch (or Twig) Dividian, I can assure you that toes has completed his deprogramming and is running @ 46% of your average citizen.

Now, tell me the depth of your database? You can't waltz in here throwing around stats while amongst mavens of racing data. Or can you?

[JustRalph]

Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.

I am not going to give you the whole thing, or every factor.....but you can bet it's not a figment of my imagination. I put in a few jcapper factors to tighten it up a little.

If I strip it raw........ horses that finished 5th or worse in their last start only win 9 percent of races. No restrictions at all.

You want to quibble over 4 percentage points......go ahead. You can bet that 4 percent.

There are exceptions. In fact I bet one today. A 23 dollar winner. But I rarely bet them......... unless I see an angle.

[cobraz41]

Just for the record the horse I was looking at when I posed the question about a horse running off a poor effort ran a very similar race to its last. It failed to run and I believe finished last. Not saying that this situation answers the question, but I guess you have to be able to determine if the horse is indeed heading off form. In this case I think it is.

[fmolf]

Just for the record the horse I was looking at when I posed the question about a horse running off a poor effort ran a very similar race to its last. It failed to run and I believe finished last. Not saying that this situation answers the question, but I guess you have to be able to determine if the horse is indeed heading off form. In this case I think it is.It really helps to look at the replay of the horses last bad race if you are interested in betting him.At least read the full chart to get more in depth information on the horses trip.This is the only real way to tell if a horse had a legit excuse.I think Quinn did a few of these "finish in last race" queries in his book"Computer Discoveries in Handicapping"...from what i remember a 2nd place finish had a higher impact value(won more often) than a third place finisher but both won more than their fair share of races.

[lamboguy]

it happens to me all the time! i would love to have a quarter for every horse that i have put out that i thought was a cinch and watch the baby run last with no effort at all! what i usually do is stop with the horse for about a month and then try to figure out whats going on. i would say that about half of them come back better and the other half make me look silly like i overrated him to begin with.

[toetoe]

Why does everyone talk like they're on some ranch in Waco Texas.

East Coast bias, sir. I challenge you to a duel. Buckets of paint at thirty paces. I'll even give you a five-pace advantage. Gawd, sometimes I'm so clever --- not right now, but sometimes.

[Sekrah]

I need a price to bet a horse who ran a dull race in its last out. There is just no way for the DRF better to know what happen. I think most of the time it a bad sign.


I agree with this. Horses who X their last time out come back to run near their best very very frequently. Unless there is a long layoff to "freshen up", and they have a top trainer, then I'd give them a chance to run decent.

[Light]

Now, tell me the depth of your database?

I'm not the one who stated the preposterous idea that 95% of all winners come from the those who finished 4th or better in their last race. Why don't you ask the guy who made that ridiculous statement.I merely refuted it. By asking me,you are presuming my facts are wrong and his are right. Why is the "sane" guy always the accused. Insanity rules.

[toetoe]

Why is the "sane" guy always the accused.



Chalk it up to the unbearableness of being Light. You're gonna pull through. (:Cue the Mary Tyler Moore theme, please.)

[Light]

OK Because I'm a nice guy,I'll give you my figs. They were from the recently concluded Aqu inner dirt track meet. I only keep 2 databases. Aqu Inner and GG.

Weekends only in Jan + 1st weekend in Feb

Winners whose last race was in top 4: 72 wins
Not : 29

That was my quick 70-75% assessment.

All of January including weekdays was much worse

Winner whose last race was in top 4:122 wins
Not: 60

All of January at Aqu only 67% won after finishing in top 4 in last race

Then Aqu turned into the chalkiest track I've seen in my 28 years of playing horses,but still did not equal Ralph's 95%

Weekends only,after the first week in Feb

Winners whose last race was in top 4: 93 wins
Not: 23

Only 80% of winners won after finishing in top 4 in last race when a staggering 44% favorites were winning in minuscule fields that made GG look good.

Overall,the balance will probably be around 70-75% as I originally stated.

[thaskalos]

OK Because I'm a nice guy,I'll give you my figs. They were from the recently concluded Aqu inner dirt track meet. I only keep 2 databases. Aqu Inner and GG.

Weekends only in Jan + 1st weekend in Feb

Winners whose last race was in top 4: 72 wins
Not : 29

That was my quick 70-75% assessment.

All of January including weekdays was much worse

Winner whose last race was in top 4:122 wins
Not: 60

All of January at Aqu only 67% won after finishing in top 4 in last race

Then Aqu turned into the chalkiest track I've seen in my 28 years of playing horses,but still did not equal Ralph's 95%

Weekends only,after the first week in Feb

Winners whose last race was in top 4: 93 wins
Not: 23

Only 80% of winners won after finishing in top 4 in last race when a staggering 44% favorites were winning in minuscule fields that made GG look good.

Overall,the balance will probably be around 70-75% as I originally stated. I honestly don't believe that Ralph was serious when he used that "95%" stat...I think he threw it in for added emphasis.

We have all seen plenty of horses who seem to run "hot-and-cold"...for no apparent reason...

[Light]

thaskalos

I think JR is very clear about what he is saying:



If I strip it raw........ horses that finished 5th or worse in their last start only win 9 percent of races. No restrictions at all.

You want to quibble over 4 percentage points......go ahead.



The only reason I queried his statement was that if he was correct,I was missing a major part of the handicapping processs all these years and would soon make millions upon discovering such an easy elimination method.Of course it's not true.

[JustRalph]

Two whole tracks huh? Wow!

[PaceAdvantage]

Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.I know you think you're picked on because of your participation in another sub-forum here, but I have to tell you quite honestly, your reply to bigmack's perfectly reasonable request was so defensive as to not to be believed.

[Light]

Did I really have to prove the obvious?

[JustRalph]

Did I really have to prove the obvious?

and you did it with AQU inner and GG ? Get real.......

you keep betting them,,,,,,,,,

[Light]

OK,let's try SA. From today,the last 100 races takes me back to March 23.

