The orthodoxy of race-watching

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Watch races in which you have NO knowledge of the horses. This really underscores-extreme scenarios excepted-how many events become pure battles of attrition as seemingly beaten runners re-rally, pace-occupants running under wraps fold just several strides later, and dismissed runners muster one final surge.

Horse races are gut checks that find certain runners pushing on through extreme fatigue (which often has ZERO to do with "reserve racing energy") while others give in. Gut checks sometimes determined by forces we can't explain, much less predict. Gut checks that defy lots of what we hold true (myself INCLUDED..in fact, we ALL focus on flow, both past and predicted) from a visual perspective.

As the inimitable Andy Beyer would say..."It's a glorious testament to the uncertainty of the game".

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Gut checks that defy lots of what we hold true (myself INCLUDED..in fact, we ALL focus on flow, both past and predicted) from a visual perspective.

I'm going to be honest with you Mark, I would never give anything away freely on this board, but I will say this.....Contrarian methodologies are the path to the answers to your questions.

The game looks totally different on Mark Cramer's side of the street...and I'm a "replay" guy on top of that.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I'm going to be honest with you Mark, I would never give anything away freely on this board, but I will say this.....Contrarian methodologies are the path to the answers to your questions.

The game looks totally different on Mark Cramer's side of the street...and I'm a "replay" guy on top of that.

just read his "thoroughbred cycles." good stuff. i could do without the strained political analogies-but the book is well-written and worth the read.

[thaskalos]

Mark Cramer...the name seems vaguely familiar. Isn't this the guy who gave up the game here so he could go handicap harness races in France?

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I'm going to be honest with you Mark, I would never give anything away freely on this board, but I will say this.....Contrarian methodologies are the path to the answers to your questions.

The game looks totally different on Mark Cramer's side of the street...and I'm a "replay" guy on top of that.

I'm a traditionalist with the conceit to think my experience and expertise allow me to accurately interpret race-flow, trips, and bias-and shape my opinions accordingly.

BUT I am starting to suspect that, as you imply, some of what we hold true in regards to how the action unfolds could be fertile ground for new and contrarian ideas.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'm a traditionalist with the conceit to think my experience and expertise allow me to accurately interpret race-flow, trips, and bias-and shape my opinions accordingly..

Nice turn of phrase...I'm stealing it for future discussions with others...

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

From my experience there are a lot of things that I as a handicapper see that the connections sometimes don't. AND there are a lot of things that connections (jockey, trainer, owner) see and know that I as a handicapper don't know.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Start by trying to predict the winner 3 fur out. I mean during races you have no interest in nor preconceptions concerning. You'll be wrong far more often than you might expect. And that hinted, to me at least, of dynamics in play we know little of.

Originally Posted by usfgeology

"current form and or innate superiority trump trips, flow, and visual observation."
"winners are exploiting sharp form, that is transient, even momentary superiority."
"Who would know more about what happens and why in a horse race?"

This train of thought, along with Nitro's observations re: following money lead me to the conclusion that "intent" becomes the intangible factor. Otherwise, how could the smart money follow that transient/momentary superiority?

Intent is a pretty grey word in that it can mean a strict training regiment, untimed workouts, adjusting jockey tactics, adding equipment, or other less scrupulous tactics...which are the ones that REALLY produce the momentary superiority, IMO.
However, I can't go down that logical path or else I will become too cynical or conspiracy minded to enjoy those rare occurrences where my past performance analysis, trip handicapping, and physical observations lead me to a winner.
(That being said, I no longer ignore money flow in the WPS and EXA pools anymore...because I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face)

When reading much of the material related to this thread it seems (to me at least) that its suggested that handicappers in general are supposed to subjectively visually interpret the past running’s of individual entries along with their past performance data in an attempt to forecast the potential running of a future event.

The obvious missing ingredient here is objective knowledge of the horse’s current physiological and psychological condition prior to its next race. This information completely supersedes anything that may have occurred in a previous race. In reality, its current condition may have in fact been caused by a previous race. That’s goes for both the positive and negative influences.

