selecting contenders

[Dorianmode]

By the way, I was amazed that in the analysis above, (the "other school of thought"), it referenced neither speed nor pace of any kind, (except that ,of course, the fact that there is a look at the "lines" means there is some sort of analysis of the lines going on, but that is not explicity stated, so we don't know what exactly is being looked at, or why.

[For The Lead]

Let's go over this one more time.

QUOTE=Dorianmode;77780]"inlike this races class was very important?"

Yes. Not making a judgement, just (also) making an observation... An observation. Yes, I see.

"$30.000 purse and (see below), "ain't no" cheap race." "Better than a $2,500 claimer. There are a lot of races better than a $2,500 claimer, but "purse" isn't necessarily the determining factor when it comes to class. APV isn't as accurate today as it was when it was first developed."

Speaking of semantics :
a.) there is NO way I will ever agree that a race which has 40-50 K claiming hosses is a "cheap race". There isn't a 40-50 K claiming horse in this race. It is a "NW2L". Until these horses win some kind of race other than a maiden race, thereby establishing their value, they are just horses that broke their maidens with no established value. Consider a horse that runs in a Grade I race and runs last. Just because it was "in the race" doesn't make it a Grade I horse. Every horse has to establish its' true value by winning the races it is capable of winning.
b.) I did say "see below", and referenced their recent races, as PART of the "no cheap race" suggestion...didn't say purse value was THE only measure of value. Nah, nah, nah. You DID point to the purse of the race as the measure of "class" of the race, saying a race with a $30,000 purse "ain't no cheap race". On the other hand I pointed to the conditions. The "fact" that to be eligible for the race a horse may only have won a maiden claiming race or a state bred race is an indication that this group of horse are cheap. And referencing the classes of their recent races only makes it worse. Looking at the PP's, we find that one horse broke it's maiden in a $10k state bred race. That's worth about a $5K claiming race (or less), until the horse proves otherwise. Another horse broke its' maiden for $15k. That's worth about a $7.5k claiming race, until the horse proves otherwise. Two other horses broke their maidens in $30k maiden claiming races. That's worth about a $15K claiming race, until the horses prove otherwise. And as for the couple of horses that beat "state bred" maiden special weights, as I said, at any class level, state breds occupy the lowest level, so until they actually "beat something", there is no way to gauge their worth. This isn't what I consider to be a "classy" field of horses.
I rarely look at races at CT. Neither do I, but a quick look at the entries on line provided the information. And a look back ten years in my database provided the historical data.

"I read what you said, but I was just curious as to how many races you could have in a model for 3 year old fillies at this distance and surface at FG just one month into the year from which you could draw a conclusive opinion?"

Granted. I have only a few, but my Excel db spread sheet automatically computes my own algorhythm for a "model" for every race I look at , and evaluate. I filter and sort, (by a pivot sheet "macro") and they are there to look at, AND 5-5.5 F races are not going to change their enery profile that much just because the calendar moves forward a few weeks. I don't care how many races are in it, the choice came down to 2 horses, one more "early" than the other. I picked the winner. Sounds very....technical. So you look at a lot of races at FG? Or is your model based on any race you look at... at any track?

I see, semantics. Let me be clear then. When you said you chose the #8 because it ranked best on "EP" between the #8 and #4, you did you mean the second call, right? Which means the horse could have been 4th or 5th at the first call. Or did you mean the real early speed at the first call, that carried its' speed through the second call? If early speed is important at this distance, as you stated, I would think you meant an "early speed" horse that is 1st or close 2nd at the first call. So which one was "very important" or something "not to forget about" from your model?

Bla bla bla. See these two horses here I have to decide between ? Now look WAY over to the right, and then look under "EPR".
By "way over to the right", you meant just to the left of center? And you really didn't answer the question, did you? I asked about your model, not the work product from the race. The question is right above here.
[/QUOTE]

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Dorianmode

By the way, I was amazed that in the analysis above, (the "other school of thought"), it referenced neither speed nor pace of any kind, (except that ,of course, the fact that there is a look at the "lines" means there is some sort of analysis of the lines going on, but that is not explicity stated, so we don't know what exactly is being looked at, or why.

You really should pay more attention before going off half cocked.

In a prior post in the "crazy race" thread, a poster said the race got even MORE crazy when he learned the race was OFF the turf and two horses were scratched. My "other school of thought" was that the race was LESS crazy as a result of the changes and had nothing to do with the evaluation of the race itself. I hope that clears that up for you. You're a smart guy, so I'm sure you will better understand now.

I guess I have to agree with you. It IS amazing, isn't it? That with no reference to pace numbers, speed ratings or energy ratings of any kind, that the race could be reduced to three horses and on the basis of "wagercapping" you could get a $21.60 winner?

You give me too much credit. I only mentioned "lines" with regard to the #2 horse and that was to demonstrate the reason the #2 horse should be eliminated.
So, for the record, let me explicitly state that there was no analysis of lines. With that out of the way, now you can re-read my analysis and see everything I did. It was just some horse racing knowledge and common sense based on that knowledge.

