Interesting long shot angle that I've been following

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Hey coach.....your falling apart before your 10,000th post...

imagine what you'll be like at 100,000



We need some tips from Tom on ...HOW HE DOES IT!!!

Magic formula?

Problem is.....

1) I was running on fumes at 3:30 AM when I was handicapping this card.

2) When I downloaded and saved my PP's, I accidentally saved them as GP 5/9. My hard drive allowed me to because yesterday's were saved as gp 5/9 (lower case).

I've been falling apart for a long time

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by coachv30

Problem is.....



I've been falling apart for a long time

I think there's a lot of that going around.

[mapman]

thanks for your analysis....

i just play numbers generally...

now using the 6 in the ticket

[mikesal57]

GUYS...track is off...no turf


I am relaxing today

good luck who ever plays

[Longshot6977]

At 1 MTP I did a 2-6-7 exacta box and also used 11 w 2-6-7- for an exacta just in case, LOL. Good luck all.

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by Longshot6977

At 1 MTP I did a 2-6-7 exacta box and also used 11 w 2-6-7- for an exacta just in case, LOL. Good luck all.

Not a bad Exacta...$24.20 for $1

2 didn't run a bad race

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by coachv30

Not a bad Exacta...$24.20 for $1

2 didn't run a bad race

Congrats!!!

Not any different than what I capped...

11 goes to the lead or close to it and the 7 is better than the 2 (last)

too bad it didnt stay on turf...the 6 looked like he was ready today...next out

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by coachv30

Not a bad Exacta...$24.20 for $1

2 didn't run a bad race

By the way....

it was the 12 running a good race...not the 2...

you ARE falling apart....

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

By the way....

it was the 12 running a good race...not the 2...

you ARE falling apart....

oh jeez....I turned on the video stream just as they were in the stretch. I though that was the two in third for a little while before fading.

[Light]

Coach

I've been aware of this angle for some time and incorporate it it in my homemade program. I actually used it as my "secret weapon" when I went to the NHC handicapping contest years ago to catapult me into the top ten after day 1. Another story. Point being it is a solid angle.

However I use a variation of it from you. My program uses the last race and looks for an italicized horse. Also there does not have to be 2 italicized horses in the way I use it. But I have a requirement of the horse being within 3 lengths of the last italicized horse,if there are 2 of them. In looking at your examples I see all the winners from 2 back having been within 3 lengths of the italicized horse. So just my 2 cents as far as some structure for this angle. You have a few that were well outside that criteria and they did nothing.

I noticed some of your horses do not follow the rules you originally stated. For example some show only 1 italicized horse two back. The horse today "Perfect enough" who did nothing had his italicized race 3 back instead of 2. Also that horse was 8 lengths behind the last italicized horse in that race. Whereas your other horse "Castillete" who ran second had even beaten one of the italicized horse two back. Also not all your horses in your examples are dropping class. Some like "Lionite" who I loved and had, had stepped up in class last time and stayed there for the win. Personally I like to give an angle some criteria but also be flexible and use common sense.

For example, yesterday there was a horse who had this variation of this angle @ GP R3 and won paying $29.80 named Temperance. 2 back she finished 3 1/2 back of the italicized horse. So slightly out of my own rules for lengths back. But that was when the horse was a 3yo. I also give flexibility for trouble as far as lengths behind but nothing too far out of the criteria range.

I can tell you the angle is positive and it is one of the highest with ROI.Win percentage seems to be around 35%. But other factors that combine with this angle can enhance it or weaken it. And a lot of times that is difficult to determine. But keeping statistics helps.

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by Light

Coach

I've been aware of this angle for some time and incorporate it it in my homemade program. I actually used it as my "secret weapon" when I went to the NHC handicapping contest years ago to catapult me into the top ten after day 1. Another story. Point being it is a solid angle.

However I use a variation of it from you. My program uses the last race and looks for an italicized horse. Also there does not have to be 2 italicized horses in the way I use it. But I have a requirement of the horse being within 3 lengths of the last italicized horse,if there are 2 of them. In looking at your examples I see all the winners from 2 back having been within 3 lengths of the italicized horse. So just my 2 cents as far as some structure for this angle. You have a few that were well outside that criteria and they did nothing.

