Handicapping advice/suggestions/opinions.

[mostpost]

I am experimenting with a handicapping method combining CJ's figures with Tom Brohamer's Pace Handicapping principles involving Early Pace, Sustained Pace, Average Pace etc.

My question involves horses changing from one surface to another.
The example I am using comes from Friday's fourth race at Arlington Park-a 1 1/16 mile race on the synthetic track.
The horse I am interested in is the 2 horse Commercial appeal.
His most recent start was April 14 on the dirt at a mile and 70 yards. CJ's figures for that start were:
55-69-75-85-86. Commercial appeal won that race by 1 3/4 lengths.

The last time Commercial Appeal ran on a synthetic track was on Sept. 5 2016 when he ran in a one mile claiming race at Arlington.
The claiming price in that race was similar to the April 14 dirt race and both were somewhat higher than Friday's race.

CJ's figures for the Sept. 5, 2016 race were:
79-107-97-92-95. Commercial appeal finished 4th by 9 1/4 L.

With out going into the math, I rate Commercial Appeal as the second rated contender based on the dirt race of April 14th. I rate 3 horses within 2.25 points of each other.

Using the synth race of Sept. 5, 2016 I rate Commercial Appeal as clearly the top horse; 13.5 points ahead of the #2 contender.

I should also point out that I rated the other two horses on the basis of synth starts Feb. 17. These were their second most recent starts. Commercial appeals most recent synth start was his sixth most recent start. In his five dirt starts since he has three firsts and two third.

After all that, I have two questions.
1. Would you put more emphasis on a performance on a race on a surface such as today's surface even though it took place months ago; or, would you put more emphasis on the most recent performance even though it took place on a different surface.

2. More specifically; in Friday's race should I just box Commercial Appeal with the other two contenders in a three horse exacta box, based on the dirt race. Or, should I bet him to win and bet him on top with the other two in a straight exactas-based on his Synth race last September.

Sorry that was so long, but I would appreciate any thoughts.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I am experimenting with a handicapping method combining CJ's figures with Tom Brohamer's Pace Handicapping principles involving Early Pace, Sustained Pace, Average Pace etc.

My question involves horses changing from one surface to another.
The example I am using comes from Friday's fourth race at Arlington Park-a 1 1/16 mile race on the synthetic track.
The horse I am interested in is the 2 horse Commercial appeal.
His most recent start was April 14 on the dirt at a mile and 70 yards. CJ's figures for that start were:
55-69-75-85-86. Commercial appeal won that race by 1 3/4 lengths.

The last time Commercial Appeal ran on a synthetic track was on Sept. 5 2016 when he ran in a one mile claiming race at Arlington.
The claiming price in that race was similar to the April 14 dirt race and both were somewhat higher than Friday's race.

CJ's figures for the Sept. 5, 2016 race were:
79-107-97-92-95. Commercial appeal finished 4th by 9 1/4 L.

With out going into the math, I rate Commercial Appeal as the second rated contender based on the dirt race of April 14th. I rate 3 horses within 2.25 points of each other.

Using the synth race of Sept. 5, 2016 I rate Commercial Appeal as clearly the top horse; 13.5 points ahead of the #2 contender.

I should also point out that I rated the other two horses on the basis of synth starts Feb. 17. These were their second most recent starts. Commercial appeals most recent synth start was his sixth most recent start. In his five dirt starts since he has three firsts and two third.

After all that, I have two questions.
1. Would you put more emphasis on a performance on a race on a surface such as today's surface even though it took place months ago; or, would you put more emphasis on the most recent performance even though it took place on a different surface.

2. More specifically; in Friday's race should I just box Commercial Appeal with the other two contenders in a three horse exacta box, based on the dirt race. Or, should I bet him to win and bet him on top with the other two in a straight exactas-based on his Synth race last September.

Sorry that was so long, but I would appreciate any thoughts.

I am at a loss for words. Are you suggesting that Commercial Appeal's Sept. 5th race was more impressive than the horse's last two races?

[proximity]

I don't use cj's figures NOW so please correct me if i'm wrong but I always thought they were based on the pace of the race winner, not the race leader and thus for a given point of call distance (1/4. 1/2, 3/4...) the average LEADER'S pace figure for a given class of horses would be HIGHER as the (final) distances of the races increase instead of LOWER.... which is the reality for VELOCITY/SPEED based ratings?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by proximity

I don't use cj's figures NOW so please correct me if i'm wrong but I always thought they were based on the pace of the race winner, not the race leader and thus for a given point of call distance (1/4. 1/2, 3/4...) the average LEADER'S pace figure for a given class of horses would be HIGHER as the (final) distances of the races increase instead of LOWER.... which is the reality for VELOCITY/SPEED based ratings?

You mean Cj doesn't supply speed and pace ratings for every individual horse in the race?