Only 68 races were won by those who finished 4th or better in their last start.

That's only 68%. Not 95% not 91%.

Don't forget,you have things stacked in your favor with your criteria of finishing 4th or better due to shrinking field sizes in NY and CA and your percentage is still taking a bath. Don't even try to get me to look at those small tracks with zero form horses and large fields. I'd need Sherlock to start finding your diminishing percentage.

[JustRalph]

OK,let's try SA. From today,the last 100 races takes me back to March 23.

Only 68 races were won by those who finished 4th or better in their last start.

That's only 68%. Not 95% not 91%.

Don't forget,you have things stacked in your favor with your criteria of finishing 4th or better due to shrinking field sizes in NY and CA and your percentage is still taking a bath. Don't even try to get me to look at those small tracks with zero form horses and large fields. I'd need Sherlock to start finding your diminishing percentage.

your sample size is still too small. We aren't going to get anywhere, so let's just end it here. I was really trying to have a decent discussion. I was planning to go into it a little more etc. I tweak it a little to get into the 90's, because I don't play the smaller tracks at all........But just like many many other threads........you run in and start throwing around Molotov cocktails and it goes south and you make it personal.

I don't play the small tracks, so I don't have numbers from those and I don't play poly (except a very small percentage at Woodbine) and I would have been glad to get into that a little but let's just say I lost my appetite.

Btw, sticking with your numbers, even at S.Anita, don't you think that's a significant factor ? How about your 75 % number you came up with earlier?
It makes for some interesting bet decisions if you ask me. And when it comes to time crunching a card etc...... it helps throw out a ton of useless horses. That's the way I play nowadays. I try very very hard not to waste any time. It's working very well so far this year.....and has been very profitable so far.......... have a nice day :ThmbUp:

[Light]

your sample size is still too small.

Where's yours?

I don't play the small tracks,

Aqu and SA are not small tracks

How about your 75 % number you came up with earlier?


I said 70-75% so 68% is in the ballpark. But your 95% is totally off the wall and you're not coping to it.

PA calls me defensive,but you are the one who is being defensive here. I have provided cold hard facts to back up my point which I also did to BM. Where's my Thank-you? This is why I didn't even want to respond to BM in the first place about my data base. I sensed he was being disingenuous and you are not being open either. Yet PA will defend both of you over me. Biased he is and that's fine with me. Everyone is free to have their favorites. But when facts become secondary to who does the talking,there's a problem.

But hey, keep doing what you're doing and I hope a lot of people believe in your tooth fairy stat. Better odds for me. Who needs a reduction in takeout when there are people like you.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I remember my early years with this forum, and learned that many posters want to know how a person came up with their percentages, so they know what basis, if any, they want to use or not use the information given, changing/not changing their ways (currently good or bad). I often don't have a percentage basis, so I've usually note when I post observations or what sized samples I looked at.

I do know remember the Quirin study, where horses that ran 2nd last out were more likely than to win, next 3rd, next 4th, they didn't break down the rest. But those finishing 5th or worsse to win occasionally, and if you know why they ran bad and can excuse it, or know patterns (form, trainer, pace, etc) where you believe a horse can improve, they can be good bets sometimes. For example, a horse who showed speed in a route and turning back, from a barn that is good with turn backs or a barn that excells with turn backs. (Turnbacks are normally NOT a good angle, proven in the Quirin book, and some of my own trainer study observations. But the few trainers are good at it can be gems.)

[TrifectaMike]

your sample size is still too small. We aren't going to get anywhere,

With a confidence interval of 2 percent, and a 95 percent confidence level for 90 percent winners....

an 870 race sample is of sufficient size.

Hit the database and see what you get.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[Jeff P]

I don't think Ralph is saying horses that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start win 95% of ALL races.

I think what he is is saying is this:

1. He has created a UDM in JCapper that selects horses with certain attributes.

2. Sticking strictly to horses meeting his UDM's criteria (ignoring all other horses) - when you look at the ones that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start - THOSE win 95% of their races.

Methinks y'all are aguing two entirely different things. :)


Here's what I have in my Q1 2011 database, all thoroughbred races run in North America - with first time starters removed - broken out by finish position last start:

Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Filters Applied: LT0
`
Surface: (ALL*)
Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2011\pL_profile.txt

`
Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 106708.60 107411.80 106952.50
Bet -141192.00-141192.00-141192.00
Gain -34483.40 -33780.20 -34239.50
`
Wins 8864 17676 25974
Plays 70596 70596 70596
PCT .1256 .2504 .3679
`
ROI 0.7558 0.7607 0.7575
Avg Mut 12.04 6.08 4.12
By: Finish Position (Last Race)
`
Fin Pos Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
NA 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
1.00 -3534.80 17562.00 0.7987 1506 8781 .1715 1.3659
2.00 -3843.20 17748.00 0.7835 1804 8874 .2033 1.6191
3.00 -3047.70 17566.00 0.8265 1444 8783 .1644 1.3094
4.00 -4332.50 17324.00 0.7499 1108 8662 .1279 1.0188
5.00 -4836.70 16888.00 0.7136 877 8444 .1039 0.8272
6.00 -4876.20 15738.00 0.6902 726 7869 .0923 0.7348
7.00 -2877.60 13340.00 0.7843 567 6670 .0850 0.6770
8.00 -2813.50 10088.00 0.7211 369 5044 .0732 0.5826
9.00 -1907.10 7028.00 0.7286 240 3514 .0683 0.5440
10.00 -1414.00 4504.00 0.6861 122 2252 .0542 0.4315
11.00 -619.60 2062.00 0.6995 63 1031 .0611 0.4867
12.00 -290.70 1168.00 0.7511 32 584 .0548 0.4364
13.00 -70.40 122.00 0.4230 4 61 .0656 0.5223
14.00 -17.40 52.00 0.6654 2 26 .0769 0.6126
15.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18.00 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000


-jp

.

