Quote:
Originally Posted by pandy
Obviously, Maloney makes some really big bets. In his book he pointed out that if, for instance, the Beyer speed figure is much different than the Timeform speed figure on a particular horse, that raises a red flag. If you think about it, say you are a big chalk bettor who likes to bet $500 to win. You see a horse that ran a 95 Beyer in his second career start, and the horse looks at least two lengths better than anything in the field. The horse is 7-5 today. Now you check Timeform and see that the horse was given an 85 for its last race and two other horses in the race are ranked ahead of it. Are you still going to bet the $500? Is the horse the fastest in the race or not?
|
I went down the road of looking at two or more sets of figures a very long time ago. At one time I had Beyer figures, CJ figures, Logic Dictate figures, reviewed major stakes days on my own, and occasionally had Thoroghgraph or Ragozin figures. I also spent the time required to understand the methodology differences that accounted for some of he differences.
There are some obvious upsides when figures agree. The problem is that when all the major figure makers agree, the prices reflect that. So I quickly switched to trying to figure out which figure maker had it right or wrong when they disagreed. I started looking closely at the field, the day in question, how horses were coming out of the race, was there a potential methodology flaw at work etc..
That helps sometimes, but most of the time it's really tough to be sure who has it right even after the fact. After years of practice, I found that looking at multiple figures can be just as paralyzing and time consuming as it was helpful.
I would say that now I just accept that whatever set I am looking at will have some errors. I'm more concerned with their overall performance and ROI hoping to at least be in more fertile grounds than an alternative.
