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 11-04-2012, 12:13 PM   #16
HUSKER55
Registered User
 
HUSKER55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MILWAUKEE
Posts: 5,285
AT lesser tracks I have found that if you throw out any horse that hasn't done any thing in the last 6o days you do a little better. However, in the BC yesterday there were a couple that were laid off 250 days and won. Different leagues and different rules.
__________________
Never tell your problems to anyone because 20% flat don't care and 80% are glad they are yours.

No Balls.......No baby!

Have you ever noticed that those who do not have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of always seem to know how to handle the money of those who do.
HUSKER55 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-04-2012, 01:21 PM   #17
BombsAway Bob
DimeSupers Really Are!
 
BombsAway Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by podonne
Writing some code to produce my own past performances and I started to notice that several parts of the form don't seem to be relevant anymore. Curious which parts of the form that could be improved as far as your handicapping process is concerned.

Some of mine:
  • Earnings at various types of races (lifetime, prior year, current year, fast dirt, track) - Thinking purses aren't as reliable any more
  • Weights in the "first three finishers" part of the past performances
  • Range of claiming prices in a particular prior race, as opposed to the claiming price of the race. Claiming price of the horse in the race might be better?
  • Milliseconds in the fractional times
  • The race number of a prior race
  • Owner? Does the owner really matter?
  • The rank of a work on that day, but still probably whether it was a bullet work
Also curious about the repeated Starts - Wins - Places - Shows parts for jockeys, trainers, at different race types. Would it be easier just to see Starts, Win%, ITM%, ROI?


Any other thoughts?
using DRF Formulator, i ALWAYS prints fractions as :44.66 rather than :44 & 3/5ths.
Playing Quarterhorses got me into using them, now i feel cheated with a DRF paper edition that gives times in 1/5th's.
Also, OWNER information is Crucial at smaller tracks like Mountaineer & LosAL.
When Mike Flory claims one @LosAL, or Billy Davis @Mountain, just bet em!
__________________
Quick Picks, LMSP's, & opinions real-time
@
www.twitter.com/BombsawayBob
[/url]
BombsAway Bob is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-04-2012, 08:44 PM   #18
podonne
Eliminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by BombsAway Bob
Also, OWNER information is Crucial at smaller tracks like Mountaineer & LosAL. When Mike Flory claims one @LosAL, or Billy Davis @Mountain, just bet em!
I noticed on the form it just lists the owner, instead of giving the typical Starts-W-P-S-Win%-ROI that it does for the trainer and jockey. There aren't any stats categories in the BRIS file.

I assumed this was because the owner's listing was simply a formality, they just do it because its part of the horse's info, not because its particularly useful.
__________________
Whenever I read something I think about horse racing... Is that an addiction?
podonne is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2012, 05:56 AM   #19
Capper Al
Registered User
 
Capper Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 6,330
One thing I'd like to have is earnings for the jockey and trainer. What does a 10% winning percent mean? It's different if it is 10% earning $5000 verse 10% earning $1,500,000.
__________________


"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Anatole France


Capper Al is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2012, 06:21 AM   #20
HUSKER55
Registered User
 
HUSKER55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MILWAUKEE
Posts: 5,285
That 10% is the indicator of how well the trainer and jockey work together. I think it goes to form, is this horse trained by a good trainer and ridden by a good jockey. If push comes to shove a 20% team should be a better bet than a 10% team.

JMHO
__________________
Never tell your problems to anyone because 20% flat don't care and 80% are glad they are yours.

No Balls.......No baby!

Have you ever noticed that those who do not have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of always seem to know how to handle the money of those who do.
HUSKER55 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-05-2012, 06:25 PM   #21
rubicon55
Registered User
 
rubicon55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Covington, Wa
Posts: 2,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capper Al
One thing I'd like to have is earnings for the jockey and trainer. What does a 10% winning percent mean? It's different if it is 10% earning $5000 verse 10% earning $1,500,000.
Al, other may have differing opinions on this one but when a trainer and jockey hit 15% together I always give that horse a litte more creedence than with a lesser pecentage provided the horse is in the right class, surface and distance. Some databasers and articles I've read say these win more than their fair share of races.
rubicon55 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-06-2012, 07:29 PM   #22
bisket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,353
i look at ownership all the time. i also try to become as knowledgeable as possible about ownership. the amount of bank behind a runner has a huge affect on how a horse is raced and trained. especially in races like the breeders cup. think about it. is the ownership just a racing centered operation, or is the ownership a breeding farm in addition to racing. if the ownership doesn't have alot of bank the horse needs to be raced more often. then the horse isn't in every race to win...
bisket is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-18-2012, 10:35 AM   #23
PICSIX
Mike Schultz
 
PICSIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,234
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by podonne
Writing some code to produce my own past performances and I started to notice that several parts of the form don't seem to be relevant anymore. Curious which parts of the form that could be improved as far as your handicapping process is concerned.