[TrifectaMike]

I don't think Ralph is saying horses that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start win 95% of ALL races.

I think what he is is saying is this:

1. He has created a UDM in JCapper that selects horses with certain attributes.

2. Sticking strictly to horses meeting his UDM's criteria (ignoring all other horses) - when you look at the ones that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start - THOSE win 95% of their races.

Methinks y'all are aguing two entirely different things. :)



Unless you are a mind reader, I didn't get that definition.

That is not what is being contested. He didn't argue Light's definition. His argument has been about Light's sample size.

Mike (Dr. Beav)

[Jeff P]

TrifectaMike, I see where you are coming from.

In post #8 Ralph said:95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race. I have a UDM in Jcapper that basically only allows me to consider horses who were 4th or better in their last start. It has not let me down much at all. Every once in a while I get a winner that was worse than 4th last out. And that was usually a very good race or the horse had some kind of weird trouble.emphasis (underlining and italics) added by me.

Of course, I picked up on the sentence in italics - and realize why others might latch onto the underlined sentence.

In any case, I'd argue that results from reasonalby large database samples will yield something pretty close to what I posted above.

-jp

.

[Valuist]

Could anyone bet Uncle Mo in the Derby off that race in the Wood? I couldn't bet him with monopoly money. Can you say Devils Bag....Capote....Anees....

[Tom]

Of course...he finished better than 4th! ;)

[RichieP]

Unless you are a mind reader, I didn't get that definition.

That is not what is being contested. He didn't argue Light's definition. His argument has been about Light's sample size.

Mike (Dr. Beav)

FWIW as someone with no dog in the fight and who also knows JR has picked some real bombs over in selections forum well ahead of the race being run I have to agree with above quote.

[bigmack]

This is why I didn't even want to respond to BM in the first place about my data base. I sensed he was being disingenuous
For the record, I was genuinely interested in the depth of your sample size. As JPlatt pointed out, I had a feeling you & JR were on two different wave lengths.

[PaceAdvantage]

For the record, I was genuinely interested in the depth of your sample size. As JPlatt pointed out, I had a feeling you & JR were on two different wave lengths.Yup...but it's always more interesting I guess when they try and make it personal...

[PaceAdvantage]

PA calls me defensive,but you are the one who is being defensive here.So you're saying my description was not accurate?

You're hopeless. This entire exchange could have so easily gone down nice and friendly...where did the animosity start? When we pinpoint that, then we know who to blame, don't we?

[JustRalph]

exactly right, jeff. FWIW I have a database with 21k starters that comes in around the 90 percent number raw. It's only the tracks I have played the last 3 years using Bris files etc. Almost no poly, etc. I have another database with 13k starters that is whittled down a little (no maidens and a few other minor tweaks, no poly at all) and it gets damn near only 5 percent winners who didn't finish 4th or better last out. This whittling process is very light, a few jcapper factors etc. But it works very well.

When I posted earlier I was prepared to discuss these races and maybe have a decent discussion. I was thinking of going into a UDM I developed from the data (5th or worse in last) that uses form rating on those horses and picks out some nice long shot types. Shug's Horse in the feature race at Keeneland on opening day paid 23 bucks to win and this horse was highlighted as one that was 5th or worse in last, but was an exception based on the UDM hits and the minor tweaking......kind of a grow up play.

I sent that pick to one of our moderators the night before by the way, in case anybody wants to throw a bomb at me for red boarding.

I thought this would be a good thread to discuss some universal truths that I have found using Jcapper and finish position etc, over the last 3 years. They serve me pretty well and were right up this threads alley. Maybe I should have made a little more detailed explanation instead of just hitting and running with some data to talk about. I expected some discussion, but the Joe Friday routine I didn't expect. I have been around here picking some horses for a while.

For the record, you won't find better data than what Jplatt posts. And if you can't read the impact value numbers in his post and think that it means a ton... and note the change for horses finishing 5th or worse last time out............... you are missing something.

[Light]

If I strip it raw........ horses that finished 5th or worse in their last start only win 9 percent of races. No restrictions at all.



I know this discussion is totally futile but I'd just like you to cop to your own statement. You are saying 91% of horses win who finished 4th or better with no restrictions. I rest my case.

Thanks for the clarification BM.

And yes PA, I am hopeless if you say so.We create our own reality.

[PaceAdvantage]

Reality is this reply:Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.to this question:How comprehensive is your database and how many races & conditions did you query?Yes, this IS my reality, unfortunately. It could have been so much more pleasant...

[thaskalos]

When posters make inaccurate, sensational statements on this board...invariably they are taken to task and refuted by other posters; and these "disagreements", unfortunately, often degenerate to regrettable levels. This has always been the case.

When JustRalph stated that..."horses that finish 5th or worse in their last race win only 9% of their starts. NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL."...he made an inaccurate comment...and I don't need a database with thousands of races in order to disprove it.

A bet that has the probability of succeeding 91% of the time, has an expected longest losing streak of 3!! And yet...I have witnessed as many as 7 of these "off-form" horses win consecutive races at Beulah Park...and 8 straight races at Evangeline Downs.

The problem lies with the statement..."No restrictions at all."

Many "sharp" horses are entered in situations where they predictably finish 5th or worse...and it happens much more often than 9% of the time.

If JustRalph didn't intend to be precise...then he should not have used figures like "95%"...or "9%".

[PaceAdvantage]

It shouldn't be a "given" that things are going to turn ugly just because someone disagrees with someone else. It's up to each of us to keep things on an even level (much like you do thaskalos).

I feel stupid just typing such an obvious thing...

[Tom]

How about, like Ralph said his purpose was to start a discussion, other join in instead rushing to save the world?

Just someone is a jerk in real life is no reason to act like one here (no one in particular).

What about "Ralph, please clarify that statement," or something like that?

How many threads did 46 ruin because he knew everything there was to know about racing, even when some one else had the data to back up his statements?

