Santa Anita Handicap

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm trying to figure out how Idol paid $12.80. Nearly everyone I heard or talked to liked him.

he was the universal twitter pick and maxfield the universal this horse has no advantage why is he 1/2 horse.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

he was the universal twitter pick and maxfield the universal this horse has no advantage why is he 1/2 horse.

Those odds kind of shot a hole in my theory that all the information given away freely on social media is impacting the odds in ways that make the game tougher to beat.

Then again, maybe without that chatter he would have been 7-1 and Maxfield even shorter.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm trying to figure out how Idol paid $12.80. Nearly everyone I heard or talked to liked him.

I think I figured out why.

Thorograph had Maxfield (-2 and improving in every start) and Independence Hall (-2) both much faster than Express Train (2 3/4 and a top of 2) and Idol (4 1/2 and a top of 2) . So if you were mildly suspect of Independence Hall going 10F or duplicating his last, the odds make sense. I'm not sire what Ragozin had because I haven't seen the Sheets, but we know both those set of players have a huge impact on the board.

Qualitatively, I though Maxfield was overbet but I rated him higher than people that were frothing at the mouth to bet against him. I favored Express Train a hair over Idol and wasn't sure what to do with Independence Hall for the reasons mentioned above. So I wound up passing even though I thought Maxfield was an underlay. I should have done something, but Independence Hall had me confused.

I have no idea whose numbers were right this time (though the evidence speaks for itself), but this is the perfect example of what I've been saying about figures. Different sets of figures would have you concluding very different things. That's why I look at whether a race was fast or slow for the class, but don't get too literal about them and lean more towards the qualitative measurements when the figures are at least close.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think I figured out why.

Thorograph had Maxfield (-2 and improving in every start) and Independence Hall (-2) both much faster than Express Train (2 3/4 and a top of 2) and Idol (4 1/2 and a top of 2) . So if you were mildly suspect of Independence Hall going 10F or duplicating his last, the odds make sense. I'm not sire what Ragozin had because I haven't seen the Sheets, but we know both those set of players have a huge impact on the board.

Qualitatively, I though Maxfield was overbet but I rated him higher than people that were frothing at the mouth to bet against him. I favored Express Train a hair over Idol and wasn't sure what to do with Independence Hall for the reasons mentioned above. So I wound up passing even though I thought Maxfield was an underlay. I should have done something, but Independence Hall had me confused.

I have no idea whose numbers were right this time (though the evidence speaks for itself), but this is the perfect example of what I've been saying about figures. Different sets of figures would have you concluding very different things. That's why I look at whether a race was fast or slow for the class, but don't get too literal about them and lean more towards the qualitative measurements when the figures are at least close.

My suspicion is that Maxfield's figures weren't wrong, but he regressed a bit.

[the little guy]

Maxfield was lonely without Sonneman in the race.

He got the same 99 Beyer fig he got in his prior race. He's a nice horse but nothing special. Maybe things would be different if he had been more sound. We'll never know. He's OK, but has to improve to be effective in significant races going forward.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

My suspicion is that Maxfield's figures weren't wrong, but he regressed a bit.

The point I was making (and often make) is that when there are huge discrepancies in the figures between figure makers (and there was in this case) it's 100% certain "someone" has it wrong.

That's a fundamental problem if you use them as an objective starting point and then adjust them for prior trips, projected pace, form changes, distance changes etc. Sometimes you are going to be very wrong about the values because your figures are wrong.

In many of these cases I don't know WHO had it wrong after the race, let alone before the race.

Which brings me to the next question.

If there is a huge discrepancy is there a way to help determine who has it right for a specific horse before the race?

I can tell you with certainty after close to 30 years of trying, the answer is "you can do better than 50-50", but it will cause downsides in your betting on top of taking more time. It causes a kind of paralysis by analysis when you start looking at multiple sets and aren't sure who is right.

