Who deserves to be the favorite?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PalaceOfFortLarned

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.

In one of the other threads somebody posted a video featuring many of the older stakes races at Del Mar.

I ended up watching the whole thing.

Several minutes in: The video started featuring races I had actually played.

One of the horses featured in the video was Brown Bess who beat a horse I played named Daring Doone.

That was about the time full card simulcasting came to Turf Paradise.

And like a 6 year old in the cereal aisle, great analogy btw:

Every time she showed up in a stakes race I was determined to beat her (upping my bet each time) to no avail.

Her Equibase Profile shows her winning 11 of 18 during her 1988 and 1989 seasons.

So yeah, I know the feeling.

And lesson (eventually) learned.


-jp
.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not surprised by the poll result, but I am a little surprised by how extreme it is. I thought more people would value rapidly improving form, but I guess it might be a more interesting discussion when limited to high quality 3yos from top barns with only 4 starts.

[classhandicapper]

People tend to over bet what I call "wining horses" but imo aggressively trying to beat them is not typically the best idea either.

If speed figures measured ability accurately, there would be no issue. But races are not sprints where everyone is doing their best start to finish or maybe more importantly equally exhausted at the wire.

Races develop with horses rating and just trying to get into preferred positions. Then they do their best late. When the race is over, they have different amounts of energy left. That means each could/would have run a "little" faster or slower than they did with an altered pace.

Horses with terrific win records are generally signaling they are a little more competitive and have had a little more in the tank at the end of their races than the figure alone can capture even if it was driving finish. So to bet against a horse like that I think you have to account for the fact that some can probably run a 1/5th or 2/5th faster if in a more competitive situation and asked for more.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not surprised by the poll result, but I am a little surprised by how extreme it is. I thought more people would value rapidly improving form, but I guess it might be a more interesting discussion when limited to high quality 3yos from top barns with only 4 starts.

Bettors will be more inclined to accept risk on a 3 year old with improving figures because the horses are still developing. An example would be Liberal Art. I like his breeding and ascending speed figures. Every race until the Ark Derby the distance was longer and every the figure was a little better. The horse was taken out of the Ark Derby by the jock early in the race so for me I’ll toss that race. Im disappointed he’s in the Lexington, and I don’t know what I’m going to do with it…?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

People tend to over bet what I call "wining horses" but imo aggressively trying to beat them is not typically the best idea either.

If speed figures measured ability accurately, there would be no issue. But races are not sprints where everyone is doing their best start to finish or maybe more importantly equally exhausted at the wire.

Races develop with horses rating and just trying to get into preferred positions. Then they do their best late. When the race is over, they have different amounts of energy left. That means each could/would have run a "little" faster or slower than they did with an altered pace.

Horses with terrific win records are generally signaling they are a little more competitive and have had a little more in the tank at the end of their races than the figure alone can capture even if it was driving finish. So to bet against a horse like that I think you have to account for the fact that some can probably run a 1/5th or 2/5th faster if in a more competitive situation and asked for more.

I think it was Creme de La Fete that first started making me aware of this. I had my own figures for NY back then and tried to beat him a number of times when he was going well, but he always had a little extra left and beat me.

[thaskalos]

To me it usually comes down to a balance between speed and consistency. In the poll question above it is stated that aside from the speed figures, "all other things are equal"... so I assumed that there were no significant claiming acquisitions. Consequently, I see one horse who can be counted upon to run a certain figure, running against a horse that usually runs inferior races to the ones that its opponent figures to put out. The continual improvement of the "B" horse wouldn't impress me unless the horse was a newly-acquired 3-year-old...and even then I would strongly anticipate a regression in B's subsequent start. In fact, this continual improvement pattern is one of my favorite "bet-againsts".

I find that the horseplayer's cardinal error is his expectation that the horse will repeat his last race if all things going into today's race remain equal. I know many "knowledgeable" horseplayers who only venture beyond the horse's last "representative race", when there is a "valid reason" to do so. I have never been impressed with this sort of "logic". If indeed the game were that simple...then we horseplayers would have a lot more hair, IMO.

[sovereign]

Who is this year's wiseguy horse? Stronghold for beating a Baffert juicer?

[denniswilliams]

Still on the sameold samelod.