Is acting like an adult optional when you are sure you are right?
Post #41 was a good reply.

[Light]

Reality is this reply:


Dude,if you want to believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny,that's your puragative.Look at SA today. Only 3 of 8 winners who finished 4th or better in their last. Keeneland only 5 out of 9. That job at Lucky's pays much better than betting figments of Ralph's imagination.
to this question:


How comprehensive is your database and how many races & conditions did you query?
Yes, this IS my reality, unfortunately. It could have been so much more pleasant...



That's your interpretation of an event's reality. My reality for my response was as thaskalos said.


When JustRalph stated that..."horses that finish 5th or worse in their last race win only 9% of their starts. NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL."...he made an inaccurate comment...and I don't need a database with thousands of races in order to disprove it.

[JustRalph]

When JustRalph stated that..."horses that finish 5th or worse in their last race win only 9% of their starts. NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL."...he made an inaccurate comment...and I don't need a database with thousands of races in order to disprove it.

you're right. But there are no Beulah races in my databases at all. I rarely play those kinds of races and they don't make it into my databases for just the reason you mention. Btw, I used to know some Beulah trainers and flew my Airplane around with a guy who was an owner at Beulah. He wised me up to playing at Beulah ever. Which falls in line with my explanation and I would have eventually covered. But I take it for what it's worth. You're right. I should have maybe started out with a more detailed account instead of tossing something out to stir up the conversation. But then again, we did get some good data, especially from Jeff. If you don't think it's worth considering and you can't read those impact values from Jeff's post.....?? Come on......there is something to the 5th or worse horse?

[TrifectaMike]

you're right. But there are no Beulah races in my databases at all. I rarely play those kinds of races and they don't make it into my databases for just the reason you mention. Btw, I used to know some Beulah trainers and flew my Airplane around with a guy who was an owner at Beulah. He wised me up to playing at Beulah ever. Which falls in line with my explanation and I would have eventually covered. But I take it for what it's worth. You're right. I should have maybe started out with a more detailed account instead of tossing something out to stir up the conversation. But then again, we did get some good data, especially from Jeff. If you don't think it's worth considering and you can't read those impact values from Jeff's post.....?? Come on......there is something to the 5th or worse horse?

Now, that I understand what your intent was, I am interested in a further discussion of your filtering process.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[classhandicapper]

Now, that I understand what your intent was, I am interested in a further discussion of your filtering process.

Mike (Dr Beav)

It's about time someone dragged this conversion to where it should be. ;)

[toetoe]

OK,let's try SA ...



Ess-ay ess-ay bo-bess-ay,

Bo nanna fanna fo fess-ay,

Fee fie mo mess-ay.

Ess-ay.



But if the first two letters

Are ever the same ... yadda yadda ... getting ... drowsy ... (oh, you are too ?) ... :sleeping:

[JustRalph]

Now, that I understand what your intent was, I am interested in a further discussion of your filtering process.

Mike (Dr Beav)

Might as well start with the filters that get me to 95 percent that have almost no chance to win.

Bris Fig (best10) MinRank= 4 MaxRank= 999
CXN: MinRank= 3 MaxRank= 999
Days Last Start: MinVal= -999 MaxVal= 998
Finish Position: MinVal= 5 MaxVal= 999
JPR: MinRank= 5 MaxRank= 999
Morning Line: MinVal= 6 MaxVal=999

Legend :

Bris Fig: Horse's best race of last ten cannot be in the top 3 bris figures compared to those others in the race today. This keeps me looking at horses (not throwing them out) that have run way off form, but if they come back to form today, can win.

CXN : The connections cannot be in the top two when weighed against the other connections in the race. This is a result of studying connections/trainers etc that can turn a horse around and have a record of doing it. The top two connections in a race are normally the ones who can do this. I get this info from many hours of study in the jcapper data window. The top two connections in a race are always dangerous.

Days since last start: This is a jcapper thing, basically means "no firsters"

Finish Position: Last out 5th or worse

JPR: Jcapper rating doesn't fall into the top 4 spots. Info From the Jcapper Website: Benchmark testing of the top ranked horse in large data samples derived using Bris data shows that the top ranked JPR horse consistently wins approximately 29 percent of its races while returning a flat win bet roi of approximately .90.

**back to me: The top 4 JPR horses I always consider contenders. The data backs it up.

Morning Line : 6-1 or higher

These aren't any revolutionary thoughts when looked at individually. But when a horse has these factors present together. I don't even look at them. They run between 20-30 percent of horses at some tracks. Some as low as 5-10 percent at the boutique meets like Toga and Keeneland. When they do win the average mutual is over 35 bucks and up to 40 bucks at some tracks.

without these factors being present and just using finish position, at many tracks you can throw out 90 percent. Like I said before, I don't play poly (rarely) and not many low level tracks see any money from me. They aren't in my databases.

Add these factors in (and if you do them one at a time, it climbs steadily a point or so for each factor) and you get 95 percent out the window. I automatically throw them out, for the win and never bet them in the 2nd spot either. 3rd and 4th are a different story. *Exceptions are made very rarely. Like the Shug's horse that I posted earlier in the thread. That was a play wherein the horse had some very decent other Jcapper UDM"S that made me look hard at the connections and the spot the horse was in. Very rare.

Let's take Light's 75 percent number for his sample. Toss on a few of the above factors and you would probably end up at 80-90 percent easy. When the percentages are that high against a horse, I don't even want the horse to show up on my form/reports. In fact I have tried to figure out a way to throw them out automatically on the jcapper html report and the only way would be to manually scratch them after running the report and then running it again. Too much work. They show up looking like this on my Jcapper report:
http://www.justralph.com/storage/pinkie.jpg

The pink color on my report, stands out and I can basically ignore the horse.

