|
I can't bring myself to accept form cycle analysis as the foundational variable in race outcomes. In my methodology, pattern-like figures are the products of inner race dynamics that don't necessarily reflect cyclical form, but rather stand-alone, isolated results of specifically optimal or impossible (but more likely between) race dynamics (i.e., "trips").
Rightly or wrongly, I formed that opinion from Beyer's introduction of trip handicapping, and its personification in the character of "Charlie" (My 50k Year..., The Winning Horseplayer).
For a long time, the contrarian philosophy tended toward fairly improbable longer odds types, who succeeded enough to maintain its explanatory power for most outcomes of races. Taking up a lengthy manual study of the odds to finish results, I formed an early mental "database" of information on reasons for low odds horses to be outperformed by their higher odds opponents, largely regarding the inherent but very subtle application of outside/straightaway vs. inside/turns influences. Later I came upon a table from 2002 posted by Dave Schwartz, displaying the astounding accuracy of a final odds/finish correlation, down to the smallest increments (5/2, 3-1, 7/2, etc.) This aided me in refining the inner dynamic approach, by prompting me to assign higher weights to public odds (after Benter), and re-introduced selective conventional factors, while somewhat lessening the weighting of subjective interpretations of a horses' past/potential trip.
A final refinement to date, is the chosen philosophy of interpreting every horse negatively, since most horses have a less than 50% chance of winning per final odds. The factors that contribute to a negative view are then weighted, and beginning with the highest odds horse and processing downward, positive factors are evaluated for potential overlays.
So, an overarching principle; Beyer, though ironically not essentially speed handicapping.
Help with percentages of winning (and losing); nuggets from Dave & Benter.
|
