Handicapping Statistics

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by bob60566

There is one angle that goes back long time is backing favourites in the first three races of the card and stop at winner.
No idea if any good in North America but seems.????

Fiction

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Fiction

Could well be never ever tried it and seems very boring wager,The tracks seem to make the first three races very easy on the handicapper.?

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by Tom

Suggestion for groups?
This might be beyond my competency, but I am willing to try.

# of starts in career before the change.

4 or less

9 or less

14 or less

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by jay68802

# of starts in career before the change.

4 or less

9 or less

14 or less

I compiled a text file showing the following subcategories for all thoroughbred races in N. America spanning 01-01-2017 through yesterday 03-25-2019:

• startslifetime <= 4
• startslifetime between 5 and 9
• startslifetime between 10 and 14
• startslifetime >= 15

The data for each of the above subcategories is broken out by no change, blinkers on, and blinkers off.


The file also shows the following subcategories:

• no change
• blinkers on
• blinkers off

The data for each of the above subcategories is broken out by startslifetime (increments of 5 lifetime starts per row.)

Link here:
http://www.JCapper.com/messageboard/...tsLifetime.txt

As a general observation, blinkers off roi is higher for less experienced horses than for those with more experience.

However, the data is not without noise. (For example, there were a handful of blinkers off big pays in the row for horses having 25 to 29 lifetime starts.)



-jp

.

[Tom]

Thanks, Jeff!

[jay68802]

Thanks Jeff, sort of what I was thinking. The younger horse would respond to the change and with the older horse, seems the trainer is getting a little desperate.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not so sure I'd consider blinkers on a negative in terms of the horse's chances of winning. It seems that people just overvalue it because they think it's a huge positive and vice versa for blinkers off.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not so sure I'd consider blinkers on a negative in terms of the horse's chances of winning. It seems that people just overvalue it because they think it's a huge positive and vice versa for blinkers off.

But isn't that something we as bettors want to avoid (underlays). Its not about winning races, its about making money. this thread has given me much
to ponder as I continue refining my handicapping.


Allan

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

But isn't that something we as bettors want to avoid (underlays). Its not about winning races, its about making money. this thread has given me much
to ponder as I continue refining my handicapping.


Allan

I guess there are two ways of thinking about it.

You can look for combinations of angles that seem to be underbet and play them or you can handicap the race and try to assess the horse's chances and bet if he's an overlay on your odds line.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I guess there are two ways of thinking about it.

You can look for combinations of angles that seem to be underbet and play them or you can handicap the race and try to assess the horse's chances and bet if he's an overlay on your odds line.

Blinkers on is really a trainer specific angle. Some trainers have a positive ROI with them and are likely pairing the blinkers with other changes. Those are the times you should consider it.