And yes, who would know more about these indicators?
Someone interpreting the PP data in conjunction with perhaps a bad trip?
Someone interpreting the PP data in conjunction with perhaps a big improvement?
Or someone who receives direct explanations about the race and then sees the resulting physicality in the animal?

Intentions may seem to be intangible to those relying subjective information.
However, when you can actually measure those intentions by the money being wagered by a part of the betting population (that’s often ignored) suddenly the game takes on a new dimension. It follows then that the term “gamble” also begins to lose some of the psychological risk factor.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

As the inimitable Andy Beyer would say..."It's a glorious testament to the uncertainty of the game".

You sure that was Andy? I always attributed that quote to the late great Joe Hirsch.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Watch races in which you have NO knowledge of the horses. This really underscores-extreme scenarios excepted-how many events become pure battles of attrition as seemingly beaten runners re-rally, pace-occupants running under wraps fold just several strides later, and dismissed runners muster one final surge.

Horse races are gut checks that find certain runners pushing on through extreme pain and fatigue (which often has ZERO to do with "reserve racing energy") while others give in. Gut checks sometimes determined by forces we can't explain, much less predict. Gut checks that defy lots of what we hold true (myself INCLUDED..in fact, we ALL focus on flow, both past and predicted) from a visual perspective.

If you are asking me if I think some horses have a bigger heart for battle and are more determined to try to pass horses and not allow horses to get by etc.. I agree with that. I don't think it's a permanent quality. I think some of it depends on the quality of the competition and what the horse has in reserve, but I agree it goes beyond that.

It's all these little things we've been discussing that make me look at horses from a qualitative perspective also and not with just the numbers. These qualitative things are just sometimes harder to measure and be accurate about before the fact, especially with lightly raced horses.

[Robert Fischer]

The tote definitely provides some valuable info.

Unless you are a 'Money Guy' specialist, you don't want to be ignorant of some of the other significant factors.

The biggest value plays that I see are vulnerable favorites. Whether your pace, or speed, or class, or race-watching, or whatever significant model that you used to determine that a favorite is in-fact 'vulnerable', you want the bulk of everyone else's money to hammer that chalk. Why are they doing this? They misinterpret the info, and they are displaying occasional irrational behavior.

So you don't want to be a 'momentum-chaser', or you'll miss the game's biggest opportunities.

Money can tell you a horse to consider including, or tossing. Maybe Money will hint at a good alternative for the chalk.

There was a race yesterday at Indiana.
was the ML fav. However, the was cold on the board. was well covered in multis, but even in Doubles the and were taking about as much money.
and were favored approaching the gate.
The was fractious in the gate and appeared to be in an awkward position, and had to be briefly backed out.
Once the had that problem in the gate, a bunch of money came in hammering the .
Some possibility that there was late money on the regardless, but that wasn't why I bet an insignficant chunk on the to win and singled in multis. Most probable was that some CAW or other shark-infested money came in because it was between the and and the had a gate incident.

Point is = it's good to have an awareness of few different significant factors that drive the outcome and wagering. If possible, you want to see most of the significant stuff, and make sure models are moving in the same direction.

Originally Posted by Nitro

When reading much of the material related to this thread it seems (to me at least) that its suggested that handicappers in general are supposed to subjectively visually interpret the past running’s of individual entries along with their past performance data in an attempt to forecast the potential running of a future event.

The obvious missing ingredient here is objective knowledge of the horse’s current physiological and psychological condition prior to its next race. This information completely supersedes anything that may have occurred in a previous race. In reality, its current condition may have in fact been caused by a previous race. That’s goes for both the positive and negative influences.

And yes, who would know more about these indicators?
Someone interpreting the PP data in conjunction with perhaps a bad trip?
Someone interpreting the PP data in conjunction with perhaps a big improvement?
Or someone who receives direct explanations about the race and then sees the resulting physicality in the animal?