If I wanted to do a full blown race analysis, I would have picked lines, run them through some software and posted screen shots, but it really wasn't necessary in this case. Some races are like that. I didn't pick the race, I just looked at it because the OP said it was a "crazy race". I wanted to look at it and see "why" it was crazy. With the race coming OFF the turf and with a couple of scratches, the race wasn't as "crazy" as the OP thought.

[Dorianmode]

"Every horse has to establish its' true value by winning the races it is capable of winning."

So, just to clarify..a 40 K claiming horse that comes in 2nd by a nose has not established it's value ? I always assumed that maybe, ultimately, the "class" of a horse had something also to do with money that changed hands, and THAT might be some, (economic) measure of it's value. A horse running in a 50 K claimer that is claimed, but didn't win, is not a classy horse. Alrighty then.

"Neither do I, but a quick look at the entries on line provided the information. And a look back ten years in my database provided the historical data."

Good for you. This demonstrated, once again, there is more than one way to come up with a good outcome.

"Sounds very....technical. So you look at a lot of races at FG? Or is your model based on any race you look at... at any track?"

You can do the sort any way you care to. I ususally do it by distance, then track.

See these two horses here I have to decide between ? Now look WAY over to the right, and then look under "EPR".
By "way over to the right", you meant just to the left of center?

No. I mean way over to the right. Right under RDSS's "ESP/RS". Scroll over.
I set my calculations for my track model to read out as a "difference" from a few statistical measures.

"that the race could be reduced to three horses and on the basis of "wagercapping" you could get a $21.60 winner?"

The thing is, sir, you didn't "Get a winner". You had 3 horses, and left it with "I'll let you pick". I assumed from that statement you would NOT pick the 6. But you have not provided any reason why it should NOT be one of your choice(s)...other than the final odds. The six could have won the race, (according to your analysis). Your assumption also that I would bet a horse, simply because its odds are higher, is not logical (to me). I want a reason to eliminate the 3rd horse. Am I to assume that you have records that tell you that in this situation, you make money in the long run, actually betting ANY one of your last 3, with odds greater than a certain number, in this specific situation ? If so, that's great.

[For The Lead]

Running out of colors here. lol

Originally Posted by Dorianmode

"Every horse has to establish its' true value by winning the races it is capable of winning."

So, just to clarify..a 40 K claiming horse that comes in 2nd by a nose has not established it's value ? THAT is correct, not if it hasn't beat a field of horses "other than" maidens. I always assumed that maybe, ultimately, the "class" of a horse had something also to do with money that changed hands, and THAT might be some, (economic) measure of it's value. A horse running in a 50 K claimer that is claimed, but didn't win, is not a classy horse. Perhaps your assumption is both correct and at the same time incorrect. The "value" in that case is whatever the person claiming the horse has determined as value, to him/her. On the race track it is a different story. Alrighty then. One of my favorite betting opportunities comes in Allowances races for NW1X, where the favorite is a horse that is "1 for a bunch" and keeps running second or third and is almost always the favorite. For whatever the reason, the horses connections cannot bring themselves to realize their horse may not be as good as they had hoped. In many of these races the ultimate winner is a claimer and not necessarily a high priced claimer, but a claimer that has demonstrated the ability over and over again to beat fields of horses. Many times these horses will have as many as 4,5,6 or even 10 wins to their credit, while the favorite is still looking for that elusive second win. So while these claimers that are beating up on this horse are establishing their value ON THE TRACK, the "1 for" still hasn't beat anything but maidens. Does the fact that this "1 for" that keeps running second and third in these Allowance races mean it is an Allowance horse? I think not! In many cases it couldn't even beat claiming horses.

"Neither do I, but a quick look at the entries on line provided the information. And a look back ten years in my database provided the historical data."

Good for you. This demonstrated, once again, there is more than one way to come up with a good outcome.

"Sounds very....technical. So you look at a lot of races at FG? Or is your model based on any race you look at... at any track?"

You can do the sort any way you care to. I ususally do it by distance, then track. Perhaps you should add age and sex to your sort, or do you think 2 year old fillies disburse their energy in the same way as a 4 year male? (just 1 example)

See these two horses here I have to decide between ? Now look WAY over to the right, and then look under "EPR".
By "way over to the right", you meant just to the left of center?

No. I mean way over to the right. Right under RDSS's "ESP/RS". Scroll over.So you really didn't mean "EPR", which is a ranking column that is just left of center. I see. So between the #8 and #9, the #8 was determined to be "EP" by the program whereas the #9 was determined to be "S". And you model this, it that right?
I set my calculations for my track model to read out as a "difference" from a few statistical measures.

"that the race could be reduced to three horses and on the basis of "wagercapping" you could get a $21.60 winner?"

