1st/2nd time starter mechanical method
 

This is something I've put together--in an attempt to come up with a mechanical method for first & second time starters.

Many of these winners have top connections, and usually an eye-popping workout (or two) somewhere in their last 3. In addition to regular works with out gaps.

Many 2nd-time starters will show an equipt change, dist switch, juice--SOMETHING to indicate today is a serious effort.

The 3F last workout getting an extra 5 points...is really only to separate closely matched horses at the top (if this occurs)

Has anyone done Maiden research they would like to share?---or suggestions, comments on improving this method will be appreciated.

MAIDEN FIRST OR SECOND START METHOD

1. ADD TOGETHER AMOUNT OF HORSES BEATEN IN LAST 3 WORKOUTS.

2. ADD TOGETHER TRAINER/JOCKEY INDIVIDUAL WIN% (not as a team-each individual win % ytd)

3. 10 POINTS EACH FOR 1ST LASIX, BLINKERS, JOCKEY SWITCH, DISTANCE SWITCH OF 1 LENGTH OR MORE. (applies to 2nd time starters.

4. 5 POINTS FOR EVERY WORKOUT/RACE LAST 30 DAYS.

5. EXTRA 5 POINTS IF HORSE'S VERY LAST WORKOUT WAS 3F. IF 2ND TIME STARTER MUST BE AFTER HIS 1ST RACE.

-NCG

Greg, all interesting points. I use a modified, targeted version of #2. I use the trainer's win % with FTS added to the jockey's win % with FTS (which on the Bris Ultimates will be indicated by the jockey's win % on N/A running style horse). It's a pretty effective indicator. Actually I place as much value on the jock's FTS win % as the trainer's...I think it shows he's not afraid to aggressively ride green dynamite. Although I have noticed that when the sum of those two numbers is high (above 25) then the public is often on the horse as well.

Mule

Thanks for the feedback, Mule. Interesting you mention the T/J% 25....that's the exact minimum I require on most of my spot plays--never noticed an odds drop at that point--but you could very well be correct.

The "N/A running style" quite frankly, never occurred to me...good point. :ThmbUp:

(BTW...rule 3 should say "furlong" instead of "length")

To whom it may concern:

I have this method programmed--and here are the results:

IT'S A BIG LOSER!

It's not even "tweakable" in my opinion....tweakable methods will hit the board a lot. You can safely eliminate almost every maiden this method selects.

In it's defense...one of the rare winners it DID SELECT....was Chad Brown's fts LONG HAUL (or was it LONG BAY?)...
anyway it paid a whopping $3.20 or so.

I know someone on this board has something to help me out---horseplayers are known for being open, caring, and willing to share private information with one another. :lol:

Thanks in advance :popcorn:

-NCG

Greg, tonight in TuP 8 the :5:, Jaya Ho, was a FTS. His trainer had a 22% win rate with firsters. The jock had a 22% win rate with N/A running style horses, for a combined factor of 44. The horse won easily at around 4-1. There was another firster in the same race whose trainer and jock had a factor of 0. That horse finished 8th out of 9.

Naturally, I didn't use my own FTS angle in the tournament I was playing, and the horse I picked instead showed for $2.80. :blush:

Also, a FTS won TuP 6, this one on turf. The J/T factor was 24, which was a point under my minimum anyway.

Mule

Glad you reminded me of this....I meant to post further results. I like your use of the Trainer-situation Angles...used them in the past--they're very good with other angles going as well. The problem starts with trying to program positive $ angles with others....we've sort of shelved that idea for now.

The above method is actually programmed onto a module I'm putting together---instead of data-basing everything and staring at cold sterile numbers-I prefer to actually get the method programmed and into use. I can usually (not always) tell if any method is gonna bomb---just by using it on a week's races and seeing how it does.

Anyway this maiden FTS/2nd start method of mine...as I mentioned is based on connections and workouts. I didn't see much in the beginning--and didn't pay much attention to it.
So before tossing it--I gave it another trial run...and actually started nailing some maidens! Okay that doesn't sound proper..."I started winning some maiden races".

It needs tweaking....but I'm now optimistic.

The method picked the very horse JAYA HO you mentioned $9.80 @ TUP

Just this past weekend scored again with WRONG BEN for $29.40

There isn't a play every day, obviously---usually just one--if any.

After checking appx 30 races---6 winners for a nice profit.

It's a good start considering I was ready to toss it. This just may make it into the new "Trainer Moves" program I'm wrestling with now.

I enjoyed reading your unique system for betting 1st/2nd time starters but I have a couple of questions:

My apologies in advance if I just overlooked it, but I just didn't see a minimum point amount at which a horse becomes an automatic bet. Unless the race contains nothing but 1st/2nd time starters (not unusual in the spring), it would be hard for me to consider a horse with a low point amount simply because it was the highest among the 1st/2nd time starters.

