Anatomy of a long shot

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Tom

The key to my interest was that he was not a proven loser at the class.
He only had a handful of races at the class and several positives in those races. Every race above $16knw2 was a throw out for me.

As a long time Finger Lakes player, this is a familiar pattern. We call it the "form horse."

I didn't see it that way since he had raced at the same 16000 N2L level three starts in a row and lost by a combined total of 66 lengths including his last two at the same distance by a combined total of 54 lengths. My feeling about big longshots that show very poor current form, they're rarely worth a bet unless they're dropping in class. A drop in class is a potent wake up angle. Without a drop in class, these are long term redline ROI bets. Of course, a key trainer change is also a potent longshot angle and that's the only angle this horse had. It was a pretty good angle in this case because the former trainer is so ice cold, 1 win in 46 starts and Donk showed 25% with horses making their first start in his barn.

The shoeing change alone can make a huge difference. I've interviewed many trainers, some of whom are known for re-shoeing horses. Just last year I interviewed a harness trainer who got a horse that had sort of a high stepping gait. Well, it turned out the horse had a bad foot. The trainer removed the horse's shoes and glued plastic shoes to his feet (no nails). Not only did the horse's gait return to a smoother, more natural gait, but the horse improved by two seconds and went on a tear, winning several races in a row while climbing in class.

[EMD4ME]

Horse's best races were at BIG A last DEC.

His best race was only 2 lengths slower than fav's top fig.

First Time Trainer

No pace in race.

Was 3rd off a layoff and both races off layoff involved fast paces.

Not a horse to throw out by any means. Not a single but a use.

[pandy]

But his best race was around two turns. His one turn races were horrible. This is a good lesson for Pick 4, 5 or 6 bettors, you should include longshots that are getting big trainer changes.

[pandy]

I copied something from the Pace Makes The Race (Schwartz) thread that Dick Schmidt wrote (below), which I thought was interesting.

4) Like all athletes, horse have form cycles. Again, this is where pace line selection and the Model become paramount. On the other hand, it is rare for a horse to show a dramatic improvement on a really bad race last out without a very clear excuse. I almost never saw a horse win that wasn't rated in the top five from the last pace line.

[jahura2]

Originally Posted by pandy

I copied something from the Pace Makes The Race (Schwartz) thread that Dick Schmidt wrote (below), which I thought was interesting.

4) Like all athletes, horse have form cycles. Again, this is where pace line selection and the Model become paramount. On the other hand, it is rare for a horse to show a dramatic improvement on a really bad race last out without a very clear excuse. I almost never saw a horse win that wasn't rated in the top five from the last pace line.

This entire thread is precisely why I come back to this forum EVERY day! Insightful and opposing views all from experienced players. No bragging or calling names just great useful opinions. Great discussion starter Tom.

[Tom]

Thanks, jahura...I heard the race on the radio, and after looking at the horse for so long, the stomach was churning as he came home at a price!

[delayjf]

My 2 cents.

3rd start off a layoff, some early speed last out

Curious - how did his last race pace figure compare with the field, and was it a pace top for the horse?

the rider who rode his to his only win is back on board today.

This would get my attention, along with the trainer change I would consider this a positive sign of intention.

he had the second best back speed figure in the field

When I started looking a longshots back in the day, one common attribute I found was that often they had figures in their PPs, even if it was some time ago that would make the horse competitive with the field.

With regards to the drop in class / bad performance. There is an old Taulbot angle where the trainer drops in class but does not send his horse, knowing that the drop in class will usually draw betting action. If he waits until the next start to go for the win, the public will be off the horse due to his previous lack luster performance at the same class level.

I heard the race on the radio, and after looking at the horse for so long, the stomach was churning as he came home at a price!

Tom - me too, I would have been sick.

[pandy]

His last race pace figure was not a new top and was just fair compared to the rest of the field.

[Stillriledup]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ighlight=Paper

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by pandy

I didn't see it that way since he had raced at the same 16000 N2L level three starts in a row and lost by a combined total of 66 lengths including his last two at the same distance by a combined total of 54 lengths. My feeling about big longshots that show very poor current form, they're rarely worth a bet unless they're dropping in class. A drop in class is a potent wake up angle. Without a drop in class, these are long term redline ROI bets. Of course, a key trainer change is also a potent longshot angle and that's the only angle this horse had. It was a pretty good angle in this case because the former trainer is so ice cold, 1 win in 46 starts and Donk showed 25% with horses making their first start in his barn.

The shoeing change alone can make a huge difference. I've interviewed many trainers, some of whom are known for re-shoeing horses. Just last year I interviewed a harness trainer who got a horse that had sort of a high stepping gait. Well, it turned out the horse had a bad foot. The trainer removed the horse's shoes and glued plastic shoes to his feet (no nails). Not only did the horse's gait return to a smoother, more natural gait, but the horse improved by two seconds and went on a tear, winning several races in a row while climbing in class.

Hi Pandy,

Although my knowledge of the effect of equipment changes on horses is minimal, it seems to me you're on to something in thinking that that factor might best explan this win - for this reason. Shoe changes, and especially shoes changes at Aqueduct, were a major factor used by Ernie Dahlman in his play at that track. I understand these changes are now listed in the DFR but at one time they were not, and Dahmer stationed a guy at the track whose sole job was to call him with detailed description of the horses' footwear. Easy to do when you're betting 15k exactas. He never discussed this is any detail, but mentioned that the track surface could present serious problems for many horses, especially during the fall and winter seasons, and knowing how various horses responded to the footwear choices of various trainers, gave him a big edge over the crowd. And what you say about possible foot injuries, is an example that can be generalized to all tracks.