I noticed some of your horses do not follow the rules you originally stated. For example some show only 1 italicized horse two back. The horse today "Perfect enough" who did nothing had his italicized race 3 back instead of 2. Also that horse was 8 lengths behind the last italicized horse in that race. Whereas your other horse "Castillete" who ran second had even beaten one of the italicized horse two back. Also not all your horses in your examples are dropping class. Some like "Lionite" who I loved and had, had stepped up in class last time and stayed there for the win. Personally I like to give an angle some criteria but also be flexible and use common sense.

For example, yesterday there was a horse who had this variation of this angle @ GP R3 and won paying $29.80 named Temperance. 2 back she finished 3 1/2 back of the italicized horse. So slightly out of my own rules for lengths back. But that was when the horse was a 3yo. I also give flexibility for trouble as far as lengths behind but nothing too far out of the criteria range.

I can tell you the angle is positive and it is one of the highest with ROI.Win percentage seems to be around 35%. But other factors that combine with this angle can enhance it or weaken it. And a lot of times that is difficult to determine. But keeping statistics helps.

Thanks Light...this is very helpful! As you mention, I do go away from the angle on a few of these. I posted them because they were kind of a hybid or variation of the angle. Great stuff!

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by Light

Coach

I've been aware of this angle for some time and incorporate it it in my homemade program. I actually used it as my "secret weapon" when I went to the NHC handicapping contest years ago to catapult me into the top ten after day 1. Another story. Point being it is a solid angle.

However I use a variation of it from you. My program uses the last race and looks for an italicized horse. Also there does not have to be 2 italicized horses in the way I use it. But I have a requirement of the horse being within 3 lengths of the last italicized horse,if there are 2 of them. In looking at your examples I see all the winners from 2 back having been within 3 lengths of the italicized horse. So just my 2 cents as far as some structure for this angle. You have a few that were well outside that criteria and they did nothing.

I noticed some of your horses do not follow the rules you originally stated. For example some show only 1 italicized horse two back. The horse today "Perfect enough" who did nothing had his italicized race 3 back instead of 2. Also that horse was 8 lengths behind the last italicized horse in that race. Whereas your other horse "Castillete" who ran second had even beaten one of the italicized horse two back. Also not all your horses in your examples are dropping class. Some like "Lionite" who I loved and had, had stepped up in class last time and stayed there for the win. Personally I like to give an angle some criteria but also be flexible and use common sense.

For example, yesterday there was a horse who had this variation of this angle @ GP R3 and won paying $29.80 named Temperance. 2 back she finished 3 1/2 back of the italicized horse. So slightly out of my own rules for lengths back. But that was when the horse was a 3yo. I also give flexibility for trouble as far as lengths behind but nothing too far out of the criteria range.

I can tell you the angle is positive and it is one of the highest with ROI.Win percentage seems to be around 35%. But other factors that combine with this angle can enhance it or weaken it. And a lot of times that is difficult to determine. But keeping statistics helps.

thxs Light...

as I said this has been around a long time...
and if
we want we can get into the A Angle and have a dynamic duo....for years to come also

[Secondbest]

Originally Posted by Light

Coach

I've been aware of this angle for some time and incorporate it it in my homemade program. I actually used it as my "secret weapon" when I went to the NHC handicapping contest years ago to catapult me into the top ten after day 1. Another story. Point being it is a solid angle.

However I use a variation of it from you. My program uses the last race and looks for an italicized horse. Also there does not have to be 2 italicized horses in the way I use it. But I have a requirement of the horse being within 3 lengths of the last italicized horse,if there are 2 of them. In looking at your examples I see all the winners from 2 back having been within 3 lengths of the italicized horse. So just my 2 cents as far as some structure for this angle. You have a few that were well outside that criteria and they did nothing.

I noticed some of your horses do not follow the rules you originally stated. For example some show only 1 italicized horse two back. The horse today "Perfect enough" who did nothing had his italicized race 3 back instead of 2. Also that horse was 8 lengths behind the last italicized horse in that race. Whereas your other horse "Castillete" who ran second had even beaten one of the italicized horse two back. Also not all your horses in your examples are dropping class. Some like "Lionite" who I loved and had, had stepped up in class last time and stayed there for the win. Personally I like to give an angle some criteria but also be flexible and use common sense.