Btw, I am not the end all of explaining Jcapper factors. I use em and some I understand very very well, others I don't. But I can read how well they perform in the data window and can apply them pretty well nowadays. I don't really care how they are derived, that's Jeff's business. I care that they work........and in this case, I can throw these horses out well over 90 percent of the time and save me some serious time.

[bigmack]

Just off the top of my head, I'll say "time is money."

My biggest gripe about playing this game in earnest is the amount of time it takes to be consistently profitable. I have no interest in playing for a kick. I want profits over time and I need a reason to toss. The biggest reason I don't play lately is that building businesses takes less time and is more profitable.

While some may feel a hero finding triple digits winners every blue moon, when I play, I prefer to work percentages.

They may have thrown in a clunker last time out but unless they show up with an excuse in hand, I'd rather toss 'em and risk the loss of a big tick, than include them and waste loot.

[turninforhome10]

I will try to relate my line of thinking on the subject. Lets take any 18% jockey at any racetrack. This means if they ride five horses in a day they should ride a winner( all things being equal). Can this jockey realistically ride all five mounts with his best energy, we would like to think so, but come on. Jockeys are very good at looking busy on a horse to fulfill their riding obligation. Pulling a horse out of the gates is a big clue to me. A good pull is when a horse finishes well after being well back and just picks up runners at the end, sort of a paid work. A bad pull is when the jock constrains the horse and moves them from contention often floating on turn or sitting behind bad cover. A jock knows how much horse they have throughout the race and the great ones have clocks in their head. How many of us know by the 3/8ths whether or not we are cashing a ticket. Either the horse will be moving into position or it will be getting out of the way. I feel (IMO) that favorites often run out of the money when the 18% jock know this is not the day and just getting the horse home safe and think about next time is now the primary concern, while the 5% jock who has horse is riding their ass off just for that second place check, this might be their only shot all day to put food on the table.

I have found, and this is truly just my belief so use at your own risk, that certain running lines go with certain conditions.

Horses that are getting ankles or knees often show running lines of wide turns and slow turns times. To equate this into bris lines it would look something like e1 85 e2 78 lp 85. When these horses are made favorites I like to watch their last good performance and compare that with their last to look for lead changes. A horse that goes from changing leads on Que to staying on the wrong lead is often heading down the wrong path of form.

A horse that has bled or displaced will often show a gradual fade from contention often at the point when the horse is asked to run
Bris figure might look like e1 93 e2 96 lp 65.

A horse that is getting shinny often will stop like a hammer hit them on the head. Shins will stop a horse cold, IMO. so a bris line might look like e1 95 e2 94 lp 26.
Again this is my opinion and it is based on watching hours of replays while shopping for claiming horses
How the trainer handles the problem is often a clue to what type of problem it is .
Knees and ankles. Either drop the horse and hope he becomes someone else's problem or remove the chips and lay off mandatory 90 days. How the horse works to come back is often a clue to me what the trainer is thinking. A horse that has worked well previously might show slow works to keep the injury from reoccuring. What kind of race the horse show up in is also key.

Shins are funny and opinions of how to handle them are as varied as handicapping systems. If the horse is cheap, often they will get a working blister and keep going. For those of you who watch horses in the paddock look for the addition of bandages or a scuff on the front cannon bone indicating a blister has been applied. If you force a shinny horse to run when they are hurting they might get sour and be ruined especially fillies they remeber.
Horse that have bled, whether known or unknown by the stewards are very hard to figure. I do not like a known bleeder when I see that the race will be very taxing pace wise or when it is really hot with high humidity. If a horse has displaced, often they will return with a tongue tie or a shur winn to keep the bit right in the mouth. Surgery to repair an entrapped epiglottis is also available and can be quite effective with a little loss in training time.

In summary a horse runs poorly because
They are not well spotted
They are not fit
They have physical problems that reflect in how they run
They are being saved for next time

These are only my opinions and they work for me. My experience comes from claiming and accessing claims for others. It is very hard to keep your average horse in form for more than 4 races especially claimers. Good horses get problems because they run. The soundest horse in the barn is most often the horse that is 0-25. A horse that shows courage and gameness will sacrifice themselves so we may cash a ticket.
Remember horse cant read tote boards. They have no regard for what we think of their chances of winning. A game horse wants to win.

[BIG HIT]

Nice post like your thinking thank's

[thelyingthief]

you're right. But there are no Beulah races in my databases at all. I rarely play those kinds of races and they don't make it into my databases for just the reason you mention. Btw, I used to know some Beulah trainers and flew my Airplane around with a guy who was an owner at Beulah. He wised me up to playing at Beulah ever. Which falls in line with my explanation and I would have eventually covered. But I take it for what it's worth. You're right. I should have maybe started out with a more detailed account instead of tossing something out to stir up the conversation. But then again, we did get some good data, especially from Jeff. If you don't think it's worth considering and you can't read those impact values from Jeff's post.....?? Come on......there is something to the 5th or worse horse?

Depends on whether you can make a living betting those fifth or worse horses...you'll certainly have a difficult time winning with those 2nd or better.

It's not the number of times the horse crosses the wire first, but the number you do.

tlt-

[pondman]

Depends on whether you can make a living betting those fifth or worse horses...you'll certainly have a difficult time winning with those 2nd or better.
tlt-

The thread reminds me of a guy who...knew that horse would win, but couldn't cover them all.

At some tracks you'll do fine with horses off wins. I'll bet horses at SA off a 2nd but it's restricted by class (an occasional maiden.)

I'd side with "Light." Most of my bets are spot plays on shippers, maidens, and horses with layoffs. They'd get tossed.

[turninforhome10]

I wrote this before the Ark Derby take a look at The Factors ultimate pps
Ultimate Bris (http://www.brisnet.com/bris_link/pdfs/toddpletcher_249621.pdf)


"I have found, and this is truly just my belief so use at your own risk, that certain running lines go with certain conditions.

A horse that has bled or displaced will often show a gradual fade from contention often at the point when the horse is asked to run
Bris figure might look like e1 93 e2 96 lp 65.