I've seen Ernie's posts on this site a few times - would be interesting if he would comment on this subject. I believe he's in his mid-'70s now, so maybe less active or retired from the game. Truly a legendary handicapper.

Cheers,

lansdale

[thaskalos]

IMO...post-race "reevaluating" is a must, but post-race "handicapping" is not a good idea if the player is already accomplished in the craft of handicapping. It is a dangerous practice to review the past performances of these improbable longshot winners looking for "clues"...because virtually ALL of them will reveal some sort of "angle", which the player might mistake for a "wake-up" factor, after the fact. If it isn't a "new trainer", then it might be a "new jockey"...or a "change in distance"...or a "work two days before the race"..."improving speed figures"...a "new pace top"...ran in a "tandem race"...was at a "new low"...etc. There are many, many angles out there, and almost all of them have been discredited from a handicapping value point of view...but we still have them stored in our mind...and we bring them out in cases like these...while telling ourselves that this "post-race handicapping" practice is "helping us to better understand the game". IMO...it does nothing but confuse us, and make us doubt the methods that we are already employing.

When you are handicapping a race whose winner you already know, you are (perhaps unconsciously) fixated on the winner...and you ignore the fact that all the losers in the race have their share of these "wake-up" factors too.

"KNOW THYSELVES", a very wise Greek declared thousands of years ago...and it's a message that the horseplayer should take to heart. As handicappers, we are preoccupied with the task of evaluating the ability of the horses that we analyze...but the more important task is to truthfully evaluate our own ability as players. Are we still searching to find ourselves in this game...or are we "accomplished players"...who have mastered the "fundamentals", and are seeking to further hone their craft by honest work based on independent research?

The "accomplished player", whose game has been crafted by the thorough analysis of thousands of races, realizes that he cannot be expected to "understand" every race outcome that he sees. This is a very complicated game...and the improbable will occur...at times with alarming regularity. IMO...the right thing to do in these cases is to shrug our shoulders and move on to the next race.

We've seen everything...and we'll see it again. This game will forever confound us...and there is nothing that we can do about it. Just because we lost a bet does not necessarily mean that we made a mistake in the race.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Overlay

I don't have access to the past performances (so I can't say for sure), but from the elements already discussed, it sounds as if a multi-factor, full-field fair-odds line (such as the type that I develop) might have rated the horse as an overlay at those odds (even if not necessarily the one most probable winner of the race), and thus have been more likely to keep him on a bettor's radar, as opposed to a figure-based or elimination-based method of narrowing the field down to a single selection.

Having now looked at the past performances (thanks to Tom ), the main things that Lyrical Miracle had going for him (according to the way that I handicap) were his early speed and his jockey, who had won with him in the past. Also, none of the other horses had shown markedly better recent form (according to the criteria by which I judge form and recency) than Lyrical Miracle had. I had him fourth-best in the field at fair odds of 24-1, compared to the 34-1 he went off at, making him one of four overlays in the field. The only other horse that I rated as an overlay that went off at lower actual odds than Lyrical Miracle was Sugar Gold (fair odds of 3-1 and went off at 8-1), and they finished 1-2.

As I indicated in my original post, Lyrical Miracle may not have been the most likely winner, but I would have been hesitant to discard him out-of-hand from a handicapping or betting standpoint. Also, please absolve me of redboarding. As I said previously, I didn't handicap or bet the race in real time, and the stated purpose of this thread was to discuss how Lyrical Miracle could have won (not to mention that the procedure that I use to arrive at my fair odds has been available for years).

[JimG]

Tom,

I think Oracle said it well. Given the horses odds, if you found him to be a win contender, then at least a small play would be warranted. Horses at those odds rarely have everything going for them or the MOTOS would make him a favorite.

Jim

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Tom

Thanks, jahura...I heard the race on the radio, and after looking at the horse for so long, the stomach was churning as he came home at a price!

That's too bad you heard the race on the radio because I was going to ask how this horse looked in the paddock and warming up etc. These types of races at this level are difficult to re-evaluate based on pp's (see Pandy's post) since as you know horses do improve or regress over a time period and probably is just unexplainable unless you are fortunate to be around the horse 24/7.

Do you think the connections made a score because this would have been the time?

I recall recently a HOF trainer who was 0 for the year (may have been last year) won with a 99 - 1 or so and afterwards stated he didn't bet the race.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi Pandy,

Although my knowledge of the effect of equipment changes on horses is minimal, it seems to me you're on to something in thinking that that factor might best explan this win - for this reason. Shoe changes, and especially shoes changes at Aqueduct, were a major factor used by Ernie Dahlman in his play at that track. I understand these changes are now listed in the DFR but at one time they were not, and Dahmer stationed a guy at the track whose sole job was to call him with detailed description of the horses' footwear. Easy to do when you're betting 15k exactas. He never discussed this is any detail, but mentioned that the track surface could present serious problems for many horses, especially during the fall and winter seasons, and knowing how various horses responded to the footwear choices of various trainers, gave him a big edge over the crowd. And what you say about possible foot injuries, is an example that can be generalized to all tracks.

I've seen Ernie's posts on this site a few times - would be interesting if he would comment on this subject. I believe he's in his mid-'70s now, so maybe less active or retired from the game. Truly a legendary handicapper.

Cheers,

lansdale

As I recall from the stories I've read, the shoe info wasn't readily available but was posted at certain tracks and he only used it for certain type of track conditions e.g., sloppy etc.