Identifying "Pass" races

[Jeebs]

One of my key "leaks" in this game - and it's a weakness for most players - is playing too many races, specifically, races that in reality, are unplayable. Most of the time, races are unplayable or borderline playable because there are multiple unknown factors at play. Some of the unknowns are obvious (FTS, a horse changing distance/surface structure for the first time, et.al), while others are more subtle (aberrant track variant, a "DQ'd/Placed" line, et.al). These unknowns can be minefields when trying to select the correct lines which in turn, will set the table for today's match-up.

I'll give the example of what I believe to be a "pass" race riddled with unknowns in today's 2nd race at Parx. On the surface, it is a 6F sprint for older horses, running for a $7500 tag and which have never won 4 races. Once you dig in a little bit, you find a race that is very hard to have much trust or confidence in with serious money.

Here were my lines and my personal comments:

#1 - Line 4. Line 1 was an off-track "just miss" at Penn. In its 3 previous starts before the win, it had raced "out of condition", running in n4L while still eligible for n3L conditions. Line 4 was the best of its last 3 fast track lines (BLT/C for short) at a similar dist/surf structure. I deemed this runner as an unknown factor because it is wheeling back off a 4 day rest and we have no idea whether the last race (which is better on TE and Percept than our selected line) is indicative of today's probable efforts due to the fact that it was over an off-track.

#2 - Line 3. I did not consider Line 1 not only due to trip trouble, but because of the -56 track variant, a byproduct of what appears to have been a frozen strip. Line 2 was a toss due to the jock losing its irons. Line 3 was its BLT/C based on TE and Percept. I feel that this line accurately depicts this one's true ability under normal circumstances.

#3 - Line 3. The horse routed in Line 1 (a nose win) and has carried good form over its last several starts. Line 3 is the BLT/C and I have strong confidence in that choice of line.

#4 - Line 3. Its last 2 starts were dull routes. Line 3 was its best recent sprint line, although it is really a toss-up between Lines 3 and 5 as far as "best" is concerned. I considered this horse to be an unknown commodity because it has to run back to its Monmouth form from the spring/summer to be competitive in this race. Since it was claimed, it has not shown up going long (poor placement?) and drops to the lower tag for low% connections.

#5 - Line 4. Line 1 was a "just miss" runner-up at boxcar odds, but the -56 variant renders the line unusable, masking its true ability, which isn't much to write home about. Line 4 was clearly its BLT/C of the other lines. Unless the last start was a "great leap forward" this horse is a non-contender.

#6 - Line 1. You can make a case for Line 2, but Line 1 conforms more to its energy style.

#7 - Line 2. BLT/C. However, it shows no Parx form/lines in the RDSS box, therefore it is unknown if this one can carry its Laurel form into Parx.

#8 - Line 6. Considering that 9 out of 10 lines are routes, Line 6 is the default sprint line and it wasn't pretty. With limited sprint info, its route races render it as an unknown commodity.

#9 - Line 5. I didn't put much stock into Line 2 as a trouble line. Once you remove Lines 3 and 4, Line 1, 2 and 5 are the comparable lines, with Line 5 being the BLT/C. Straightforward line selection.

#10 - Line 1. BLT/C. However, it is coming back off a 190 day layoff. You can either treat the horse as if it ran yesterday (which some do), or view the long layoff with some skepticism (it was claimed for $7500 and was in the barn for nearly 6 months after the claim). It is the 2-1 ML favorite. Can it run back as if it ran yesterday? Perhaps. Is it worth gambling on that happening at short odds? Not particularly. The long layoff off the claim is an unknown factor worth noting.

By my count, I found SIX runners with "unknowns" in my analysis of the race. With that many "what ifs" or "can its" in the race, the race just appears too risky of a proposition to take seriously. In my own play, I will simply pass and find a better opportunity.

FWIW, here is my BL/BL for the lines selected.

45237

Are the standards that I applied too stringent? Or do you think that my take on this race is an accurate one?

[Jeebs]

To summarize the Unknown Factors:

#1 - Short rest plus off-track runner-up finish renders true form unknown.
#2 - No issues.
#3 - No issues.
#4 - Monmouth sprint form from summer might not carry over.
#5 - Runner-up finish on unusually fast surface renders true form unknown.
#6 - No issues.
#7 - Laurel form may or may not carry over to Parx.
#8 - One sprint line (Line 6) from last 10 races.
#9 - No issues.
#10 - 190 day layoff off the claim. Horse may or may not be who it was before.

[Jeebs]

#1 is scratched. I'll presume either 1) the horse was cross-entered between Parx and Penn or 2) Parx stewards didn't like the 4 day turnaround.

New BL/BL:
45238

[Lt1]

Hi Tim. I ended up with the same pace lines as you. Profit and prime have the same top 3 4-9-10 and when that is the case one of them wins 84% of the time. I found this an iffy race and I'm passing.
Tim

[Jeebs]

I can't complain. IMO, my gut about this being a "pass" race was correct. #10 looked the part IF it could run as if it was back yesterday. 7/2 odds was a little higher than expected, but the other tiers (2-4) were underlaid. 10-3-9-2 was the order at the end.

I hope that I added something of value here by posting this race and my thought process.

[Mitch44]

Didn't get to see this in time to comment. Trainer is 17% overall and 11% off 90+ days layoff and 17% claim repeater so he is competent and horse is at right class considering race etc. odds not bad as he towered over others in race. It really came down to what odds you would accept.
7/2 wasn't bad , 9-5 would make the decision easy.