Some of mine:
  • Earnings at various types of races (lifetime, prior year, current year, fast dirt, track) - Thinking purses aren't as reliable any more
  • Weights in the "first three finishers" part of the past performances
  • Range of claiming prices in a particular prior race, as opposed to the claiming price of the race. Claiming price of the horse in the race might be better?
  • Milliseconds in the fractional times
  • The race number of a prior race
  • Owner? Does the owner really matter?
  • The rank of a work on that day, but still probably whether it was a bullet work
Also curious about the repeated Starts - Wins - Places - Shows parts for jockeys, trainers, at different race types. Would it be easier just to see Starts, Win%, ITM%, ROI?


Any other thoughts?
I must ignore the parts that lead to winning selections!!!
__________________
I attract money, I attract money...
PICSIX is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-18-2012, 11:56 AM   #24
eurocapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 93
As a bettor I'm looking for approaches that ignore last speed figure and still finds winners reliably.
eurocapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-18-2012, 02:17 PM   #25
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurocapper
As a bettor I'm looking for approaches that ignore last speed figure and still finds winners reliably.
As a bettor, I often ignore the horse's last race altogether...pretending that it doesn't even exist.

We have all been preconditioned to believe that the last race is the best indicator of a horse's form...and that type of thinking must be avoided if value is what we are looking for in this game.

Whether the last race is too good, or too bad, I ignore it...unless other proof exists to make me think that something has fundamentally changed with the horse.

The horse's last race is often only a mirage...
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-18-2012, 05:28 PM   #26
bob60566
Vancouver Island
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
As a bettor, I often ignore the horse's last race altogether...pretending that it doesn't even exist.

We have all been preconditioned to believe that the last race is the best indicator of a horse's form...and that type of thinking must be avoided if value is what we are looking for in this game.

Whether the last race is too good, or too bad, I ignore it...unless other proof exists to make me think that something has fundamentally changed with the horse.

The horse's last race is often only a mirage...
As a handicapper the last race is very important to me in context with the horses last two previous races.

Last edited by bob60566; 11-18-2012 at 05:30 PM.
bob60566 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-18-2012, 09:25 PM   #27
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by podonne
Writing some code to produce my own past performances and I started to notice that several parts of the form don't seem to be relevant anymore. Curious which parts of the form that could be improved as far as your handicapping process is concerned.

Some of mine:
  • Earnings at various types of races (lifetime, prior year, current year, fast dirt, track) - Thinking purses aren't as reliable any more
  • Weights in the "first three finishers" part of the past performances
  • Range of claiming prices in a particular prior race, as opposed to the claiming price of the race. Claiming price of the horse in the race might be better?
  • Milliseconds in the fractional times
  • The race number of a prior race
  • Owner? Does the owner really matter?
  • The rank of a work on that day, but still probably whether it was a bullet work
Also curious about the repeated Starts - Wins - Places - Shows parts for jockeys, trainers, at different race types. Would it be easier just to see Starts, Win%, ITM%, ROI?


Any other thoughts?
They should list the vet. First time 'fresh vet' might be something that people want to know....but maybe its just me.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-19-2012, 11:31 AM   #28
rubicon55
Registered User
 
rubicon55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Covington, Wa
Posts: 2,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
As a bettor, I often ignore the horse's last race altogether...pretending that it doesn't even exist.

We have all been preconditioned to believe that the last race is the best indicator of a horse's form...and that type of thinking must be avoided if value is what we are looking for in this game.

Whether the last race is too good, or too bad, I ignore it...unless other proof exists to make me think that something has fundamentally changed with the horse.

The horse's last race is often only a mirage...
Gus, regarding ignoring a horses last race out what would you say if that last race was that particular horses new top speed rating. I have not been able to verify via databsae but some texts suggest a top figure last time or worse yet a double top figure (2 races in a row) is a formula for a "bounce" due to maximum efforts being exerted, soley based on that horses race history. Bounce theory may be just old school imaginations by others but some think it is a real factor for consideration, not the only factor. In this case would you still ignore the last race? Throw out as a non-contender or maybe a repeater?
rubicon55 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-19-2012, 11:50 AM   #29
Cholly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by podonne
I noticed on the form it just lists the owner, instead of giving the typical Starts-W-P-S-Win%-ROI that it does for the trainer and jockey. There aren't any stats categories in the BRIS file.

I assumed this was because the owner's listing was simply a formality, they just do it because its part of the horse's info, not because its particularly useful.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Cholly is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 11-19-2012, 12:38 PM   #30
eurocapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon55
Gus, regarding ignoring a horses last race out what would you say if that last race was that particular horses new top speed rating. I have not been able to verify via databsae but some texts suggest a top figure last time or worse yet a double top figure (2 races in a row) is a formula for a "bounce" due to maximum efforts being exerted, soley based on that horses race history. Bounce theory may be just old school imaginations by others but some think it is a real factor for consideration, not the only factor. In this case would you still ignore the last race? Throw out as a non-contender or maybe a repeater?
I think thaskalos threw a curveball at me...

For bounce I tend to use significant lifetime high and short rest myself.
eurocapper 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 05:37 PM.


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.