Last Race Importance
 

Hi Guys...

I'm tired of seeing just Tim's philosophy tidbits here every time I log on..:mad:

So I'm throwing a handicapping question at you..

Sunday's 1ST Race at PHILLY had a 2/5 shot ,#1, in a 6 horse field after the 1a scratched...
I capped the race and came up with the 1 & 2 as contenders...any software program would have had the 1 as a top figure horse using line 2 and/or 3...but look at his last line...no excuse and and he was totally non existent in the race.
Horse #2 had, as I saw it , 2 even races vs good fractions and he was at 3-1.
Yes the 2 was the value horse( I bet him :rolleyes:) but how important is the last race in handicapping?

Any opinions on what you would do even if the odds were the same.

mike

Hi Mike
I want to let you know I read your post
I can't get too much into my thoughts now but I will
Later as soon a I can
I bet the 6 and 2. Bet the. 1 to place. when the odds dropped
I can't see what line I used for each horse from here
But I. Have been using only plus lines
And plus within a's line andusing the one the program likes best
If close I go with similar track/distance
Later
Bill

Pizzolla always stated that the last line has to be considered, BUT considered, not specifically used as a line to consider the animal. A trend in what you look for not a moment in time as it is fraught with error error error.

Thxs Bill...come on in when u have the time

I know a few people that would look at the last line and determine if the horse should at all be considered.

I know with software you would pick that "plus" line but should we after a poor last race with no excuses???

Does any body have stats that shows the # of winners after a poor race( a poor race is no speed , no moves , just lagging behind and losing lengths)

mike

Since each race is exclusive unto itself, it is not the smartest thing to generalize on the illusion prompted by databases. Since no two race groups were effected the same way, the race make up was not the same.......conclusions draw are full of error.

Mike, when I started using The Sheets I was taught a horse generally runs its best effort about once every five races.

I was encouraged to bet on horses with horrible looking last races if they fit a favorable form pattern. The betting public is hung up on the last race and you can usually get a nice price if your horse's last race looks awful.

Using your example, if that super chalk horse had run that Third-Race-Back six weeks ago, and was a longshot today, it would fit the TRB pattern and be worth a bet if that third race back were competetive.

Here's something I posted eons ago:

One of my favorite Sheet plays is the "TRB," third race back angle.

Here's how it works. You look for a horse that ran well in his third race back, then ran poorly in his next race, then ran even worse in last race.

This can be a strong indicator of an explosive effort today *IF* [and this is a major *IF*] the third race back was run six weeks ago. It's even more powerful if that third race back was a career peak performance for a three year old.

These horses generally look terrible on paper. So, sometimes you can get lucrative odds on a horse that is ready to run the race of its life!

Poorly is a matter of opinion, as it cannot be based upon beaten lengths as this one won the race entered at 5/1 from these past performances.

Think of terms of this whenever you start READING in meaning to things. Occam's razor or Ockham's razor, attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better

Hi Mike,

1 - My opinion? If all I have to look at are these two horses, PASS THE RACE! My personal idea of "value" is not 3-1 on a horse that loves to run 2nd and there is no way I would be betting ANY 2/5 shot.
2 - Does any body have stats that shows the # of winners after a poor race( a poor race is no speed , no moves , just lagging behind and losing lengths) Do you mean like the #2 horse that won the race? As well as the 1?:) And, sure, I could give you "stats" on that, but they would be meaningless. (see below)
3 - It's easy to see the reason for the public making the 1 horse 2/5. They are always suckers for some horse dropping down out of the sky.
4 - but look at his last line...no excuse and and he was totally non existent in the race. Here's how I see the last race. The horse ran 1/2 mile and packed it in. Even in that 1/2 mile, the horse did not run the type of race that might be considered normal as you compare it to prior route races in its' PP's. You could make the agrument that this was as a result of the horses being in a Optional Claiming Race ($14k) for NW2X rather than the NW1Y and/or NW2Y that is has been running against recently. But, that argument falls apart when you see that the horse was able to beat Optional Claimers (20k) for NW3X in December. The horse got about 3 months off after that win and hasn't been able to beat lesser horses since. When you couple all of this with the fact that the horse is now being dropped down to a $5,000 claiming race (no matter the condition) this really sends up a red flare as far as I am concerned. Nevertheless, I don't care if your are betting ON this horse or AGAINST this horse, you are doing either at your own peril. It just seems much easier to find another race.
5 - but how important is the last race in handicapping? With all the variables that exist in horse racing, I think it is difficult to give a "simplified" answer. If your family doctor has 5 blood tests results for you over a period of time, which one would be most important to him? I'm not a doctor, but I would think, THE LAST ONE! It shows your most current condition. Although this is probably an unfair comparison, I think it makes the point. The last race is the most current piece of information about the horse. If the last race is a good race, at least you know the horse was in good enough condition to beat the field he was against that day. If the last race is a bad race, you have to make a determination as to "why" the horse ran bad. Sometimes there are "reasonable" excuses for a bad race and sometimes there isn't. Like I said, there is no "simplified" answer. In my opinion, the last race is the most important race, followed by 2 back, 3 back and so on. If you follow the horses PP's from the bottom up, you learn a lot about where the horse is today. It's the horses' history. It's the story about the horses racing career leading up to today. The story tells you "why" and "how" the horse ended up in today's race. And although there is more to handicapping than one race, the last race has to be the most important, be it for one reason or another.

