What percentage of results are logical? - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

trying2win · 11-20-2003, 01:49 AM

--I recall reading an interesting statement in a handicapping book many years ago. As I recall, the statement went something like this:

"Looking over the results of past races, 80% of the winners could have been figured out logically one way or another." If that is true, that leaves the other 20% of the winners in the "Head scratcher", "Huh! How in the heck could you bet that dog to win", "Some of the horses at this track win with no rhyme or reason", or "stuff happens" etc. categories.

--The more I think about the percentages listed in the paragraph above regarding race results, the more I tend to agree with them. Maybe it's wiser to be philosophical ahead of time and expect that in some races, the winner is just not going to be logical. What do you think?

Thanks,

Trying2win

kenwoodallpromos · 11-20-2003, 02:48 AM

I think all horses win for a reason, some reasons are just not factors that are on data lines. Maybe a dog wins because one day of its life it wakes up without feeling the usual pains and runs like hell! Maybe a couple of contenders has a touch of colic or a bug not yet detectable. Maybe the only decent horse is in the 9 post and it is not pushed because the connection mistakenly think the track is deep that day. Maybe a longshot is spooked by something a jock or horse beside it does and just takes off. / But I believe consistency is predictable enough to overcome the few abnormal trips that cause longshots to come in. /
In insisting that I study each possible contender I assume the odd horse will sometimes beat me and build that into my ROI, but I still search each possible contender until I find a definite pattern to good finishes and wins. I can find patterns for success in most horses, whether or not that situation (pattern fator) is present on the current day or not!!

JustRalph · 11-20-2003, 04:57 AM

he said "abnormal Trips" a bad trip can make a horse that is a legit 2-1, 20-1 real fast and in the first turn................

trying2win · 11-20-2003, 01:46 PM

Ralph,

I sure agree with your comment about abnormal trips. Handicappers can all relate to a front runner they bet being carried 3 or 4 wide into the first turn...especially if the early fractions are swift. Quite often it's adios to the money bet on your horse in that situation!

Trying2win

Valuist · 11-20-2003, 04:45 PM

I would say the number is a little higher; somewhere between 1/4 (25%) and 1/3 (33%). The typical Pick 3 will have 1 favorite, 1 secondary contender and 1 head-scratcher.

stgeorge · 11-20-2003, 05:16 PM

And on the other hand, I'd go with a smaller percentage. Twenty percent would work out to about a couple races per day with "head-scratchers". I don't find that to be the case.

Sometimes it takes some 20-20 hindsight to find the glimmer of hope in the PP's, but there IS something there that a player MIGHT have been able to latch onto to catch the 30-1 shot.

However, I would say that about once or twice a week do I see one that really baffles me and leaves me saying, "I wouldn't bet him if you gave me the chance to go back in time and try it again!"

Valuist · 11-20-2003, 08:54 PM

I seem to remember Cramer talked about this in his book "Kinky Handicapping" which he wrote around 10 years ago. He called these types of races as "chaos" races. I thought the percentage he felt was chaotic was definitely higher than 20%.

superfecta · 11-20-2003, 10:36 PM

I use this thought process somewhat in picking contenders for 3rd and 4th in supers.Horses that fig to hang in the stretch,or when all the fighting for win is over and those dogs stagger into the lower money spots because the win contenders fall out if they don't win.In effect not picking those horses that can finish well,but picking those horses that can't win,but because they are in the race stand as much chance to finish ITM as one of those overmatched "contenders".

kenwoodallpromos · 11-20-2003, 11:23 PM

Right on! Like, lesser horses inherit the ITM spots because they they have energy enough to stay within shouting range!

superfecta · 11-21-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Right on! Like, lesser horses inherit the ITM spots because they they have energy enough to stay within shouting range!

Exactly.Horses that are not winners,but can get in when the horses that could win become tired from fighting for the win,or are too far back to close for the win,and they are usually plodders,they run their race with no idea of their place in the pace scenerio.