IMO the most important part of a system like this is to establish a high minimum acceptable odds for an automatic bet in order to be profitable. I don't know if the number needs to be 10-1 or more (it may) but I would be surprised if anything less than 5-1 could work.

Good luck and please let us know how it goes. May many more $29 winners come your way.

My default method is to look for the best non-FTS contenders first, and determine if any of them have recently run anything reasonably close to par. If so, I'm reluctant to use a firster; if not, and I have a FTS that meets my minimum points requirement on the T/J angle AND shows promising works, I'll go with him, unless the market is already on him as reflected by the odds.

Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that the T/J angle works best in those races with a boatload of firsters. If a formal analysis proved that to be true, another angle might be added: T/J factor => 25, ratio of FTS to non-FTS => 50%, something like that.

That way, when your firster loses to a horse the little old lady next to you picked because she liked its name, you can hold your head high, and rationalize that at least you put some thought into it. ;)

Mule

Greg, I should probably add that the only reason I've given this a bit of thought is because I don't have the option of passing a race when I'm playing a tournament. If I'm betting cash, most of these races are a pass.

Excellent point---there has to be some MIN STANDARD...in this case odds alone won't get us there.
Say there's only 1 FTS...who beat 3 horses in last-3 workouts---by default this horse would be the pick.

Mule's idea of "percentage-of-starters-to firsters" sounds better, but here's what I'm thinking:

The entire logic behind this method is due to the fact I constantly see Maidens with incredible-looking worktabs, in the last few works. And they win--some at huge prices.

I'm thinking ..the best way to handle this question---is to require a selection to have beaten a minimum amount of horses in last 3 workouts. I came up with an arbitrary number of 50.

There's a maiden today @ Aq 3RD ARCH OF HONOR Whose work pattern looks very good--no gaps in the past 3 months. His connections think enough of Arch' to ship him from Cali to the big time in NY--the layoff doesn't matter much --they're all maidens.

His last 3 works--he's beaten over 100 horses and appears to be coming up to a serious win effort right off the bat.
ML is 15-1

This was the type of Maiden I had in mind for this method---we'll see how ARCH does today--NCG

Greg, you've thrown me another bone to chew on here with the workout analysis. I'm still on my first cup of coffee, but if I calculated correctly ARCH OF HONOR posted better times in his last three works than 85.12% of the horses working that distance. Could not a percentage of horses beaten be used as well as a specific number of horses beaten? I'm thinking that a good horse might be overlooked with the latter if there were an insufficient number of total workouts performed to get 50 beaten horses.

Mule

Greg, maybe I'm defeating the purpose with the method in my last post. This is an intriguing topic. I'm not an Excel guru, and it would probably take me all day to write one that actually works, but I think I could do an IF..THEN..ELSE statement that would revert to a % of horses beaten if it were mathematically impossible for a horse to have a specific number of horses beaten in his last 3. Of course, in that case you'd still have to set an arbitrary % to trigger a harder look.

You know I've thought about that....I do see a lot of FTS with worktabs like "1-6" or "2-13" which may or may-not be telling.

For right now....(or as soon as Steve can get to it) I'll go with the "50-horse" requirement, with a 3-1 ML...just to weed out the odds-on types, and see where that takes us.

BTW...this is the charmaker's comment on today's 15-1 selection
ARCH OF HONOR:

ARCH OF HONOR had a rough start, bumping lightly with COOKIE CRISP and getting checked right after stumbling badly,
slid over to the inside route coming to the conclusion of the homestretch, wandered out into the three path at the head of the
backstretch only to be placed towards the inside by the top of the far turn, failed to pick up the pace when put to the whip twice
and strongly roused at the half mile pole, made it into the lane and fell back steadily, proceeding towards the finish under a light
drive.

Yes, I watched the race. AOH never had a chance after that start, IMO. It was a pretty bad stumble.

These are the maidens selected by the original method--no tweaks yet--but enough selections to give us an idea if we have something here or not.

This is every track running, that had a selection:

AQ 2ND MISS SIZZLE 7-2

FGS 3RD WILD BILL 7-2
FGS 5TH JOHN HUNT MORGAN 15-1

GPX 10TH KING POWER 9-2

OPX 3RD BE A FACTOR 7-2
OPX 3RD WITH EVERY HOPE 12-1
OPX 5TH SIZZLE FACTOR 15-1

PRX 3 PRIMARY TARGET 10-1

SA 1ST I CAN DO THIS 3-1
SA 5TH BRADDOCK 8-1

SUN 6TH CLARITA'S QUEEN 15-1

-NCG