Who deserves to be the favorite?

[classhandicapper]

All else being equal, who deserves to be the favorite, the horses with consistently higher figures or the horse that's has improved rapidly but not sustained it yet?

[Dave Schwartz]

I see these two horses as inseparable.

Both have shown to be on steady improvement - but I can see how the top horse would be perceived as a better horse by virtue of more races in the 90-range.

(IMHO, less than 3 points is a meaningless shift.)

[classhandicapper]

How about if I specify that these are 2 or 3 year olds and these 4 races are all their lifetime starts?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

How about if I specify that these are 2 or 3 year olds and these 4 races are all their lifetime starts?

Less than three points is still negligible.

[thaskalos]

The first horse deserves the favoritism. UNQUESTIONABLY, in my opinion.

[thaskalos]

Andy Beyer, Cary Fotias and Len Ragozin have all indicated that horses with the improving pattern of the second horse are prime candidates for a subsequent regression.

[Robert Fischer]

Every time you extrapolate (performance,
trip, etc...), demand the value cushion to go beyond ''fair value for the horse in your story" & pay for your skills and effort.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Every time you extrapolate (performance,
trip, etc...), demand the value cushion to go beyond ''fair value for the horse in your story" & pay for your skills and effort.

There was no "value" requirement in the above poll question. It simply asks for which horse should be favored over the other.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

All else being equal, who deserves to be the favorite, the horses with consistently higher figures or the horse that's has improved rapidly but not sustained it yet?

You should have listed the speed figures with the most recent race first, like the past performance sheets do. The way you've done it...some people will think that the second horse is declining in form.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There was no "value" requirement in the above poll question. It simply asks for which horse should be favored over the other.

Then it comes down to CH's "all else being equal".

First Proven Class type should be favored every time, unless a significant thing(s) is going on with the rapid/recent improved horse.

Value has a place 👌

[mountainman]

The question probably supposes that horse "b's" improvement came about in a vacuum. That is, with no change in distance, venue, connections, or race-shape..etc.

And to my experience, such marked improvement almost always traces to SOME ostensible factor....if even some change in circumstances that renders the improvement counterfeit.

In addition, the more consistent horse would hardly be immune from regression in its own right. And I can think of several scenarios wherein that seemingly more reliable runner might actually be the likelier to regress.

For me, it's all about context, and sadly in modern racing, the eerily prescient late money would probably interpret that context correctly and make the right favorite.

[bisket]

I would want odds on the improver, but I’d need more information to properly handicap the two horses. I guess my answer would be the horse with consistency would be be the favorite. Most bettors are comfortable with consistency so that’s why a a horse with consistent speed figures will always be favored.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

1st horse would and should be favored over the 2nd horse at any point in time in their racing career.

Unless the 2nd horse is an older horse that has shown ability to run near or better than their recent top figure, then it could be debatable.

In today's racing environment this is likely younger horses and thus the potential problem with the 2nd horse is did he 'freak', or can he maintain the progression?

Either way, my natural instincts would be to put the 1st horse in the 2 or even 3 hole and find a couple others in the field to be on top.

Methinks however this was a recent race, and hence the question.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

1st horse would and should be favored over the 2nd horse at any point in time in their racing career.

Unless the 2nd horse is an older horse that has shown ability to run near or better than their recent top figure, then it could be debatable.

In today's racing environment this is likely younger horses and thus the potential problem with the 2nd horse is did he 'freak', or can he maintain the progression?

Either way, my natural instincts would be to put the 1st horse in the 2 or even 3 hole and find a couple others in the field to be on top.

Methinks however this was a recent race, and hence the question.

It’s always nice to have an even one at the bottom of the exacta or tri. Only problem is when the even one is the perennial favorite like Forte last year.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by bisket

It’s always nice to have an even one at the bottom of the exacta or tri. Only problem is when the even one is the perennial favorite like Forte last year.

Or American Pharoah.

Holy crap I spent a Fort Knox trying to beat that animal. Just kept at it, dumber than a 6 year old in the cereal aisle at a grocery store.