Intentions may seem to be intangible to those relying subjective information.
However, when you can actually measure those intentions by the money being wagered by a part of the betting population (that’s often ignored) suddenly the game takes on a new dimension. It follows then that the term “gamble” also begins to lose some of the psychological risk factor.

[PA.race.fan]

Looking forward to your analysis Sunday night!

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The tote definitely provides some valuable info.

Unless you are a 'Money Guy' specialist, you don't want to be ignorant of some of the other significant factors.

The biggest value plays that I see are vulnerable favorites. Whether your pace, or speed, or class, or race-watching, or whatever significant model that you used to determine that a favorite is in-fact 'vulnerable', you want the bulk of everyone else's money to hammer that chalk. Why are they doing this? They misinterpret the info, and they are displaying occasional irrational behavior.

So you don't want to be a 'momentum-chaser', or you'll miss the game's biggest opportunities.

Money can tell you a horse to consider including, or tossing. Maybe Money will hint at a good alternative for the chalk.

There was a race yesterday at Indiana.
was the ML fav. However, the was cold on the board. was well covered in multis, but even in Doubles the and were taking about as much money.
and were favored approaching the gate.
The was fractious in the gate and appeared to be in an awkward position, and had to be briefly backed out.
Once the had that problem in the gate, a bunch of money came in hammering the .
Some possibility that there was late money on the regardless, but that wasn't why I bet an insignficant chunk on the to win and singled in multis. Most probable was that some CAW or other shark-infested money came in because it was between the and and the had a gate incident.

Point is = it's good to have an awareness of few different significant factors that drive the outcome and wagering. If possible, you want to see most of the significant stuff, and make sure models are moving in the same direction.

I think there are sometimes occasions when there are 2 obvious no-brainer contenders that appear to have the race all to themselves.I like this situation if only one of these appears to be getting bet.....as it sometimes means the other one maybe isnt quite right today......and maybe my chances improve as im usually looking elsewhere, and might have only one horse to beat instead of two.I dont really care much how much betting action my "other" horse gets in this scenario.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by PA.race.fan

Looking forward to your analysis Sunday night!

TX, dude. It's my honor to be a part of your wagering experience. And I mean that sincerely. We will have a fun year.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by mountainman

TX, dude. It's my honor to be a part of your wagering experience. And I mean that sincerely. We will have a fun year.

Quick question....Which horses will fair better when racing resumes, will it be the shippers or the horses coming off the bench who only show works at MNR?

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Quick question....Which horses will fair better when racing resumes, will it be the shippers or the horses coming off the bench who only show works at MNR?

For the most part, last year won't serve as prologue because (due to covid) few tracks had been open at the time we resumed racing in late May, thus invading horses held no ostensible fitness edge vs Mountaineer lay-overs. That will be different this season as more ship- ins will have raced recently.

Still, a potentially repeatable trend , or two, did emerge as invaders showing a race in 2020-even as far back as Jan (some 4 months before our opening night)- FAR outperformed those absent since the previous year. Also, Mahoning horses won significantly more than their share, and this WOULD continue LONG after Mountaineer runners got fit.

As to Mnr lay-ups, these runners performed abysmally during the meet's first two weeks but, interestingly, began to knock down some purses after that (and I don't mean Mnr runners showing a prep race). Which implies that barns taking more time to prepare comebackers saw those returnees far outperform Mnr horses rushed into the entry box right off the bat. Trainer Eddie Clouston's stock well-exemplified this, as the further our meet progressed, the better his comebackers ran.

Over the years, though, certain constants have held true during the initial stages of our season: 1) Invaders SIGNIFICANTLY outperform Mnr runners competing off the bench.. 2) Mnr layups post a lower IV, but also pay much better prices..3) Certain barns will come out FIRING, and predicting which outfits will hit the ground running constitutes guesswork as it varies from year to year. Last year, for example, James Barker (a more than competent horseman to begin with..) enjoyed great success right from the gate, while, several years back, Steve Larue, a more generic and lower-percentage trainer, dominated our first few weeks.

I hope this will be helpful.