Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-27-2018, 12:41 PM   #16
098poi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
At Finger Lakes, we count the paddock and the post parade as two work outs.


,
098poi is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 02:49 PM   #17
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultracapper View Post
Here's something that I don't think has been discussed before.

I've found, and pretty much live by, what I've perceived that positive indicators in the horses previous race is more reliable that a good race is forthcoming than negative indicators in a horses past race is reliable that a poor race is forthcoming. In other words, it's less likely that a horse you're expecting a good performance from will let you down than it is likely that a horse you're expecting a poor performance will pop up and surprise you. You're going to be surprised by a horse that you're expecting nothing from more often than a horse you're expecting something from will let you down.

Positive indicators are more reliable than negative indicators in the previous race. I dig further into horses that ran so-so to see if there is something lurking deeper in the pps than I have to when a horse is showing in it's last race that it will run well. If it's showing in it's last race that it will run well today, I pretty much just go with it and move on to the next horse.
I think this is a great post and something in recent months I have come to understand much better.

The general public gets bogged down with the negative factors, or limited information.

Negative factors certainly decrease a horses chances of winning, but positive factors can often deliver prices that justify betting or using them in your wagers.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 03:02 PM   #18
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
I prefer to look for positives myself.
Speed figure patterns are a big one.
I love to spot a horse sitting a big move.
Calibration Handicapping focused on the Red Scan technique and other moves.

Some other authors have listed things that they believe will somehow enhance a horse's upcoming performance, ie, a new pace top.

Maybe we should start a thread on this subject.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 07:56 PM   #19
lefty359
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
I don't see how that could be. Wasn't it part of the Sartin Methodology to never ignore the horse's last "representative running line", unless there was a compelling handicapping reason to do so?
I believe that was in the early days of the method. Later he came to embrace best of last 3 as long as they came from comparable lines.
lefty359 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 08:03 PM   #20
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty359 View Post
I believe that was in the early days of the method. Later he came to embrace best of last 3 as long as they came from comparable lines.
I may be wrong...but I recall Dick Schmidt posting on this very board that he used the horse's last "representative race" as a paceline 80+% of the time.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 09:04 PM   #21
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultracapper View Post
Here's something that I don't think has been discussed before.

I've found, and pretty much live by, what I've perceived that positive indicators in the horses previous race is more reliable that a good race is forthcoming than negative indicators in a horses past race is reliable that a poor race is forthcoming. In other words, it's less likely that a horse you're expecting a good performance from will let you down than it is likely that a horse you're expecting a poor performance will pop up and surprise you. You're going to be surprised by a horse that you're expecting nothing from more often than a horse you're expecting something from will let you down.

Positive indicators are more reliable than negative indicators in the previous race. I dig further into horses that ran so-so to see if there is something lurking deeper in the pps than I have to when a horse is showing in it's last race that it will run well. If it's showing in it's last race that it will run well today, I pretty much just go with it and move on to the next horse.
In "How Will Your Horse Run Today", Scott takes the opposite view. He concentrates on using the last race to indicate whether the horse will likely run poorly next out.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 09:23 PM   #22
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
In "How Will Your Horse Run Today", Scott takes the opposite view. He concentrates on using the last race to indicate whether the horse will likely run poorly next out.
Actually, the 2 methods are not mutually exclusive. I always look for signs of both improving or declining form.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-27-2018, 09:43 PM   #23
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
I prefer to look for positives myself.
Speed figure patterns are a big one.
I love to spot a horse sitting a big move.
Calibration Handicapping focused on the Red Scan technique and other moves.

Some other authors have listed things that they believe will somehow enhance a horse's upcoming performance, ie, a new pace top.

Maybe we should start a thread on this subject.
I agree. This would be a most interesting discussion...IMO.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 03:32 AM   #24
ultracapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,943
This thread petered out but I want to revive it because I had a definite reason for bringing up the most important aspect of the topic, the reliability of negative factors.

Without being able to reliably toss horses from contention, it is impossible, IMO, to be able to know whether you're getting value on your selection. Not only do the unexpected pop up horses beat you from time to time in a race to race viewpoint, but those unexpected pop up horses will destroy your profitability in the long run viewpoint also.

In a 6 horse race, simple, fair odds, are 5/1, and 6/1 is overlay. If you are able to RELIABLY TOSS 3 of those horses, you now have 3 contenders, and simple, fair odds on the probable winners is 2/1, 5/2 being an overlay on the true contenders. If one of those 3 supposedly reliable tosses pops up and wins, after the fact you have learned that simple, fair odds on all contenders was 3/1, not 2/1, and overlay was 7/2, not 5/2.

The short of it is, if you can not reliably, confidently toss horses, you will find yourself betting underlays when you believe you are betting overlays, and betting underlays in this game will kill you.

About 15 years ago was when I first started making the first step in my selection process the elimination of horses I believed had little to no chance to win the race. As a W/P bettor, the mastering of this elimination process is absolutely paramount to my long term success, so I asked the question.....

Do you find the reliability of negative factors, those factors that lead us to toss horses, more reliable than the reliability of positive factors, those factors that lead us to support horses? And when seeing those factors in the horse's previous race, do they weigh heavier than seeing those same factors further in the past of a horse's racing career?
ultracapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 04:11 AM   #25
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultracapper View Post
This thread petered out but I want to revive it because I had a definite reason for bringing up the most important aspect of the topic, the reliability of negative factors.