This is because this nonsense works in small field dirt races (with biases). IOW, about as close as you can come to match races (think time trials). This is why the thread originator is a diehard AWT hater and, at best, turf dabbler.

A more interesting question would be what 'figure' a given horse runs in a race of 'complexity and/or shape X'. How that race was run and how it ran it in relation to the rest of the field.

Getting the number is the easy part.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Still on the sameold samelod.

This is because this nonsense works in small field dirt races (with biases). IOW, about as close as you can come to match races (think time trials). This is why the thread originator is a diehard AWT hater and, at best, turf dabbler.

A more interesting question would be what 'figure' a given horse runs in a race of 'complexity and/or shape X'. How that race was run and how it ran it in relation to the rest of the field.

Getting the number is the easy part.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To me it usually comes down to a balance between speed and consistency. In the poll question above it is stated that aside from the speed figures, "all other things are equal"... so I assumed that there were no significant claiming acquisitions. Consequently, I see one horse who can be counted upon to run a certain figure, running against a horse that usually runs inferior races to the ones that its opponent figures to put out. The continual improvement of the "B" horse wouldn't impress me unless the horse was a newly-acquired 3-year-old...and even then I would strongly anticipate a regression in B's subsequent start. In fact, this continual improvement pattern is one of my favorite "bet-againsts".

I find that the horseplayer's cardinal error is his expectation that the horse will repeat his last race if all things going into today's race remain equal. I know many "knowledgeable" horseplayers who only venture beyond the horse's last "representative race", when there is a "valid reason" to do so. I have never been impressed with this sort of "logic". If indeed the game were that simple...then we horseplayers would have a lot more hair, IMO.

In almost all cases I agree with your thinking.

I'd way rather have the more consistent horse unless the horse showing recent improvement has faster back figures and I have good reason to think it's heading back to the old peak.

In my own gambling I tend play only high quality races. So I run into a lot of those lightly raced well bred horses from good barns that slowly improve over time. So it's occasionally a tougher call.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Still on the sameold samelod.

This is because this nonsense works in small field dirt races (with biases). IOW, about as close as you can come to match races (think time trials). This is why the thread originator is a diehard AWT hater and, at best, turf dabbler.

A more interesting question would be what 'figure' a given horse runs in a race of 'complexity and/or shape X'. How that race was run and how it ran it in relation to the rest of the field.

Getting the number is the easy part.

I find that those high win% type horses do better on turf than dirt. That's at least what my regression tests have shown. That's most likely because final time figures are both less accurate on turf and less indicative of ability even when accurate due to wider pace variations.

I'm all for looking at how a horse has handled various pace scenarios. The problem for me is not the horses that have already indicated what they can handle. Everyone can see that. The problem for me is typically the ones that haven't had a chance to show one way or the other what's in the tank yet. Then you either need either especially good visual skills or other hints in the PPs that the horse may be a little better or worse than it looks based on the numbers alone. Most of those hints are bet. So there's not much betting value. But I'm not fan of keying against them either.

If you feel generous and want to explain AWT to me, please do. I've tested quite a few things that produce winners, but nothing that indicates I can find good betting value by looking at the standard metrics I look at on dirt or turf.

[Robert Fischer]

Sometimes the map is not the territory.
Tuesday Parx Race #7

Coalville 5/1ml - last race faced a significantly stronger field, than tomorrow's field.

Two races back; kind of a complex race. The pace wasn't fast, but the race collapsed. He was near the front.

Four races back taken up after start 8th by 17!!

Hoping he's a Mid-range price.

Tricolor 9/2ml has far prettier recent stats, but is not a potentially valuable 'key' like the .

[Robert Fischer]

Parx Race 10 today

SOCIAL LADY 5/2ml Ness Chalk better figs

COCOA'S VIVIAN 9/2ml first race back layoff 12/18/2023 state bred allowance slower figs.

I prefer 4 outright and as a longer price than , but w/ field down to five, I'll just watch w/ curiosity.

[equusvates]

I always believe the more consistent horse is the favorite with all else being equal. The exception is a considerable drop in class. But that make the all else being equal invalid. I find horses making new tops of more than 5 lengths as horrible favorites.

[Robert Fischer]

Twitter

Emd shout out ^^

"All else being equal" - That's where you need to have an understanding and hopefully an insight/opinion.

__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.