Tampa Bay Downs - 3/31/17 - Live Thread

[Jeebs]

Yesterday was time well spent creating a track profile and (attempting) to create a usable model based on the TAM races that I've handicapped. My pet project for the month of April is to follow Tampa Bay Downs through the end of their meet. Rather than focus on a garden variety of tracks, I'm narrowing the scope to a single meet using the factors that seem to point to the likely winners as my guide. Since Tampa has been going since after Thanksgiving, the horses/form are well established so there shouldn't be too much "mystery" happening.

So let's get on with it!

[Bill V.]

Looking forward to seeing you have a successful month,
I think you are making a very wise decision

Bill

[Jeebs]

7 Furlongs - Clm5000 N1-6M for 4 and up.

There was no reliable fulcrum here. Top "CR" runners are 3-1-7.

Lines:
#1 - Line 1/P/166.9 - No need to backtrack.
#2 - No Line. Problem horse #1. Recent races in form cycle and beyond are routes. Previous visible sprints are not reliable or good enough to rate.
#3 - No Line. Problem horse #2. 1st off a 9-week layoff where it didn't run a lick. The rest of its older races are primarily routes.
#4 - Line 1/EP/166.7 - Competitive plus/zero last out with a better TPR than L2 which was a + line.
#5 - No Line. Problem horse #3. Simply too slow. Perennial tandem loser.
#6 - No Line. Problem horse #4. Again, a horse who is a perennial tandem loser and is always just a tad slower than the better horses.
#7 - No Line. Problem horse #5. All route and/or turf form.

Basically leaves us with 1-4 in that order. #1 is currently 1/5 on the toteboard. Given that and the many "problems" populating this race, grab some lunch, sit back and enjoy what amounts to be a good ole fashioned cheap claimer slobberknocker.

[Jeebs]

At first glance, this is another bad barnburner. I'll post a link that gives this race some background as the majority of the runners here were the subject of this discussion:

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...9&postcount=39

Before I go into "the process", here is the Tandem screen. This will give us a good idea of what we are dealing with in terms of quality:



There is no fulcrum here. In fact, this race doesn't deserve one, lol.

FWIW, the "CR" runners are 4-1-6.

Lines:
#1 - Line 1/S/155.6. + line off the layoff.
#2 - No Line. No recent + or plus/zeroes. Even if you excuse the non-comparable line last out, this one doesn't appear a factor.
#3 - Line 1/P/155.4. Borderline plus/zero. No other lines to consider.
#4 - Line 1/P/155.5. + line last out. First off a 5-week layoff.
#5 - No Line. Last line non-comparable (sprint), L2 looks like a probable equipment problem/bad actor. Never in touch early anyway.
#6 - Line 1/P/156.1. No need to go beyond the last line.
#7 - Line 2/EP/156.1. Drops from the $12.5 n2L level where it was unfortunate to run into a runaway winner in Sofia Maria R. (who runs later today up in class off the big win). It's L2 was the MCL win for $8k. FTL guideline suggests that an $8k maiden winner is competitive at half that level in open company. The horse tried - and failed - the $12.5k test. $8k may be much easier and judging by this field, the "new face" concept may very well be in play.

After hiding both 3-4 on Energy and assessing PMTR screen, here was my BL/BL:



If Fiery Ice wins today, I can say with near certainty that there is no hope for the rest of these runners.

[Jeebs]

$5 Win 1-7
$3 Ex 7-6
$2 Ex 7-1
$0.50 Tri Box 1-6-7

If #7 wins and our other tiers get under, it will be a nice payday. Good luck.

[Jeebs]

Obviously not the outcome I was hoping for. Pretty sure that this particular tandem race (which will likely assemble at least 2-3 more times before closing day) will be on my "no bet" list from now on. As far as line selection was concerned, I stand by my decisions. These are clearly not champion horses.

As Dick Mitchell would often say, "pity"... onward.

[Jeebs]

Last one for awhile, as we have the obligatory Maiden slobberknockers lined up next on the menu.

This 7F race is for Clm5000 n1-6m 4+ Fillies and Mares.

We set the fulcrum to #7 (23.4/47.2) - TPR 85.5.

Lines:
#1 - No Line. 1/12 going short and no recent + lines.
#2 - No Line. 3/29 going short and no recent + lines.
#3 - Line 3/P/164.9. L1 is a plus/zero, L2 is non-comparable (route). L3 it is. Good efforts running against the fulcrum pace.
#4 - No Line. Recent routes and 2/23 going short with no + sprint form.
#5 - No Line. Off form.
#6 - Line 1/P/163.9. Plus/zero last out and competitive vs. fulcrum pace.
#7 - Line 1/SP/164.3. Recent + form although the career box going short gives some cause to pause.
#8 - No Line. No form.

#7 is our top TPR by 3 pts over #6 (168.2 over 165.4).

BL/BL tiers the horses as 7-3-6.

Pressing a prime Win bet on #7 and some small exactas 3-6 over #7 to save.

Good luck.

[Jeebs]

#7 had every chance and hung. I couldn't get past that #5's "0" outing last out (in a tandem nonetheless) and treated it as if it were off form. Even in defeat, it was the right move. Just fell short.

Back for Race 6.

[Lt1]

Hey Tim when using a mdn line to rate a horse check the tt. I've found that mdn winners who are not in the top 2 tt ranking are usually losers because as Doc use to point out mdns tend to loaf on the turn of their mdn races. Also if you adhere to Dick Mathies' csr rankings it ranked 7th. Also it looks like those energy totals for the 1,3 &4 are so close I don't believe I would have tossed any of them on that factor. A track model would also help here. It would show based on your capping if a 5ep 1 lp was winning at the dist. You would also have the winning %med range. For example my model for the dist. favors top 3 ep horses with a %med between %68 and 69.5%. I am not so ridged when looking at the range usually allowing about.05 either way but noting that I did it.
Tim G

[Jeebs]

Originally Posted by Lt1

Hey Tim when using a mdn line to rate a horse check the tt. I've found that mdn winners who are not in the top 2 tt ranking are usually losers because as Doc use to point out mdns tend to loaf on the turn of their mdn races. Also if you adhere to Dick Mathies' csr rankings it ranked 7th. Also it looks like those energy totals for the 1,3 &4 are so close I don't believe I would have tossed any of them on that factor. A track model would also help here. It would show based on your capping if a 5ep 1 lp was winning at the dist. You would also have the winning %med range. For example my model for the dist. favors top 3 ep horses with a %med between %68 and 69.5%. I am not so ridged when looking at the range usually allowing about.05 either way but noting that I did it.
Tim G

Hi Tim,

I do have a model, albeit a very small sample size (based on races I have handicapped at TAM since 3/15). This was my route model:



#7 fit the %Med profile (68.0) which in Energy Run Style (ERS in my model) is SP. None of the others in the race had an SP. #4's last line was 69.8, which is an E run style based on energy distribution as well as a +10.8 early balance stick on TPR. That said, 6 routes in a model aren't nearly enough to form a thorough judgment, but this race was against the grain based on my previous handicapping.

I intend on starting a complete 20-race cycle tomorrow to get an idea of what leaks need to be plugged. This will allow me to get more races into the model while at the same time, improve upon finding (and subsequently passing) problem races. For example, I posted the 1st race today, which SCREAMED of pass. I did not bet. Granted, the two runners that could be handicapped using our tools ran 1-2, but the odds on the Race 1 winner were way too out of whack considering the unknown dynamics of which are not ratable by the guidelines and programs of the Sartin Methodology. I need to do more of that and narrow the scope of the races I play.