Least well understood type of race

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to say 12F races on dirt. There are so few of them, it's hard to develop any expertise or model of how to play them. People use form and techniques that hold up at much shorter distances that often does not hold up at all going 12F.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm going to say 12F races on dirt. There are so few of them, it's hard to develop any expertise or model of how to play them. People use form and techniques that hold up at much shorter distances that often does not hold up at all going 12F.

Since there are about 10 of them around the country each year, is this really that troublesome?

[JackS]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm going to say 12F races on dirt. There are so few of them, it's hard to develop any expertise or model of how to play them. People use form and techniques that hold up at much shorter distances that often does not hold up at all going 12F.

I haven't seen one of these in a while but what I do remember is that speed and the horses capable of pressing the pace seem to be advantaged.
Kind of counter intuitive I know but horses evidently don't tire when asked to run a 1:14/15 or more to the pace call and are on or leading the pace. Check a few PP at your track and I think you'll find that the winners in the majority of races do not make a big run from off the pace. These races are often carded for the cheapest maiden or claimers probably closer to the end of the year in an effort to give someone a paycheck.

[podonne]

So, here's the result based on an early read of the data (still fine tuning), based on the subset of races with the lowest impact value of being a winner. The idea being that winners win less than they should in these races. For reference, the impact value of being a winner in all races is ~2.8. Lower means the race is hard, higher means the race is easy. I excluded subsets that matched < 1% of races to keep the sample sizes nice and large.

The largest single factor that produced a low IV was a NW2X condition at 2.355, especially routes (combination has an IV of 2.08), 1.5% of races.

Some learnings:

• Routes are harder than sprints
• Turf is (ever so slightly) harder than dirt
• Turf to dirt is actually not that hard, just a 2.6 IV
• Bigger purses are harder
• Higher claiming prices are harder
• Allowance and starter allowance are the hardest race types
• Non statebred races are harder than statebred
• Smaller early field sizes are harder than larger field sizes. This one was suprising to me. earlyfieldsize<=9 has an IV of 2.54.
• Late field size was even stronger, <=8 has an IV of 2.51.
• Scratches make no difference
• Sloppy conditions make it harder
• Better tracks are harder

All in all, I think not very many suprises. Except the field sizes. I would expect that larger field sizes would be more difficult because there are more factors involved (remember, using IV as the metric controls for varying field sizes' effect on the win pct). Perhaps someone can verify this result? Calculate the impact value of being the favorite in races with <=9 entries and\or <=8 runners?

I can check any particular combination of these factors if anyone is interested in a particular setup (maximum:3)

Incidently, the easiest races are statebred routes with > 9 runners. IV of 3.44. ouch.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm going to say 12F races on dirt. There are so few of them, it's hard to develop any expertise or model of how to play them. People use form and techniques that hold up at much shorter distances that often does not hold up at all going 12F.

Actually trainers face the same problem ... that's why only a handful of them win the big majority of such races.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

Actually trainers face the same problem ... that's why only a handful of them win the big majority of such races.

Since Wayne Lukas trained three consecutive winners in 1994-1996, there have been 16 runnings of the Belmont. During that time, Nick Zito is the only trainer to saddle two winners.

[PhantomOnTour]

every race they've run at Sar for about the last week or so

[Tom]

Remember Woody Stephens winning 5 in a row?
You won't see that again.

I like long races - 10-12-13-14 furlong races...at least we have turf marathons.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

Since Wayne Lukas trained three consecutive winners in 1994-1996, there have been 16 runnings of the Belmont. During that time, Nick Zito is the only trainer to saddle two winners.

more generally, Pletcher/Levine/Contessa do well over 12F in NY

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by gm10

more generally, Pletcher/Levine/Contessa do well over 12F in NY

How many 12 furlong races has Gary Contessa won in the last 10 years? And was it with the same horse?

[Tom]

12 furlong races, dirt, Jan 2011 - July 2012.
Looks like the king is Nicholas Gonzalez, and Dutrow his #2.

[KidCapper]

I always struggle with those darn Ostrich and Camel races at Canterbury. My jock either falls off or my camel fails to finish. Now the Weiner dogs on the other hand...I'm 2 for 3 on those.

[JackS]

I wanted to comment on a recent mistake I made., I played a lightly raced horse that had recently won a straight maiden in good time. From that race he was entered in a NW1 and ran second also in good time. From that race, he was entered in a C25000 which to no surprise, he won. Todays race , he is back to try NW1. It seems on initial impressions that this horse is perfectly suited to move ahead today. It did bother me a little before I made the bet that this horse was so quickly discounted by his connections and offered for sale in the claiming race and then as a reaffirmation of their confidence in him ,entered in the alw NW1 today. My mistake. I've been playing the horses for many years and should have known better.
Moral of this story- If you ever notice a move like this, draw a line through the horse and play something else.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by KidCapper

I always struggle with those darn Ostrich and Camel races at Canterbury.

Those are actually Minnesota-breds. They just look like ostriches and camels.

[RXB]

The fact is, the least understood type of race varies from person to person. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. I've never really excelled at winners' sprint races 6.5f or shorter. I've improved at them but they're still my weakest point, thus they make up a very small % of my wagers even though they constitute a sizable portion of the races across North America.

But with grass routers, or first-time starters in maiden races (especially mid-high MCL), I'd go head-to-head versus anybody.

The key is to keep records of real wagers and "paper" wagers and find out over a period of time where you do well and where you don't. (You need respectable sample sizes so it takes awhile.) Then confine the large majority of your real bets to your strong areas while trying to learn how to improve in your weaker areas. I was a good grass route player right from the get-go; the FTSers I learned over time.

Unless you have a fully automated process that is proven to do equally well across the various conditions, I think it's better to specialize at least somewhat rather than trying to be jack-of-all-trades. And the types of conditions that suit me best would certainly not suit a lot of other people, and vice versa.