[proximity]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You mean Cj doesn't supply speed and pace ratings for every individual horse in the race?

no I mean I think his 1/4 mile pace figure pars for 5000 claimers at 7 furlongs at Charles town are HIGHER than his 1/4 mile pace figure pars for 5000 claimers at 4 1/2 furlongs at Charles town. "energy" based numbers like these, while obviously very important for analyzing the horses overall number for a given race, may produce misleading sartin style ratings for today's race.

I think he said something before about the "this horse adjusted fractions" below the running lines being more along the lines of a moss or quirin style rating that may be more useful for what mostpost is doing?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by proximity

no I mean I think his 1/4 mile pace figure pars for 5000 claimers at 7 furlongs at Charles town are HIGHER than his 1/4 mile pace figure pars for 5000 claimers at 4 1/2 furlongs at Charles town. "energy" based numbers like these, while obviously very important for analyzing the horses overall number for a given race, may produce misleading sartin style ratings for today's race.

I think he said something before about the "this horse adjusted fractions" below the running lines being more along the lines of a moss or quirin style rating that may be more useful for what mostpost is doing?

Mostpost is comparing similar distances in this case...so, the dissimilar pace pars that Cj uses for the different distances shouldn't come into play. What I find odd is the fact that Mostpost's way of interpreting Cj's figures has given him the impression that this particular horse's September 5th race is more impressive than its two most recent races. It certainly doesn't appear that way to me.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mostpost is comparing similar distances in this case...so, the dissimilar pace pars that Cj uses for the different distances shouldn't come into play. What I find odd is the fact that Mostpost's way of interpreting Cj's figures has given him the impression that this particular horse's September 5th race is more impressive than its two most recent races. It certainly doesn't appear that way to me.

he said he wasn't getting into the math.

i'm getting into the math.

anyhow in the future he may be forced to use lines that aren't close in distance and I wouldn't want him to make errors based on this information. like betting too many turnbacks.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by proximity

he said he wasn't getting into the math.

i'm getting into the math.

anyhow in the future he may be forced to use lines that aren't close in distance and I wouldn't want him to make errors based on this information. like betting too many turnbacks.

Not a good idea...IMO.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Not a good idea...IMO.

sometimes he may have no choice. anyhow even though the distances are close he's already debating between lines on different surfaces, where presumably the cj style pace figures would be HIGHER for a given distance on the synthetic since the winners usually come from farther back to win the race. this could cause him to possibly underrate the early pace ratings of some of his dirt horses and overrate their late pace ratings.

my personal preference would be to use the MAIN cj ratings in analyzing the horse's overall body of work btw. and then look at pace, form, how he fits....

[ReplayRandall]

All this talk about a horse who is the 2-1 M/L favorite in a 7-head field? IMO, the better horse in the race is Jennifer J, but there's no value on this piece either.....Pass.

[Light]

Originally Posted by mostpost

2. More specifically; in Friday's race should I just box Commercial Appeal with the other two contenders in a three horse exacta box, based on the dirt race. Or, should I bet him to win and bet him on top with the other two in a straight exactas-based on his Synth race last September.

You got me curious.

My 2 cents is if you really like this horse, box her, don't single her on top because she has several red flags.

I have statistics of horses coming off a 60+ days layoff and dropping and they are amazingly bad. This horse is off 49 days and doesn't quite fit the pattern but is close.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Light

You got me curious.

My 2 cents is if you really like this horse, box her, don't single her on top because she has several red flags.

I have statistics of horses coming off a 60+ days layoff and dropping and they are amazingly bad. This horse is off 49 days and doesn't quite fit the pattern but is close.

That was excellent advice. Too bad I didn't see it sooner. My original thought was to box the 1, 2, & 5. Had I done that for $2, it would have paid $69.80-minus the twelve dollar bet equals a profit of $57.80.

My second thought was a $5 win bet on number 2, then $1 exacta boxes on 1 & 2 and 2& 5. The profit on that would have been $29.90. Did not do that either.

What I did was bet the 2 to win and bet $2 straight exactas on the 2 with 1 and the 2 with 5. That was the wrong thing to do.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am at a loss for words. Are you suggesting that Commercial Appeal's Sept. 5th race was more impressive than the horse's last two races?

No. What I am trying to figure out is can I use the September 5th race to determine whether Commercial Appeals last two good races on the dirt will translate into a good effort in today's race on the synthetic?

[Light]

Sorry it didn't work out but kudos to having the #1 horse in your handicapping. I may have been suspicious of the #2 but had no clue who would win.

[mostpost]

So, how did I do after trying this method for only one day?
Kinda bad. Or, really good. Or, none of the above since I only made pretend bets.

Actually it depended on the kind of bets I made-or would have made.

Had I bet $5 to win on my top rated horse, I would have won one of five races and lost $16.00

If I had bet $5 to win on my top rated horse and played a $2.00 box on him with the second rated horse; I would have won one race and none of the exactas and lost $29.00

But, if I would have boxed my top three horses in an exacta-total cost per race=$12.00-I would have won $134.20. All this based on five races.

Now to see how those numbers hold up over a longer period.