You can be better off looking at just one set. But you have to understand that no amount of handicapping arrogance means you are actually right all the time because all figure makers get some wrong. My own evolution has taken me to the point where I look at them and accept them when one horse is clearly a lot faster than another (all else being equal), but if the horses are even similar, I ignore them and use qualitative techniques to separate them.

In this case, I'm just trying to explain the odds a little. Maxfield looked way better on Thorograph than some other sets of figures.

[cj]

"Wrong" is a bit harsh. There are many races run that for a large variety of reasons turn out to be little more than educated guesses. I think those are the races where you see a lot of variation for the most part. I don't think there are any wrong answer in those scenarios. I think all you can ask is the figure maker be consistent in how those situations are handled.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

"Wrong" is a bit harsh. There are many races run that for a large variety of reasons turn out to be little more than educated guesses. I think those are the races where you see a lot of variation for the most part. I don't think there are any wrong answer in those scenarios. I think all you can ask is the figure maker be consistent in how those situations are handled.

OK.

So let's call it "reflective of the actual speed of the race".

I won't even say "ability of the horses" because that's another can of worms. We know that the way the race develops impacts the time.

In this case I'm pretty sure I already know why there is a difference. It's a circuit issue. Some figure makers have certain circuits faster or slower than others.

For me, it's a handicapping dilemma. If I never looked at another figure for the rest of my life, I would do just as well as if I used figures. I already know that. But I also know I can improve my process by about 2%-3% by looking at both figures and a qualitative approach that's most similar to Timeform Europe/Racing Post ratings. I just hate the fact that by adding in time I'm occasionally introducing information that is steering me towards a less accurate appraisal. I can't come up with a solution.

[Tom]

If there is a huge discrepancy is there a way to help determine who has it right for a specific horse before the race?

The horse with the higher odds is the one I consider to be "right."

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

The horse with the higher odds is the one I consider to be "right."

That's probably the right thing to do. It's just a personal quirk of mine that if I make a play I want to feel confident I understand a horse correctly. When I see disagreements on major horses in major races that are large enough to impact my opinion, it messes with my willingness to use them at all. But I know ignoring them leaves gaps in my understanding of some kinds of races.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The point I was making (and often make) is that when there are huge discrepancies in the figures between figure makers (and there was in this case) it's 100% certain "someone" has it wrong.

That's a fundamental problem if you use them as an objective starting point and then adjust them for prior trips, projected pace, form changes, distance changes etc. Sometimes you are going to be very wrong about the values because your figures are wrong.

In many of these cases I don't know WHO had it wrong after the race, let alone before the race.

Which brings me to the next question.

If there is a huge discrepancy is there a way to help determine who has it right for a specific horse before the race?

I can tell you with certainty after close to 30 years of trying, the answer is "you can do better than 50-50", but it will cause downsides in your betting on top of taking more time. It causes a kind of paralysis by analysis when you start looking at multiple sets and aren't sure who is right.

You can be better off looking at just one set. But you have to understand that no amount of handicapping arrogance means you are actually right all the time because all figure makers get some wrong. My own evolution has taken me to the point where I look at them and accept them when one horse is clearly a lot faster than another (all else being equal), but if the horses are even similar, I ignore them and use qualitative techniques to separate them.

In this case, I'm just trying to explain the odds a little. Maxfield looked way better on Thorograph than some other sets of figures.

As I’ve mentioned before it’s impossible to consider any subjective information gleaned from any interpretation of the past performances as being “objective”. There is however a way to make accurate determinations about not only a single entry but many entries in a race when using what I believe the only pre-race "objective" information (that’s available for free in a public domain). That’s the fluid monetary activities during a typical betting cycle.

I realize that my style of play doesn’t conform to the majority of those posting on this forum because I rely completely on a sophisticated tote analysis. I also understand that because my method may demonstrate success when posting selections it probably seems counter-intuitive to those using the typical handicapping methodologies. I would’ve liked to explain the tote analysis for the Big Cap, but I believe at this point it would be like “talking to deaf ears”.