A horse that is getting shinny often will stop like a hammer hit them on the head. Shins will stop a horse cold, IMO. so a bris line might look like e1 95 e2 94 lp 26.
Again this is my opinion and it is based on watching hours of replays while shopping for claiming horses
How the trainer handles the problem is often a clue to what type of problem it is .
Knees and ankles. Either drop the horse and hope he becomes someone else's problem or remove the chips and lay off mandatory 90 days. How the horse works to come back is often a clue to me what the trainer is thinking. A horse that has worked well previously might show slow works to keep the injury from reoccuring. What kind of race the horse show up in is also key.

Shins are funny and opinions of how to handle them are as varied as handicapping systems. If the horse is cheap, often they will get a working blister and keep going. For those of you who watch horses in the paddock look for the addition of bandages or a scuff on the front cannon bone indicating a blister has been applied. If you force a shinny horse to run when they are hurting they might get sour and be ruined especially fillies they remeber.
Horse that have bled, whether known or unknown by the stewards are very hard to figure. I do not like a known bleeder when I see that the race will be very taxing pace wise or when it is really hot with high humidity. If a horse has displaced, often they will return with a tongue tie or a shur winn to keep the bit right in the mouth. Surgery to repair an entrapped epiglottis is also available and can be quite effective with a little loss in training time.

In summary a horse runs poorly because
They are not well spotted
They are not fit
They have physical problems that reflect in how they run
They are being saved for next time

These are only my opinions and they work for me. My experience comes from claiming and accessing claims for others. It is very hard to keep your average horse in form for more than 4 races especially claimers. Good horses get problems because they run. The soundest horse in the barn is most often the horse that is 0-25. A horse that shows courage and gameness will sacrifice themselves so we may cash a ticket.
Remember horse cant read tote boards. They have no regard for what we think of their chances of winning. A game horse wants to win.[/QUOTE]

[turninforhome10]

Was not sure if anyone would be interested or care, but here goes. On Sunday at Hollywood Park 6th race, was scanning the paddock to check an equipment change(on big screen with zoom) and noticed the 6 horse Papa Terry was wearing coldwater bandages to the paddock ( I don' like them bandages), so I am watching the grooms taking them off. Then I notice the groom removing hoof bandages and packing(strike two) and he sets down a white bottle next to the bandages. Any way the horse goes off as the favorite and runs a lugging out 4th and keys boxcar type exotics. Any ideas why I threw out the favorite based on what took place in the paddock.
Clue
Horse is switching surfaces from dirt to synthetic.
Results
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HOL042411USA6.pdf

[thaskalos]

Was not sure if anyone would be interested or care, but here goes. On Sunday at Hollywood Park 6th race, was scanning the paddock to check an equipment change(on big screen with zoom) and noticed the 6 horse Papa Terry was wearing coldwater bandages to the paddock ( I don' like them bandages), so I am watching the grooms taking them off. Then I notice the groom removing hoof bandages and packing(strike two) and he sets down a white bottle next to the bandages. Any way the horse goes off as the favorite and runs a lugging out 4th and keys boxcar type exotics. Any ideas why I threw out the favorite based on what took place in the paddock.
Clue
Horse is switching surfaces from dirt to synthetic.
Results
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/HOL042411USA6.pdf

Did your paddock watching help you in selecting the place horse (Regal Fever)...at 55-1? :)

[turninforhome10]

Did your paddock watching help you in selecting the place horse (Regal Fever)...at 55-1? :)
Gotta answer the question first :p

.

No but it cheapened my pick 3( thanks Liberain Freighter) and the nice little five dollar show ticket on Nakatani's horse paid for my pick threes. By throwing that horse out knowing what was in his show pool it created a nice hedge to finance the pick 3
Since I don't guess the forum enjoys guessing games I give it up. The horse has bad feet that probably did not care for the synthetic surface. The white bottle was most likely hoof freeze. Had a gray horse one time that hated dirt so we would freeze his feet before a race. Pack them and bandage them. I forgot to do it only one time and it cost the stable 6800$ running from first to fourth :)

[Fastracehorse]

Just off the top of my head, I'll say "time is money."

My biggest gripe about playing this game in earnest is the amount of time it takes to be consistently profitable. I have no interest in playing for a kick. I want profits over time and I need a reason to toss. The biggest reason I don't play lately is that building businesses takes less time and is more profitable.

While some may feel a hero finding triple digits winners every blue moon, when I play, I prefer to work percentages.

They may have thrown in a clunker last time out but unless they show up with an excuse in hand, I'd rather toss 'em and risk the loss of a big tick, than include them and waste loot.

......and you don't set the prices as a horse player.

While super longshots are rare; in 1 event the probability could be high for one.

And besides, there are double digit horses ;)

fffastt

[turninforhome10]

Take a look at the running lines for the terrible favorite in Keeneland's 2nd race even with Calvin on board
http://www.brisnet.com/bris_link/pdfs/vinery_250215.pdf

As I said earlier
"A horse that is getting shinny often will stop like a hammer hit them on the head. Shins will stop a horse cold, IMO. so a bris line might look like
e1 95 e2 94 lp 26.
Shins are funny and opinions of how to handle them are as varied as handicapping systems. If the horse is cheap, often they will get a working blister and keep going. For those of you who watch horses in the paddock look for the addition of bandages or a scuff on the front cannon bone indicating a blister has been applied. If you force a shinny horse to run when they are hurting they might get sour and be ruined especially fillies they remember."

[JustRalph]

Some food for thought.........the Saratoga meet that just ended. I am missing one race card, 8-28-11.......

