Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven
I know that the original poster quoted above was trying to make a point about contender identification based on performance in relative race conditions last out.
But the question posed is too simplistic (IMO) to be answered as is, and I would never advise people trying to understand or implement the Methodology to base a bet solely upon class (based upon entry conditions) of the last race. How a horse ran its last race is a function of the match up of contenders, energy disbursements and running styles in that last race. As it is in today's race.
It depends on what the other horses are likely to do in today's race (i.e. other than the 4 horses cited - no one should make a bet on a 4 horse race ...). Neither should one rate a horse based solely upon what it did in its last race. Last race performance is an indicator (one indicator) of current fitness - but if it's the worst performance of the past 3 or shows declining Total Energy, and hard fought all the way - will that horse improve or decline today, regardless of the 'class' designation of the last race?
And 4 horses who need the lead (no indication of who might be 'speed of the speed') - of course we then want to know who will NOT be on the lead.
And - you should never bet independent of the odds. The crowd may favour that Claiming $10000 open winner moving up today (an obvious last race stat) - but you won't last long betting with the crowd.
That's why, although I personally want to observe class rises (as designated by the man-made class structure) and I would make use of it to break ties at some point along the decision making process, it is not the first (or third) factor I want to consider.
Rather, I want to primarily consider current fitness markers (last race performance - in some segment, recency, workouts since, progression in the last 3 races or so, last 90 days or so), then how the energy based figs (Total Energy, BL/BL, VDC, E/L) stack up using the best of last 3 comparable pacelines. THEN, see if I have a significant enough divergence with the crowd opinion, in any betting pool - otherwise PASS the race.
That's my answer. But - we know all the above, don't we? Or is there some disagreement?
Ted
|
I’m not sure that the original poster was making the point of contender identification based solely on a horse’s last race or not. Perhaps it was based on each horse’s body of work (all races in the PP’s).
Regardless of which scenario applies, how good could certain horses bodies of work be when one horse just beat NW2L, another horse just beat NW16M or another horse just beat NW1Y, when you compare them to a horse that just beat an “OPEN” race? In either event, it seemed clear to me that each horse won its’ last race at the condition stated, in times that were comparable and the poster was just making the observation that the horse that beat “open” company was the best horse…regardless of odds, which obviously had nothing to do with his question. His question was simply intended to illustrate the difference in $10,000 claiming horses, an issue that was raised by another member in a prior post.
My opinion on the subject is this;
A horse that just beat “open” $10,000 claimers may have beat a field of horses that had 15 to 20 wins each, with the winner itself being among that group.
There is no way a horse that just beat $10,000 NW2L can be compared to a horse that just beat “open” $10,000. The horse that beat NW2L beat a field of horses, that like the winner, had never beat anything other than maidens.
A horse that just beat $10,000 NW16M just beat exactly what the condition says, horses that have not been able to win a race in the last six months. By way of comparison, the horse that just beat an “open” $10,000 claiming race vs. a field where the horses in that race were 15 to 20 race winners, have been running against and beating fields of like horses over and over again during the same 6 months period. Again, there is no comparison here.
A horse that just beat $10,000 NW1Y is in the same position as the above horse with the exception that this horse’s win was against even lesser horses than the horse above, since this field hasn’t been able to win a race in a year. By way of comparison, how many fields were beat by the “open” $10,000 claimer and/or the horses it beat during that same time period? Again, there is no comparison here.
To ignore these facts and say that the $10,000 NW2L winner is equal to the “open” $10,000 claiming winner because they each ran an identical time, is to say that a $5,000 claiming NW2L winner is equal to SECRETARIAT if they both ran identical times.
I think “Doc”, himself, took this approach when handicapping the Kentucky Derby. If I remember correctly, he suggested dismissing horses that have not been able to demonstrate they were capable of at least a Grade II win. This may not be exactly correct, but it is very close.
The point to the above is, does this kind of thinking ONLY APPLY to the Kentucky Derby??
Was “Doc” not aware of this concept of eliminating horses when they are in a race that is clearly above the class at which the horse can perform to its’ capability?
From the outset, “Doc” made APV a part of his methodology. (please, I am aware of the effect that "racinos" have on this calculation)
And it remains a part of the Sartin Methodology, although many people may not pay much attention to it beyond a glance at the numbers.
Clearly, “Doc” was aware of “class”.