For example, yesterday there was a horse who had this variation of this angle @ GP R3 and won paying $29.80 named Temperance. 2 back she finished 3 1/2 back of the italicized horse. So slightly out of my own rules for lengths back. But that was when the horse was a 3yo. I also give flexibility for trouble as far as lengths behind but nothing too far out of the criteria range.

I can tell you the angle is positive and it is one of the highest with ROI.Win percentage seems to be around 35%. But other factors that combine with this angle can enhance it or weaken it. And a lot of times that is difficult to determine. But keeping statistics helps.

Do you also include the jockey switch in your program for the angle? Especially to a rider who has won or hit the board with horse before.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Do you also include the jockey switch in your program for the angle? Especially to a rider who has won or hit the board with horse before.

My program includes more than just jockey switches to come up with the "combined total factors" a horse can have.

For example if the horse only qualifies for the "italicized angle" my very limited statistics show a 35% win rate . Even slightly better is if the horse's last race was a "top"as well. But if the horse had a top and no works >23 days, it becomes a losing angle. Or if there was no top, just no works greater than 23 days.

I have limited data when there is a jock switch. That's because I don't enter data on jock switches unless the new rider (same goes for trainers) has a win % that is 10% above or below the previous one. Horses definitely perform better with a jock who has a 10% greater win % than the previous one and vice versa.

If there is no 10% discrepancy between riders and the previous jock was within 1 length of winning with the horse (or won) and is now on another horse, then that is usually a negative with this angle. My stats show those horses win only 10% of the time.

I make exceptions if the horse is claimed. Most of the time the new trainer will use his own jock and the jock switch is not intentional but from the barn change.Also if a horse comes from another track into the track you are playing and had a 20% jock on and now you have a 6% jock on I don't bother giving that a negative either because there are many things beyond control in those situations. Also sometimes the lower % jock is intentional to get the price up.

There are 50 "factors" that my program checks for. Besides the italicized horse, there are drops, trouble,change in distance,"big wins"etc. That would mean around 2500 different "combined total factors" a horse can have coming into a race. I currently have data on only 900 form factors, some with only 1 sample.

Although I've used this factor Coach is talking about for years, it's only been the last couple of years I decided to try to find the statistics on it as well as other form factors. Anecdotal evidence is too inaccurate.

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by Light

My program includes more than just jockey switches to come up with the "combined total factors" a horse can have.

For example if the horse only qualifies for the "italicized angle" my very limited statistics show a 35% win rate . Even slightly better is if the horse's last race was a "top"as well. But if the horse had a top and no works >23 days, it becomes a losing angle. Or if there was no top, just no works greater than 23 days.

I have limited data when there is a jock switch. That's because I don't enter data on jock switches unless the new rider (same goes for trainers) has a win % that is 10% above or below the previous one. Horses definitely perform better with a jock who has a 10% greater win % than the previous one and vice versa.

If there is no 10% discrepancy between riders and the previous jock was within 1 length of winning with the horse (or won) and is now on another horse, then that is usually a negative with this angle. My stats show those horses win only 10% of the time.

I make exceptions if the horse is claimed. Most of the time the new trainer will use his own jock and the jock switch is not intentional but from the barn change.Also if a horse comes from another track into the track you are playing and had a 20% jock on and now you have a 6% jock on I don't bother giving that a negative either because there are many things beyond control in those situations. Also sometimes the lower % jock is intentional to get the price up.

There are 50 "factors" that my program checks for. Besides the italicized horse, there are drops, trouble,change in distance,"big wins"etc. That would mean around 2500 different "combined total factors" a horse can have coming into a race. I currently have data on only 900 form factors, some with only 1 sample.

Although I've used this factor Coach is talking about for years, it's only been the last couple of years I decided to try to find the statistics on it as well as other form factors. Anecdotal evidence is too inaccurate.

This is really good insight Light....makes it a lot easier to ignore this angle if certain other elements don't fit.