Claimers in 2016

[Ray2000]

Some hard to believe ROI numbers and I'm double checking for errors but...

In my base, 3167 starters were claimed
Won next start . . . . . . . . . 609 (19%) . . 1.17 ROI
Won 2nd start . . . . . . . . . 521 (16%) . . 1.25 ROI
Lost next but won 2nd. . . . 358 (11%) . . 1.05 ROI

Betting a claimed horse is profitable particularly on the 2nd start.

Can anyone out there verify?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

GREAT STUFF!

Can you do this one? It is one of my staples.

First time after a scratch sick (assume very low)
Second race after a scratch sick (assume high ROI -- very high if first or second)

[Ray2000]

The "Lost next but won 2nd" posted above is true but you don't have to bet all claimed on 2nd start back,
just those that lost 1st start off claim. That changes the ROI
2,558 $1 bets returning $3017 or ROI = 1.18


Jess

This is what I have for Scratched Sick performers, sorry, not good.
Man would I like to see someone else's numbers on this. Claimed seems high, Scr-Sick seems low.


Base is 21,000 horses in 2016, 352,000 starters
4309 starters were scratched sick

of those:
396 (9.2%) won next start back
0.47 ROI

465 (10.8%) won 2nd start back
0.60 ROI

Only betting if 1st back was a loss
.65 ROI

[Frost king]

Does anybody have numbers on uncoupled entries?

[Ray2000]

Originally Posted by Frost king

Does anybody have numbers on uncoupled entries?

The coupled/uncoupled isn't in the past performance lines so I don't have anyway to pull the numbers.

Perhaps somebody with set of charts can find it.

[coachv30]

Ray....you do great work!!

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by Ray2000

The "Lost next but won 2nd" posted above is true but you don't have to bet all claimed on 2nd start back,
just those that lost 1st start off claim. That changes the ROI
2,558 $1 bets returning $3017 or ROI = 1.18


Jess

This is what I have for Scratched Sick performers, sorry, not good.
Man would I like to see someone else's numbers on this. Claimed seems high, Scr-Sick seems low.


Base is 21,000 horses in 2016, 352,000 starters
4309 starters were scratched sick

of those:
396 (9.2%) won next start back
0.47 ROI

465 (10.8%) won 2nd start back
0.60 ROI

Only betting if 1st back was a loss
.65 ROI

Interesting stuff. A couple of points on scratched sick.

1) On half-mile tracks, an 8-post scratch sick is a lie. You never throw out a horse in his next start who was scratched-sick from the 8-hole. For that reason, second off an 8-post scratch sick is not a positive angle.
2) For reasons I cannot explain, my scratch-sick angle worked pretty much everywhere EXCEPT Yonkers. Eliminate Yonkers.

Can you adjust for those changes?

[Ray2000]

Jess

One of the problems with statistics is you need a large sample size to have any confidence in the result.
That's why I use 39 tracks to get results on at least 500 bets on query

ACES		GEOD		MOH		RCR
BR		GRVR		MR		RIDC
BTVA		HAW		MVR		SCAR
CALX		HOP		NFLD		SCD
DD		LEB		NOR		STGA
DELA		LEX		NP		TGDN
DOVER		LON		PCD		VD
FHLD		M		PHL		WDB
FLMD		MAY		PPK		YR
FRD		MEA		PRC

At Yonkers only 28 horses (of 214) won their next start after being scratched the week before.
Returning a measly $108.00 on $214 bet ...the ROI, .50 is meaningless but does show Yonkers scratch returners are horrible.

If I leave out Yonkers from above it doesn't make much of a difference over all tracks.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Here's another angle. If a horse is scratched sick, and the next start is with a new owner/trainer, chances are that the horse was not sick -- and they seem to do well in that new barn. Kinda like your fresh claim angle.