Days Matter

[classhandicapper]

I suspect you have to be trainer, class, surface, and distance specific to have much of a chance of finding anything VERY useful when it comes to days since last race.

Also, given that so many trainers are skilled at bringing horses back off a layoff now, I suspect that second off a layoff isn't much of an angle anymore either because many more horses come back close to their best.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Why would you look at "a bucket of losers" for value when you could look at a "bucket of not-so-bads" for value?

Or do you mean look at a "bucket of horses not bet so much?" because that is a different column.

A bucket of not-so-bad doesn't matter. Losers are losers. Once they don't show a profit, one needs to figure out if there is any hope of making money with that bucket. For instance, looking at the training and looking at the class of the horse helps with DSLR eliminated horses. We are searching for the exception to the rule of the bucket, in this case the DSLR elimination rule.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by acorn54

i'll paraphrase what mike pizzolla said in one of his videos, this horses days away pattern raises doubts of his ability to win at 3-1; at 10-1 he has a good chance.
"let the bet make you"-mike pizzolla

Good example. The odds must be higher within a bucket of losers.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I suspect you have to be trainer, class, surface, and distance specific to have much of a chance of finding anything VERY useful when it comes to days since last race.

Also, given that so many trainers are skilled at bringing horses back off a layoff now, I suspect that second off a layoff isn't much of an angle anymore either because many more horses come back close to their best.

It's difficult.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

... What I hear you saying is that if I do not look at the statistics, I can just figure it out.

I call that the "head in the sand" approach.

IMHO, people win or lose by understanding (you can call this "handicapping" if you'd like) the horses in a given race and situation. The stats tell you what to measure but the measurement must be race-specific....

I am not suggesting that this is a handicapping approach, I am suggesting that the player sinks or swims based upon his analysis of individual races.

I agree, a lot of people just don't realize this. Maybe this a difficult concept to grasp.

If someone asks me why did I play a horse in Race A the answer could be because he had a class edge that resulted in a positive expectancy, while in Race B it could be because he had an early speed edge that resulted in a positive expectancy.

The commonality is, of course, positive expectancy.

Ultimately, that becomes the question in EVERY race: "Which horses have a positive expectancy?"

Most handicappers simply will not do the work to answer that question.

Again, people have to realize that there is no cookie cutter answer when handicapping i.e., when A happens then B will be the result.


I have a question regarding your days off/impact value table which you provided in an earlier post.

What does PCT mean?

And, what do you mean in the title "Young Dirt Sprints"?

Thanks,

[Dave Schwartz]

We are searching for the exception to the rule of the bucket, in this case the DSLR elimination rule.

Which elimination rule would you be talking about? The one that begins with let's eliminate the horses that win more often?

Or are you saying to eliminate horses that have NOT been laid off?

Again, people have to realize that there is no cookie cutter answer when handicapping i.e., when A happens then B will be the result.

Cookie cutter... Does that mean black box? Because if it does, there are plenty of black box solutions that will work. (Not saying that they are easy to find.)

You can say that "My statistical assessment of the race derived from a weighted set of factors has designated A and/or B as profitable in THIS race."

I have a question regarding your days off/impact value table which you provided in an earlier post.

What does PCT mean?

Win percentage.

And, what do you mean in the title "Young Dirt Sprints"?

Young horses = 2yr olds and 3yr olds before May
Sprints = races less than 8f

[whodoyoulike]

By cookie cutter method, I wasn't referring to a "black box" approach. But, rather as I interpreted your post that each race has to be evaluated separately based on the info provided.

I'm still uncertain what your win percentage (PCH) means e.g., the first line ... 4 days off (??) has 28.6.

What does that 28.6 mean? Do they win 28.6% of the time?

Now a couple of other questions, what's the purpose of focusing on 2yo and 3yo before May?

Why not look at days off for all horses in general?

[Dave Schwartz]

What does that 28.6 mean? Do they win 28.6% of the time?

Yes. Pct=win percentage. Divide wins/starts.


Now a couple of other questions, what's the purpose of focusing on 2yo and 3yo before May?

Someone asked for 2yr olds. I gave them this.

Why not look at days off for all horses in general?

I did that first. Go back a page or two.

These were pages from my book package, Percentages & Probabilities .

The first ones are actual pages in the book and the "Young Horses" page was from the supporting pages for the 25 systems included in the book. The systems are like Claiming Sprints, Claiming Routes, Claiming Sprints, N2L, Graded Sprints, etc.

There are over 1,300 additional pages of tables such as those, as well as the same data in CSV format and PDF.

It is a lot of material for $47.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Which elimination rule would you be talking about? The one that begins with let's eliminate the horses that win more often?

Or are you saying to eliminate horses that have NOT been laid off?

Of course, it is preferred to go with horses that win more often in any category. And I am not saying eliminate horses that have not been laid off.

As you pointed out in a previous reply, your research found that there are no happy paths where something is an automatic profit. Even 1/5 favorites can turn into a bridge jumper scenario.

The bottom line is one has to compare horses in different losing buckets. Most horses will be in one losing bucket-- be it a speed bucket, pace bucket, class bucket, DSLR bucket, etc. What makes DSLR so attractive is the there are more easier ways to figure out if a horse might win today than in most of the other losing buckets. What would be easier for you to second guess-- a good horse coming back from a layoff, or a horse not showing competitive speed turning around?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I suspect you have to be trainer, class, surface, and distance specific to have much of a chance of finding anything VERY useful when it comes to days since last race.

Also, given that so many trainers are skilled at bringing horses back off a layoff now, I suspect that second off a layoff isn't much of an angle anymore either because many more horses come back close to their best.

If you have a horse coming off a layoff that is fast enough to win, has a trainer who isn't awful with layoff horses (bonus points for 20% winners and up) or who has won off a layoff before (the horse, that is), that horse has a better chance of winning than the average horse. Prices are going to be all over the map, but with certain trainers, you can make money just on these fresh horses, and I'd much rather play them over those that are not.