UDM Definition: 5th>_last_start
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Finish Position: MinVal= 5 MaxVal= 999
Running Style: ALL


Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999 Odds Cap: None
Filters Applied:

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (From Index File: C:\2011\sar\pL_profile.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 1467.20 1445.90 1460.90
Bet -2010.00 -2010.00 -2010.00
Gain -542.80 -564.10 -549.10

Wins 89 189 289
Plays 1005 1005 1005
PCT .0886 .1881 .2876

ROI 0.7300 0.7194 0.7268
Avg Mut 16.49 7.65 5.06

[pondman]

If a horse didn't run its last time out, do you take it that the horse is in for a downward trend? Lets say the horse doesn't have any real excuse, it just didn't run at all. The horse wasn't running at a higher level and it had been competitive prior to the most recent start. Just wondering what the general thoughts are on this type of situation.

If the conditions (track, purse, jockey, owner) are the same, it wouldn't spark my interest. But that's based on my observation at my favorite tracks. Might be different elsewhere. Horse which aren't running well don't improve unless the connections do something. I'd make the exception for maidens. Sometimes they need to get a little experience. Other than that, I'd skip it.

[pondman]

and you would be right.


95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race. I have a UDM in Jcapper that basically only allows me to consider horses who were 4th or better in their last start. It has not let me down much at all. Every once in a while I get a winner that was worse than 4th last out. And that was usually a very good race or the horse had some kind of weird trouble.

What do you do if the horse is being shipped? Change in conditions? I've hit homeruns with horses having - zero beyers. How does Jcapper handle this?

[JustRalph]

What do you do if the horse is being shipped? Change in conditions? I've hit homeruns with horses having - zero beyers. How does Jcapper handle this?

Jcapper has default parameters, but I have to build the udm's. I currently don't do a thing differently with shippers. I evaluate shippers the same as others.

I don't need home runs, enough doubles and triples get the job done. I hit my share of home runs, but they come in the normal course of business.

The subject of the thread was horses who finish 5th or worse in their last start. I just thought the numbers from the Saratoga meet were in line with the discussion in the thread.

[Actor]

95 % of winners ran 4th or better in their last race.
I gotta check that one out! :)

[pondman]

I gotta check that one out! :)

You've tiptoed into the hall of smoke and mirrors. Even if it were true, which it isn't, it will not be a positive learning experience, and you'll end up plunging head first over the front running, speed waterfall.

[so.cal.fan]

Most of the time, a horse who runs a bad race will run another bad race, or at least not improve enough to win.
There are exceptions, especially in So. Cal. where short fields often contain horses who are "stuck" in those races, they enter under pressure to fill the card....then often they don't seem to try to push them all that hard.
It sort of all depends, not an easy call, but a horse who runs a bad race...I usually pass, especially if they were never in contention at any part of the race. Not so good.

[lansdale]

I don't think Ralph is saying horses that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start win 95% of ALL races.

I think what he is is saying is this:

1. He has created a UDM in JCapper that selects horses with certain attributes.

2. Sticking strictly to horses meeting his UDM's criteria (ignoring all other horses) - when you look at the ones that finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their most recent start - THOSE win 95% of their races.

Methinks y'all are aguing two entirely different things. :)


Here's what I have in my Q1 2011 database, all thoroughbred races run in North America - with first time starters removed - broken out by finish position last start:

Data Window Settings:
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
Filters Applied: LT0
`
Surface: (ALL*)
Distance: (All*)
From Index File: C:\2011\pL_profile.txt

`
Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 106708.60 107411.80 106952.50
Bet -141192.00-141192.00-141192.00
Gain -34483.40 -33780.20 -34239.50
`
Wins 8864 17676 25974
Plays 70596 70596 70596
PCT .1256 .2504 .3679
`
ROI 0.7558 0.7607 0.7575
Avg Mut 12.04 6.08 4.12
By: Finish Position (Last Race)
`
Fin Pos Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
NA 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
1.00 -3534.80 17562.00 0.7987 1506 8781 .1715 1.3659
2.00 -3843.20 17748.00 0.7835 1804 8874 .2033 1.6191
3.00 -3047.70 17566.00 0.8265 1444 8783 .1644 1.3094
4.00 -4332.50 17324.00 0.7499 1108 8662 .1279 1.0188
5.00 -4836.70 16888.00 0.7136 877 8444 .1039 0.8272
6.00 -4876.20 15738.00 0.6902 726 7869 .0923 0.7348
7.00 -2877.60 13340.00 0.7843 567 6670 .0850 0.6770
8.00 -2813.50 10088.00 0.7211 369 5044 .0732 0.5826
9.00 -1907.10 7028.00 0.7286 240 3514 .0683 0.5440
10.00 -1414.00 4504.00 0.6861 122 2252 .0542 0.4315
11.00 -619.60 2062.00 0.6995 63 1031 .0611 0.4867
12.00 -290.70 1168.00 0.7511 32 584 .0548 0.4364
13.00 -70.40 122.00 0.4230 4 61 .0656 0.5223
14.00 -17.40 52.00 0.6654 2 26 .0769 0.6126
15.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18.00 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000


-jp

.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for supplying this chart. If I'm reading this correctly, it means that the winners of all races whose most recent finish position was 1-4, are 65% of all (global, 'all-burger' sample) winners. Although I think Light's attitude in this thread was unfortunate, I think most experienced handicappers here instinctively agreed with him -- and, indeed, he appears to have been closer to the truth.

Since JR filtered out races from smaller and poly tracks, it would be interesting to know which of these two has the greater preponderance of low-previous-finish winners.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

lansdale

[Jeff P]

Larger data sample for fin call position last out... link to text file:
http://www.jcapper.com/messageboard/reports/ImpactStudy_PosFinCall.txt

The above linked to text file contains results for all North American thoroughbred starters, with first time starters removed, for the past (rolling) 14 months (give or take a day or two.)

The first sample shows results broken out by finish call position at all tracks.

The next sample shows results for fin call position <= 4 broken out by track code.

The 3rd sample shows results for fin call position >= 5 broken out by track code.

Not sure what (if any) nuggets are to be found in the data. One of my spare machines had been in a friend's "shop" getting refitted with some new hardware. Just recently got it back, saw your post Lansdale, and decided to run the queries. (Take from the data what you will.)