It all depends on how the database was constructed and the information it contains. It seems the horse racing world has been saturated with handicapping software that leads most to believe that "everything has been invented that can be invented".

Mike,

You have to follow a consistent method (first an analysis method, next a wager decision method) through thickets, beating some favourites, being beaten by other favourites. In this race, the #1 looked bad last race but finished 2nd, so that 'bad' looking race, in this, case was not evidence the horse could not compete. But I'm sure we could find plenty of other recent examples of horses that looked 'good' last race but who had reached their peak, and thus performed worse today.

If you have a demonstrably successful form cycle analysis as part of your tools, maybe you can zig and zag at the right times (i.e. notice when 2nd call energy is tailing off, horse is running positionally further back against successively slower paces) in terms of when a 'worse than previous' last line indicates a decline in 'current' fitness. But sometimes, it is just plain hard to judge fit versus not-fit from visual appearance.

Hence Sartin's exhortation to consider being more liberal in pace line selection (aka best of last 3, etc).

For me, after identifying contenders, the decision often revolves around what to do with the favourite. Favourites have a bulls-eye on their flank which flashes: 'I lose 63% - 67% of the time - consider betting against me!' Thus intrigued, I start to look for strength or weakness in that favourite (usually the top rated horse in many of my readouts): is it significantly better than the next horse (say, using your most impactful, or favourite, screens for today's surface and distance - for example, 2 BL points better than the next), is its dominance demonstrated by multiple lines, has it prepped well for today's race, etc. If its top figure status is modest (say, within 1 BL point of next, or, co-equal ranked V/DC, or half a Total Energy point different, or pretty close to the 2nd horse on TS+F3 for Spec and RDSS), I'm happy to bet against this horse if I can get about 5/2 net minimum on my other bets. If the favourite beats me, I'm also (learning to be) happy because my own records (and public stats) show me the favourite will fail soon enough,and I want to be there when it next does. If the favourite has superior numbers, gapped over the competition, I have to choose between holding my nose and still betting against it, according it the win position and seeking value in the Place or Exacta pools if a good Top 3 horse (preferably with some opposite-to-win-energy patterns) is let go at generous odds, or else pass. This last bit is still difficult for me to address consistently, and I have recently made all 3 of these responses when confronted with a good looking favourite (including being paid boxcars to bet against, missing out on boxcars when passing, and being beaten badly one day at Saratoga when chalk was overwhelming...)

I know the foregoing was not strictly related to the theme here of what to do about the last race, but it seemed somewhat relevant to the example race given.

Out of curiosity (using RDSS), 3 different paceline selection sets all point to about the same wager decision info (i.e. ignore the favourite #1 because in addition to no value, there are arguably/maybe/possibly some strikes against it or else it's not that much better than the next horses, and bet the #2 and #6 - OR PASS, depending on what net odds you need):

Last lines:

Attachment 17678

Best of last 3

Attachment 17679

Best of Last 3 (different lines)

Attachment 17680


For the record, I think I would likely have either passed, or only bet this race with 60% of my win unit on the 3-1 #2 and 40% on the 5-1 #6, thus ensuring about 5/2 net from each, and I don't think there would be much value in an exacta box. Depends on how the odds were jumping around at 1 MTP.

Ted

thxs guys for your inputs...All of you had valid points !! and a lot of thinking too :eek:

I know I didn't put up the whole PP's , but none of the matcher here didn't ask "How will the race be run"
With the scratch of the 1a , which was the speed, there was no one but the 2 that could take the lead. Could the 1 catch him?? His only win in the last 2 years was on a off track...comparing routes the 1 likes slow times like 49+ 114+..the 2 could handle 47+ 111-112+ ...which made him a few lts in front

So at 3-1 I thought it was a steal :)

AD..that is some interesting stuff...TRB...with me, after seeing 2 bad races in a row..I wouldn't even consider going to the 3rd..have u hit any bombs with this recently?

mike

Mike,
from your quote "after seeing 2 bad races in a row..I wouldn't even consider going to the 3rd.."
Based on the above, you wouldn't considered this horse a contender going back to his third race back.

I haven't hit anything recently, but that's beside the point.

It's a great pattern, Mike.

Hi Pino..OK ..now tell me how much did this one pay ??

This horse is a completely different situation...hes off a layoff and entering a new cycle...also he just just claimed...hes shown he can run good/winning race off a layoff.

Within the same cycle if I see 2 bad races in a row ..I'd toss....your above horse showed speed in last and the 2nd back held ground running to half mile..

I wouldnt consider this horse in this topic as bad.

mike

paid $7.40 to place and was good for $60.80 ex

Whew..I thought u were going to say 40 bucks...

Did his 3rd race back put it in top tiers?

he would paid $16.60 to win
was in the top 4 contenders in my method, using line 3 or line 5.

Mike
 

I agree with you him showing lead faster fraction would have told me the#2 was better.And his last race was definitly test race plus the spd fig inproved.So he also most likely sharper