The thing is, sir, you didn't "Get a winner". You had 3 horses, and left it with "I'll let you pick". I assumed from that statement you would NOT pick the 6. But you have not provided any reason why it should NOT be one of your choice(s)...other than the final odds. The six could have won the race, (according to your analysis). Your assumption also that I would bet a horse, simply because its odds are higher, is not logical (to me). I want a reason to eliminate the 3rd horse. Am I to assume that you have records that tell you that in this situation, you make money in the long run, actually betting ANY one of your last 3, with odds greater than a certain number, in this specific situation ? If so, that's great. Obviously, Sir, you are not a Sartin Methodology practitioner, otherwise you would know that everyone on this site who does follow the methodology, using wagercapping principles, given these three horses with their odds as they were, would bet the #7 and #8 and eliminate the favored #6 horse. At the end of my analysis I said, "I'll let you pick", because to all the followers of the methodology on this site, the choice would be a "no brainer"! Actually, it is not any "one" of the last three, but any "two" of the last 5, since the idea is to get the race down to 5 final contenders. And to your question as to whether or not I have records of profitability following this approach? The answer is NO. I know about the methodology, that doesn't mean I subscribe to it. I am a one horse win bettor.

[Dorianmode]

Thanks all. It does help to clarify my eclectic box of tools, for myself, being forced to defend the way I use them. (For all the private notes...don't worry, I won't be scared away again).

Anyhoo..... I don't have time in my handicapping to delve into class this deeply. As far as I'm concerned this was not a "cheap" race, although the arguments are "interesting". I could never set up a "search" function for this level of detail. But that's OK. Obviously some have much more time to evaluate class angles than I would care to invest, but such expertise is impressive.

Oooh, I like purple.
Perhaps you should add age and sex to your sort, or do you think 2 year old fillies disburse their energy in the same way as a 4 year male? (just 1 example).

Sex and age,as well as many other things, including size of field, pp, and "color of owner's third wife's grandbaby's eyes" are also in my model.

"Obviously, Sir, you are not a Sartin Methodology practitioner, otherwise you would know that everyone on this site who does follow the methodology, using wagercapping principles, given these three horses with their odds as they were, would bet the #7 and #8 and eliminate the favored #6 horse. .............Actually, it is not any "one" of the last three, but any "two" of the last 5, since the idea is to get the race down to 5 final contenders. And to your question as to whether or not I have records of profitability following this approach? The answer is NO. I know about the methodology, that doesn't mean I subscribe to it. I am a one horse win bettor."

So then... I see we're in the same boat. I suspect there are as many variations of the use of "the" methodology as there are users.The reason I posted this race HERE, was that we had been discussing elimination possibilities using NP. I am a two horse bettor, and I wouldn't bet on ANY horse, unless I had a REASON to, no matter the odds. Being left with three horses with no way to eliminate 1 of the 3, systematically, and rationally..(other than it's odds) doesn't work for me. Using your three, I could have bet on two non-winners. I was pointing out that my elimiation process also produced the winner, (as well as the exacta, in the top 3, and produced the trifecta, (if one were to bet a 4 horse box)).

Have fun at the races this weekend all. If I find a race I find interesting, will post it.

[shoeless]

In the Yellow Manual there are some good suggestions for contender selection
which to my surprise included recency and trainer intent.

[shoeless]

DM,

If you have time would you post doing another race preferably a sprint.

[Dorianmode]

Shoeless.

Sure. There were a number of relatively easy races today..

Turf Paradise #6 5 F. Very obvious. 1 and 8 scratched. 2 obvious toss out, (by NP, TE, RDSS).
Leaves 3,4,5,6,7.
4,5,7 not very good by TE, and ALL the #1 ranks in RDSS are in the 5, and 3.
Not a win bet as poor payoff, (race obvious to all).
5 won, 3 placed.

Sunland #5, 6 F... easy, obvious, and ok payoff...Eeliminated 3,4,6 by NP,
1 was top of RDSS. Choice came down to 5 or 2 for dutch. Look at 5's lines ! Was VERY surprised they let it go off, even at 5/2.

Sunland #6, 6 F...also fairly obvious. 2 scratched. 3,4,5,9 out by NP.
Leaves 1,2,6,7,8. 8 can't possibly win, (past perf and APV). 2 hasn't won anything since maiden win..out.
Leaves 1,6,7. 6 in dutch as it's "early", and my model says "early" in 6F 4 yo F (so far), for Sunland, also 1 in RDSS.
Choice is 1 or 7 ? 1 is also early, and big class dropper, (see APV).
Result, no bet..bad payoff. 6 won, 1 placed.

PRX today, 3,5,8,9 were easy. (The 7th race I lost, and I want to pass it by "For The Lead" to see if he would have seen something in the #3 I didn't).

These were too easy, and not fair. If you care to suggest one, I could try it ??

[shoeless]

DM,

If you could pick one of those races and show with RDSS screens it would
be much appreciated.