PRX 09/24 Race 3 - Selecting KEY

[Ted Craven]

Can anyone make a sound case for choosing the #5 as the KEY horse rather than the #6. The #6 sure looks like it ticks all the boxes, and PPs look better. I note the #5 is also the NP Swing horse.

I have no problem making a KEY Exacta wager: 6 w 5-4-1-2 = $8. However, it needed to be rather 5 w 6-4-1-2.

Some consistent reasoning (alternate to my own) is welcomed. Or -- sometimes it just doesn't work out!?

[shoeless]

Hi Ted

I am just wondering if you put in the 2nd line back for the 6 how
would it come out

Jeff

[Ted Craven]

Well, because the 2nd line is so much lower Perceptor (and hence BLBL, VDC, etc) - it looks worse on most metrics, except of course the non-line dependent ones.

I do note also, from all the images I posted, that in a highly pressured race (Pace Bias = 18) the better horse who is NOT an Early horse yet can still pass horses and who is still Top 2 TPR and Top 2 LPR and #1 ranked NewPace Late is ... the #5.

That analysis probably answers my own question

Re alternate paceline selections - to be clear - the proposal in Leverage/Pace is NOT that one should only and blindly accept the automatic line of the BTL/C paceline strategy. Use your own judgment if you choose. HOWEVER - the assertion is that all the stats and all the new (and existing) factors which have statistical hit rates presented were developed with no line changes and default adjustment settings. In other words - EVERYBODY should be able to get at least the same collection of factor ranks to make decisions from. The method is NOT dependent on the oft-criticized aspect of Sartin Methodology that 'if only you chose a different line ...'. I have often said in the development of this work that folks should be able to prove the utility of this method by gathering their own stats, and to do that, need to challenge themselves to first use the default method - then get creative if they can prove they have better insights.

The reason why this new L/P method is still not a 'black box' is that (so far ) the software is not making the more nuanced decisions of (for example) which Key horse to choose. The full array of decision processes needs to be applied, as discussed in the Documentation set.

In this race case - the pace-related bias of who to favour between 2 close horses (#6 and #5) seems now like it could have tipped the decision scales. As always - we want that decision process to be consistent, consistent, consistent. The beauty of the L/P method, the Key Horse concept and vertical wager key bets is (often, not always) that you can get the Key Horse choice wrong but get the bet right if the Key Horse finishes 1st or 2nd and you also get the Companion horses right, using the guidelines provided.

Welcome to the L/P Study Group Jeff - your queries and critiques are welcomed!

Ted

[shoeless]

Thanks Ted for allowing me to join in and I can see your point about the collection of data.I
am glad you clarified it and hope I can be of some help

Jeff

[kahunab]

Ted,
This is a great study race. I can see myself choosing the 6 as the Key. But this race points out the need to remember our big idea. "The Key horse is the horse within parameters who fits the Pace scenario the best." If we look at New Pace. Notice the 2 horse is the number one New Pace Early horse. The 6 is actually the number 3 Early behind the 1. (I am looking at the ES% column. Which also tells us that none of them can get the lead.) Both the 2 and the 6 are rated 67 on the high end of their graph. That says to me that the 2 can run as fast as the 6. It also tells me they will duel early. We also have the 1 horse designated Early but coming from a route and he will run later in a sprint. The 5 will press and be in position to overcome the duel. Here is the result chart from Equibase.


We can see here how the program predicted the Early 2, 6 duel. The 6 got to the top of the stretch then was challenged by the Presser, 5, who pressed as we would expect and the router, 1 did run later as we thought he would in a sprint and caught the 6 by a nose. The 5 really does fit the pace scenario better. And we can see it without changing lines.

We do have to keep from getting number blind and focus on all of the candidates and who best fits. I say that as much to me as to anyone else.

Dick

[Lt1]

Hi guys. For what it is worth I capped this race[using an older RDSS version] both the 5 & 6 were RMATH key horses. On the NP tab the 6 was#1 early and the 5 was the #1 late.
Tim

[Bill Lyster]

Reasons to downgrade the 6 as the KEY:


Well, my model for PRX races says that horses with 90+ day layoffs only win about 1.5-1.75% of the time. This horse's last race was 83 days ago which is getting near the cutoff point.

Using line 1 from 83 days ago is using a 5.5 furlong race.

The work outs since raced do not demand attention, looking pretty much maintanence level.

No indication that the horse ever faired well after a LO of this number of days;

Only win in sight was a wire job at this claiming level, but slightly higher race class;

Personally, I shy away from best of last 10 as they rarely get repeated and after 83 days!!??

The predominant LPR for this horse is mid to upper 70s and the 82 ASR was accomplished on a -31 variant. If all the horses were rated off high negative variants I might use the horse, but I like my fields to come from races where the spread of variants is much closer.