What I don’t quite fathom is why one of the illustrious Moderators here would delete a post that I made on this thread on Sat evening. It simply expressed the success I had when sharing my selections for Saturday’s card at Santa Anita that included the Big Cap. As proof and convenience I had also included the link to the SA thread in the Selection forum.

With respect to all of the other nonsense that’s being posted around here I didn’t realize that posting a positive and successful demonstration would be a problem. Believe me it won’t happen again. Not that it’s of any real consequence, but I also plan on selfishly curtailing my future activities in the Selection forum.
.

[Maximillion]

In my opinion the decision making process is probably just as important as the speed figures.If the latter is causing you to zig-zag and second guess everything because you are using/comparing multiple sets you are probably better off in the long run just using one imo.

[classhandicapper]

As I’ve mentioned before it’s impossible to consider any subjective information gleaned from any interpretation of the past performances as being “objective”. There is however a way to make accurate determinations about not only a single entry but many entries in a race when using what I believe the only pre-race "objective" information (that’s available for free in a public domain). That’s the fluid monetary activities during a typical betting cycle.

I have no problem with any method that wins.

If I had your insights, I'd gladly add them to my own.

It's one thing when figure users are debating with people that don't look at figures. It's another thing when figure makers disagree strongly. That happens fairly frequently and undermines my confidence in them except when the difference is so large it's outside the range of possible error.

[Robert Fischer]

Each race usually has a few significant models that carry the bulk of the weight of determining the winner, and of post-mortem analysis.

In races where you don't understand what is significant, then you have to pass, or if you have some hugely valued umbrella-wager, you want to include the higher priced horses as well.

In general they can be relatively universal, but some races have unique circumstances.

There can be models moving in different directions that are tradeoffs. Tradeoffs require a larger margin of safety.

The only general model that is ALWAYS significant is the odds. Being a pari-mutuel game, you have to get value from today's odds.

The odds can present a tradeoff, or they can be a big enough model themselves to offer value on side or another.

In the Big Cap, Maxfield was significantly over-rated. Independence Hall was also wildly overrated. The three good horses were the and the was a very short price, and questionable as to whether he was even as good as the and . The second-choice, Independence Hall, who should have been fourth choice or so, further inflated the prices.

Any time you are fortunate to find value, it's going to be a bit contrarian by definition. So, there are going to be times when you are wrong, or when you are right but the mispriced shorter prices happen to get a dream trip, or when you don't have a clear understanding of the race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Nitro

As I’ve mentioned before it’s impossible to consider any subjective information gleaned from any interpretation of the past performances as being “objective”. There is however a way to make accurate determinations about not only a single entry but many entries in a race when using what I believe the only pre-race "objective" information (that’s available for free in a public domain). That’s the fluid monetary activities during a typical betting cycle.

I realize that my style of play doesn’t conform to the majority of those posting on this forum because I rely completely on a sophisticated tote analysis. I also understand that because my method may demonstrate success when posting selections it probably seems counter-intuitive to those using the typical handicapping methodologies. I would’ve liked to explain the tote analysis for the Big Cap, but I believe at this point it would be like “talking to deaf ears”.

What I don’t quite fathom is why one of the illustrious Moderators here would delete a post that I made on this thread on Sat evening. It simply expressed the success I had when sharing my selections for Saturday’s card at Santa Anita that included the Big Cap. As proof and convenience I had also included the link to the SA thread in the Selection forum.

With respect to all of the other nonsense that’s being posted around here I didn’t realize that posting a positive and successful demonstration would be a problem. Believe me it won’t happen again. Not that it’s of any real consequence, but I also plan on selfishly curtailing my future activities in the Selection forum.
.

Simple why it was deleted, it was already posted in another place. If someone is interested, it was (and still is) there for all to see.