Its hard to beat "antilogic" in handicapping.

[Stillriledup]

It is.

Here's what i mean.

I'm going to use a race today at Saratoga as my example...now, its just an example and not a discussion about this particular horse or race. In the 5th race, you had the 1 horse Village Warrior who was coming off a 45 length loss recording a Beyer fig of 8. He "fell off the map" for one reason or another. He shows up in for a 20k claiming tag...so, the LOGIC is "he's damaged goods, something is wrong".

BUT, that's the "captain obvious" way of thinking and if you thought that way, you got burned, nothing was wrong with the horse, he romped in hand with long and powerful strides.

This example looked "too easy". It was too easy just to say "something is wrong" with this horse and toss him and find someone to beat him.

Logically, this horse was no good with his 8 Beyer fig so the logic was to bet against him, but the ANTI logic was that nothing was wrong with him, his last line was a throwout and he was going to go around the track unchallenged.

Remember, if it looks too easy, it probably isnt.

I know Nassim Nicholas Taleb would be smiling.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It is.

Here's what i mean.

I'm going to use a race today at Saratoga as my example...now, its just an example and not a discussion about this particular horse or race. In the 5th race, you had the 1 horse Village Warrior who was coming off a 45 length loss recording a Beyer fig of 8. He "fell off the map" for one reason or another. He shows up in for a 20k claiming tag...so, the LOGIC is "he's damaged goods, something is wrong".

BUT, that's the "captain obvious" way of thinking and if you thought that way, you got burned, nothing was wrong with the horse, he romped in hand with long and powerful strides.

This example looked "too easy". It was too easy just to say "something is wrong" with this horse and toss him and find someone to beat him.

Logically, this horse was no good with his 8 Beyer fig so the logic was to bet against him, but the ANTI logic was that nothing was wrong with him, his last line was a throwout and he was going to go around the track unchallenged.

Remember, if it looks too easy, it probably isnt.

I know Nassim Nicholas Taleb would be smiling.

Analysis like this carries more weight when it's done BEFORE the race.

[cj]

There was nothing that wasn't logical about the drop if you read his full PPs.

[PhantomOnTour]

I prefer logic

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

I prefer logic

My anti logic point was that if logic was the way to go, horse racing would be pretty easy. But, we know its not an easy game at all, so in order for you to have a fighting chance, you have to go against conventional thinking.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Analysis like this carries more weight when it's done BEFORE the race.

Its not a post about about that particular race, i just used that as an example.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

There was nothing that wasn't logical about the drop if you read his full PPs.

The anti logic i'm talking about is believing he's damaged goods and tossing him out because he looks "bad" on paper. You're right, this was the next logical spot for him, but you need some form of anti logic in order to bet a horse off a 45 length loss at 4-5.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Had to be logical.

Horse paid $3.80 to win and the $1 EX was $3.35 in a 4 horse race. 4 horse race. Let me repeat that again. 4 horse race.

Saratoga has been unplayable the last 2 days on the slop with all the scratches and McDonald's Happy Meal payouts.

If you like chalk, you might have just hit your 16th straight race.

[jk3521]

Dropped to be claimed, nobody bit.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The anti logic i'm talking about is believing he's damaged goods and tossing him out because he looks "bad" on paper. You're right, this was the next logical spot for him, but you need some form of anti logic in order to bet a horse off a 45 length loss at 4-5.

Not really, if you did, the public wouldn't have bet the horse to 4 to 5.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

Not really, if you did, the public wouldn't have bet the horse to 4 to 5.

If the public knew he wasnt damaged goods, he would have been 1-5 or 1-9 in vs that field. But, plenty of people thought he might be damaged, so you got 4-5 instead of 1-5.

[classhandicapper]

I thought a good example of this occurred in the Shuvee.

I read or heard several handicappers whose opinion I respect say they thought Antipathy had run an excellent race in the Ogden Phipps and that if she could duplicate it she would be very tough to beat in the Shuvee.

No argument from me there. I thought she was a mortal lock if she duplicated that race.

All of them also said they were going to try to beat her because she would get bet heavily off that race, but it was a hugely improved performance and she might not be able to duplicate it.

I'm not going to argue against the logic of being more skeptical of a horse that jumps way up than one that has run at a certain level consistently. The chances of her duplicating it almost had to be a bit lower than some of the other horses holding their form. The question is how much lower and what price are you getting.

#1. She didn't even go off the favorite.

#2. There's got to be a huge difference between a jump up from a 4yo, with 8 career starts, by AP Indy, owned by Godolphin, and trained by Kiaran McLaughlin than for an endless number of other circumstances with older horses and much weaker pedigrees and connections.

I think that was a case of smart people outsmarting themselves. They were looking for an angle to beat a horse that they thought would be over bet, but so was everyone else and IMHO they let her go off as an overlay.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If the public knew he wasnt damaged goods, he would have been 1-5 or 1-9 in vs that field. But, plenty of people thought he might be damaged, so you got 4-5 instead of 1-5.

I'm not buying that, his best races weren't that much better than the horse that ran 2nd, if at all.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It is.

Here's what i mean.

I'm going to use a race today at Saratoga as my example...now, its just an example and not a discussion about this particular horse or race. In the 5th race, you had the 1 horse Village Warrior who was coming off a 45 length loss recording a Beyer fig of 8. He "fell off the map" for one reason or another. He shows up in for a 20k claiming tag...so, the LOGIC is "he's damaged goods, something is wrong".

BUT, that's the "captain obvious" way of thinking and if you thought that way, you got burned, nothing was wrong with the horse, he romped in hand with long and powerful strides.

This example looked "too easy". It was too easy just to say "something is wrong" with this horse and toss him and find someone to beat him.

Logically, this horse was no good with his 8 Beyer fig so the logic was to bet against him, but the ANTI logic was that nothing was wrong with him, his last line was a throwout and he was going to go around the track unchallenged.

Remember, if it looks too easy, it probably isnt.

I know Nassim Nicholas Taleb would be smiling.

Is it advisable to just casually overlook a horse's most recent 45-length defeat as if it didn't exist...or is this an idea which should be applied a little more "selectively"?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is it advisable to just casually overlook a horse's most recent 45-length defeat as if it didn't exist...or is this an idea which should be applied a little more "selectively"?

Good question.

I think you shouldn't overlook anything, but when things seem too obvious, quite often they are not.