Without being able to reliably toss horses from contention, it is impossible, IMO, to be able to know whether you're getting value on your selection. Not only do the unexpected pop up horses beat you from time to time in a race to race viewpoint, but those unexpected pop up horses will destroy your profitability in the long run viewpoint also.

In a 6 horse race, simple, fair odds, are 5/1, and 6/1 is overlay. If you are able to RELIABLY TOSS 3 of those horses, you now have 3 contenders, and simple, fair odds on the probable winners is 2/1, 5/2 being an overlay on the true contenders. If one of those 3 supposedly reliable tosses pops up and wins, after the fact you have learned that simple, fair odds on all contenders was 3/1, not 2/1, and overlay was 7/2, not 5/2.

The short of it is, if you can not reliably, confidently toss horses, you will find yourself betting underlays when you believe you are betting overlays, and betting underlays in this game will kill you.

About 15 years ago was when I first started making the first step in my selection process the elimination of horses I believed had little to no chance to win the race. As a W/P bettor, the mastering of this elimination process is absolutely paramount to my long term success, so I asked the question.....

Do you find the reliability of negative factors, those factors that lead us to toss horses, more reliable than the reliability of positive factors, those factors that lead us to support horses? And when seeing those factors in the horse's previous race, do they weigh heavier than seeing those same factors further in the past of a horse's racing career?
It's riskier to say that a particular horse will win its next race than it is to say that the horse will lose...simply because it stands to lose the vast majority of the time. This alone should make us more confident of our negative form indicators...IMO. In my own handicapping...a strong negative factor will often be enough of a reason, all by itself, to cause me to eliminate a particular horse from win-bet consideration. But I can't think of a single "positive" factor which will, by itself, cause me to place a win-bet on a horse. Selecting the potential winner is a more complicated affair than just crossing off a potential loser.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 07-30-2018 at 04:14 AM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 06:57 AM   #26
FakeNameChanged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
It's riskier to say that a particular horse will win its next race than it is to say that the horse will lose...simply because it stands to lose the vast majority of the time. This alone should make us more confident of our negative form indicators...IMO. In my own handicapping...a strong negative factor will often be enough of a reason, all by itself, to cause me to eliminate a particular horse from win-bet consideration. But I can't think of a single "positive" factor which will, by itself, cause me to place a win-bet on a horse. Selecting the potential winner is a more complicated affair than just crossing off a potential loser.
Very astute. What specifically do you consider a Strong Neg Factor? I am constantly learning which ones(negative factors), are the automatic tosses. Over the weekend, I'd zeroed in on a nice 23-1 longshot for a win bet, and one of my tosses closed in the stretch to win by a head. Since I'm primarily a Win and exacta bettor, I didn't have him coupled with the 16-1 toss horse. My over-confidence in the three horses with whom he was coupled for exactas did not give me the $20.40 place price to salvage the situation.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
FakeNameChanged is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 09:16 AM   #27
dlivery
Registered User
 
dlivery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Thornhill ON
Posts: 466
RDSS Tampons

Hey there
Im been not around long but looking at the PP"S
and seeing horses that been competitive against each other seem to do well win place and show.
dlivery is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 11:04 AM   #28
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
I focus most on last race, but I don't think there's a hard fast formula for what works best all the time like last race, best of last 2, best of last 3, average of last 2, last representative race based on today's condition etc...

I think a horse's last 3-4 races probably account for 90% of everything you need to know (exceptions might be back turf, slop, and other exceptions) but how to weight them depends on a bunch of factors like how lightly raced the horse is, is he improving, go backwards, or relatively stable, how certain you are a specific race can be thrown out due to conditions/trip, trainer changes, etc...

I'd guess "on average" I put about 50% of the weight on a horse's last race and 25%, 15%, 10% on the next 3.

What that basically says is that if 2 horses are similar off the last race, the one with better overall record is more likely to win. If one is a little better off the last race but the other is better overall, they are similar etc..
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 11:53 AM   #29
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Its very rarely that a horse wins that I toss as a non contender, I can usually eliminate 4-5 per 10 horse field. I would say maybe 2-3 per 100.

I use a combination of negative and positive factors, and track/race shape profile.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-30-2018, 01:10 PM   #30
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I focus most on last race, but I don't think there's a hard fast formula for what works best all the time like last race, best of last 2, best of last 3, average of last 2, last representative race based on today's condition etc...

I think a horse's last 3-4 races probably account for 90% of everything you need to know (exceptions might be back turf, slop, and other exceptions) but how to weight them depends on a bunch of factors like how lightly raced the horse is, is he improving, go backwards, or relatively stable, how certain you are a specific race can be thrown out due to conditions/trip, trainer changes, etc...

I'd guess "on average" I put about 50% of the weight on a horse's last race and 25%, 15%, 10% on the next 3.

What that basically says is that if 2 horses are similar off the last race, the one with better overall record is more likely to win. If one is a little better off the last race but the other is better overall, they are similar etc..
If the horse runs an uncharacteristically lackluster race last out, and you find no valid excuse for it...does this last race still account for 50% of your opinion on the horse? Or do you look at the horse's sharp PRIOR races...and skew the percentages in favor of the overall record?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.