Won Last Out (Strategy)

[FlintAtTheFetlock]

I would welcome systems or strategies some of you more experienced horse players have when evaluating horses coming off a win. It seems when I scroll down the PP's only a tiny percentage show ability to win back to back. My instinct is to throw these out especially in lower level claiming races, but give consideration in MSW to allowance/OC, especially from strong barns.

I have to imagine numbers have been crunched and taking these out of consideration can zero you in on more winners.

Thoughts?

[Robert Fischer]

In general with horses coming off a win, I usually am considering whether to use them or not for the added hit%("including them"), rather than their lone value.

Their expected odds plays a big role as well. A favorite coming off a win, is much different than a 4th-choice coming off a win.

And you "hate" to have missed the horse last time at 9-2 odds, and now he's stepping up a condition claiming level or class level and he's 5-2.

[BlueShoe]

Repeaters have long been my favorite type of play, as I have commented many times on PA. Like anything else or type of play in racing, selectiveness is required. Of the last out winners in the DRF, I may only play one out of ten of them. Runners that had the lead at the stretch call then gained ground from there and won are the types I look for. Tom Ainslie popularized this kind of performance decades ago in his writings, calling them Big Wins. Wins on off tracks, perfect trips, soft pace, bad opposition, wrong distance, away too long, etc. are discounted.

Fast, easy winners, with good speed and pace figures, coming back soon at the right distance, not in an unfavorable pace scenario, can be very solid plays. Often these types can step up in class more than one level and win right back, sometimes paying a surprisingly good price, although these runners usually do get bet and pay short prices.

[Stillriledup]

Treat each horse and each situation individually, don't just bundle all horses together. Each situation is unique and the very best players treat it that way.

[JohnGalt1]

If a trainer is 30% or more (minimum 4 wins), with winner last race or maiden winner last race is valuable since the trainer knows where to place it in it's next race.

Winner last race horses are usually a negative for me since most usually go up in class in the next race.

[fmolf]

I try to keep in mind that a horse having just won and racing back within 21 days is for the most part in excellent form.I agree that each race should be taken on its own merits.

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Winner last race horses are usually a negative for me since most usually go up in class in the next race.

For myself, last out winners that do not step up in class are a negative. Of the type that I prefer, coming back at the same class level, or even more so, dropping in class off of the win, raises a red flag. Not unusual to see these impressive last out winners to jump two, three, or even four levels, and repeat.

[FlintAtTheFetlock]

Originally Posted by BlueShoe

Repeaters have long been my favorite type of play, as I have commented many times on PA. Like anything else or type of play in racing, selectiveness is required. Of the last out winners in the DRF, I may only play one out of ten of them. Runners that had the lead at the stretch call then gained ground from there and won are the types I look for. Tom Ainslie popularized this kind of performance decades ago in his writings, calling them Big Wins. Wins on off tracks, perfect trips, soft pace, bad opposition, wrong distance, away too long, etc. are discounted.

Fast, easy winners, with good speed and pace figures, coming back soon at the right distance, not in an unfavorable pace scenario, can be very solid plays. Often these types can step up in class more than one level and win right back, sometimes paying a surprisingly good price, although these runners usually do get bet and pay short prices.

Your comments got me thinking a new. I spotted a play today in Tampa's 4th - #8 Tour Again (ML 15/1), that warranted a closer look. Coming off a maiden win sprinting, moving up in class and going long on turf. Seemed odd to me what trainer was doing. I keyed him in Tri him over top 3. Nice $133.00 payoff for 50cents. Thanks very much for opening these eyes

[Robert Goren]

In the first issue of Turf and Sport Magazine, I got in 1965, they had an article about betting back winners of their last race. The had a list of 4 or 5 rules for doing it. It was pretty obvious that they author had sat down and tried common eliminators on a list of repeat winner until they were able to show a profit by betting the non eliminated horses from the list. In the next issue they had the same kind of article for horses dropping claiming price. Every month they had something along those lines. We are still looking at the same things they did 50 years ago although our methods gotten so we can look at larger lists, we are reverse engineering the results. At least now we check them against a different list of horses, but........

[Tom]

Originally Posted by BlueShoe

For myself, last out winners that do not step up in class are a negative. Of the type that I prefer, coming back at the same class level, or even more so, dropping in class off of the win, raises a red flag. Not unusual to see these impressive last out winners to jump two, three, or even four levels, and repeat.

Although this is a good angle in the crazy optional claiming allowance races they card everywhere these days. If you can find an interpreter to read them for you. I read books in high school that were shorted then some race conditions these days.

[BIG49010]

Look closely at Turf winners that win 1st time on grass, that run back in around 3 weeks. Class up, down, same it doesn't seem to matter.

[appistappis]

with maidens going to n2l and n2l going to n3l I like to see this

6(4.5) 3(1.5) 1(.5) 1(3.5) and not see this

2(hd) 1(hd) 1(3.5) 1(nk)

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

In the first issue of Turf and Sport Magazine, I got in 1965, they had an article about betting back winners of their last race. The had a list of 4 or 5 rules for doing it. It was pretty obvious that they author had sat down and tried common eliminators on a list of repeat winner until they were able to show a profit by betting the non eliminated horses from the list. In the next issue they had the same kind of article for horses dropping claiming price. Every month they had something along those lines. We are still looking at the same things they did 50 years ago although our methods gotten so we can look at larger lists, we are reverse engineering the results. At least now we check them against a different list of horses, but........

That pretty well describes what most consider "research." Backfitting to a description does not create a prescription. Few seem able to grasp that simple principle. It doesn't matter how many races are in the database (or how few). Backfitting to a description does not create a prescription.

[Tom]

I have a spot play involving last out winners, jock/trainer w%, trainer rating, and QSP's that has been showing promise.

Today's plays - NOW WATCH THEM ALL RUN OUT!


WOX-R2 #
CRC-R7 #
TAM-R8 #
TDN-R8 #
FON-R5 #
PIM-R8 #
PIM-R10#

[FlintAtTheFetlock]

Originally Posted by Tom

I have a spot play involving last out winners, jock/trainer w%, trainer rating, and QSP's that has been showing promise.

Today's plays - NOW WATCH THEM ALL RUN OUT!


WOX-R2 #
CRC-R7 #
TAM-R8 #
TDN-R8 #
FON-R5 #
PIM-R8 #
PIM-R10#

I flagged TAM 8 also and have the in P4 but found fits the bill as well and has run on Turf with 30% Won Last Out trainer. May be a short price but I'll have to make him my play

Good Luck