Last Race Importance

[mikesal57]

Hi Guys...

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

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 ) but how important is the last race in handicapping?

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

mike

[Bill V.]

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

[mikesal57]

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

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

T

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.

[alydar_ David]

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!

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

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.

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".

[Ted Craven]

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:



Best of last 3



Best of Last 3 (different lines)




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

[albatross]

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

[Tim Y]

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.

[Tim Y]

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.