What do you do if the horse is being shipped? Change in conditions? I've hit homeruns with horses having - zero beyers. How does Jcapper handle this? SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY WHERE...

JCapper was written based on the following idea: To put the above sql expression in the hands of the user - and enable the user to define or fill in everything that comes after the word "WHERE"... meaning that if the user wants to research and model shippers owned and/or trained by connections on a predefined name list undergoing moves into new conditions, or shippers owned and/or trained by connections on a predefined name list that also have low speed figs while undergoing moves into new conditions, he or she can do that.


-jp

.

[pondman]

Larger data sample for fin call position last out... link to text file:
http://www.jcapper.com/messageboard/reports/ImpactStudy_PosFinCall.txt









The 3rd sample shows results for fin call position >= 5 broken out by track code.


. meaning that if the user wants to research and model shippers owned and/or trained by connections on a predefined name list undergoing moves into new conditions, or shippers owned and/or trained by connections on a predefined name list that also have low speed figs while undergoing moves into new conditions, he or she can do that.

.

???

Why reference speed ratings at all on a shipper? High or low it's not going to matter. Any trainer who makes a living running horses can slip in a ringer. So why keep a defined list of eligible connections. I personally point out low beyer's horse when a know they have a 45% of winning only to annoy speed people. But if you query only low beyer's then you'll miss the shippers, which by chance have high beyer's. I play shippers frequently. And IMHO past performance isn't all that important of a variable. I'd advise drawing a line through the pp.

[iceknight]

I honestly don't believe that Ralph was serious when he used that "95%" stat...I think he threw it in for added emphasis.

We have all seen plenty of horses who seem to run "hot-and-cold"...for no apparent reason...

95% is a BIG number.. It is like a "Goldman Sachs conviction buy" rating on a stock which will help clients lot of money...wait a sec... what was I saying??...

[iceknight]

The widespread belief that a horse's last race is the best indicator of its current form is the biggest myth in the game, as far as I am concerned.

This is an excellent point and I agree with you.

[thaskalos]

Most of the time, a horse who runs a bad race will run another bad race, or at least not improve enough to win.
There are exceptions, especially in So. Cal. where short fields often contain horses who are "stuck" in those races, they enter under pressure to fill the card....then often they don't seem to try to push them all that hard.
It sort of all depends, not an easy call, but a horse who runs a bad race...I usually pass, especially if they were never in contention at any part of the race. Not so good.
Just because a horse finished fifth in a race, beaten by 5 or more lengths...that, by itself, should not be enough to convince us that the horse ran a "bad" race. Those "cookie-cutter" labels do the horseplayer a disservice, IMO.

The way the race unfolds often causes some pretty sharp horses to finish in the back of the field.

[windoor]

As long at this thread got resurrected, I will give my 2 cents worth.

Everything depends on what type of race the horse was entered in.

That is, a lot of time the horses connections will run the horse over it's head if the 2nd or third race back was a good effort. Sometimes they run well, most of the time they will not.

So if the horse was asked to run at a higher class level and did not finish 4th or better, that's ok.

If the horse normally sprints and is asked to run a route race the last time, showed some early speed, but finish worst than fourth, that's ok too. Probably just a conditioning race for next time.

If the horse is at the same level and distance and does not run well without an excuse, then I will usually throw them out too.


Regards,

Windoor

[jdhanover]

Just because a horse finished fifth in a race, beaten by 5 or more lengths...that, by itself, should not be enough to convince us that the horse ran a "bad" race. Those "cookie-cutter" labels do the horseplayer a disservice, IMO.

The way the race unfolds often causes some pretty sharp horses to finish in the back of the field.

As usual, I agree with you 100% Thaskalos. Common examples - front runner caught in a speed duel, closer in a slow paced race, horse stuck on a dead rail, etc etc

[thaskalos]

As usual, I agree with you 100% Thaskalos...

This comes as no surprise to me Jon...

Great minds think alike... :)

[DeltaLover]

Out of a sample of 6,827 winners 4,358 of them (63.8%) were coming from a performance 4th or better.

This is the break down per track, total winners, total matches and percenatage

AQU 800 571 0.71375
PIM 297 182 0.612794612795
BEL 860 549 0.638372093023
PHA 874 619 0.70823798627
EVD 32 13 0.40625
LRL 373 256 0.686327077748
PRX 40 29 0.725
CRC 580 350 0.603448275862
MTH 356 209 0.587078651685
DEL 454 276 0.607929515419
ATL 38 18 0.473684210526
SAR 378 237 0.626984126984
TAM 841 487 0.579072532699
DED 10 8 0.8
KEE 304 179 0.588815789474
PEN 590 375 0.635593220339

[pondman]

Out of a sample of 6,827 winners 4,358 of them (63.8%) were coming from a performance 4th or better.

This is the break down per track, total winners, total matches and percenatage
[/CODE]

Any difference between routes and sprints?

If a person is carefully and knows the pace fig at the half ,they can still use this information to make money in sprints on the west coast. It doesn't seem as productive for routes or on turf.

[Light]

Out of a sample of 6,827 winners 4,358 of them (63.8%) were coming from a performance 4th or better.

This is the break down per track, total winners, total matches and percenatage

AQU 800 571 0.71375
PIM 297 182 0.612794612795
BEL 860 549 0.638372093023
PHA 874 619 0.70823798627
EVD 32 13 0.40625
LRL 373 256 0.686327077748
PRX 40 29 0.725
CRC 580 350 0.603448275862
MTH 356 209 0.587078651685
DEL 454 276 0.607929515419
ATL 38 18 0.473684210526
SAR 378 237 0.626984126984
TAM 841 487 0.579072532699
DED 10 8 0.8
KEE 304 179 0.588815789474
PEN 590 375 0.635593220339


Thanks for the corroboration DL. Of course common sense would tell you 95% as originally claimed is delusional.