Trust your instincts there's another race in 20 minutes or so.


Mitch44

[Lt1]

Nice work Tim. I,like you, don't mind a pass here. Out of the 4-9-10 I tossed the 9 due to having a large bal and weak w/o pattern. The 10 had a non Sartin angle going but given the layoff and weak workout pattern [1 3f work a 5yr old]] since Oct. I wanted longer odds. The 4 had a 5f work in the last 31 days[5yrold] for a poor trainer 0-2 rt to sprint and 0-4 2nd off layoff who claimed it from Parx leading trainer and horse showed nothing in 2 races since then vs better. now drops. Too many questions not enough answers for me.
Tim




Tim

[Jeebs]

Nice work Tim. I,like you, don't mind a pass here. Out of the 4-9-10 I tossed the 9 due to having a large bal and weak w/o pattern. The 10 had a non Sartin angle going but given the layoff and weak workout pattern [1 3f work a 5yr old]] since Oct. I wanted longer odds. The 4 had a 5f work in the last 31 days[5yrold] for a poor trainer 0-2 rt to sprint and 0-4 2nd off layoff who claimed it from Parx leading trainer and horse showed nothing in 2 races since then vs better. now drops. Too many questions not enough answers for me.
Tim




Tim

McCaslin has always been a dangerous trainer in the Mid-Atlantic. I didn't post it, but #10 was the top Rx3 tier runner. As Mitch stated, it came down to what price that you were willing to take on #10. As you said, too many questions, not enough answers.

"Other factors" prevailed here (if you're a BL/BL guy) and that's OK. It's a "win" in the sense that it didn't cost me a dime! 😁

[Lt1]

Indeed it was my #1 RX3 also and #2 bl/bl. If it weren't for the l/o or if it had a recent[within 14 days] 5f w/o I would have accept 7/2 but it didn't and as been stated numerous times one must be consistent in ones approach. Sometimes you eat the bear sometimes the bear eats you. Onto the next race.
Tim

[For The Lead]

Are the standards that I applied too stringent? Or do you think that my take on this race is an accurate one?

Without PP's to follow along with it's hard to say.

[For The Lead]

#1 is scratched. I'll presume either...... or 2) Parx stewards didn't like the 4 day turnaround.

New BL/BL:
45238

I'm not sure I understand.
Are you suggesting that regardless of how the trainer feels about the horse's condition, the stewards forced the trainer to scratch because the trainer was racing the horse back in 4 days?

[Mitch44]

Jeebs:
Great workup and expert analysis on this race, it'll pay off in future endeavors.
Mitch44

[Jeebs]

I'm not sure I understand.
Are you suggesting that regardless of how the trainer feels about the horse's condition, the stewards forced the trainer to scratch because the trainer was racing the horse back in 4 days?

If the stewards felt that a 4-day turnaround wasn't in the best interest of the horse/public, they have every right to scratch it. However, it was likely (I haven't confirmed it) cross-entered between races at PRX and PEN and they opted for PEN.

I'll post PPs when I get a chance. That or ask someone else to post them.

[Bill V.]

Hi Jeebs
i will post the PP's for the race
Bill

[Bill V.]

Race 2 Parx 1/16/18

45240

45241

45242

45243

[Bill V.]

5 6 7

45244

45245

45246

[For The Lead]

If the stewards felt that a 4-day turnaround wasn't in the best interest of the horse/public, they have every right to scratch it.



Thanks for the reply.
That's very interesting. I've seen many horses run back in 3, 4 or 5 days and never heard or seen a stewards scratch because the horse was running back in that short of time for the reason that it "wasn't in the best interest of the horse/public".

In fact, a quick check of my database shows that in two randomly selected and consecutive years there were roughly 40,000 horses that ran back in less than 5 days. That seems to imply that horses running back in that short period of time is fairly common. I can also report that from those 40,000 horses, roughly 3,400 of them won.

Having never heard or seen that before, I hope you'll excuse my skepticism. In the event you come across a horse being scratched by the stewards for the reason you mentioned, please let us know. I, for one, would have particular interest. It's never too late to learn.

[Bill V.]

8 9 10

45247

45248

45249

[For The Lead]

First things first. I WOULD NOT have had the winner of this race as it was OFF 190 days.

Next, thanks Bill for posting the PP’s.

Ok, on to each horse.

#1 – SCR
#2 – NO LINE. I’m not going back to line 3 off of the horses performance in lines 1 and 2.
#3 – L2, I can’t use line 1 as it was a route race.
#4 – NO LINE. I can’t use line one as it was a route and a poor performance. All the other lines are more than 90 days old.
#5 – L1, I’m not concerned with the -56 track variant. My adjustments would handle that. And I’m certainly not going back to line 5 or 6 even though they are less than 90 days old.
#6 – NO LINE, ML is 20/1.
#7 – L1,
#8 – NO LINE, ML is 20/1
#9 – NO LINE, last 8 races, regardless of class level, are just bad
#10 – NO LINE, OFF 190 days

So let me start with the ML favorite, #10. Being OFF 190 days I would immediately throw the horse out. Just about one year ago, someone claimed this horse for $40,000 which was a drop in class after having run in allowance races with various conditions. The new owner immediately runs the horse back twice in allowance races before finally deciding to drop the horse down to 12,500 (where it ran 2nd) and then dropping it again the next time out to 7,500 where it won. If you following racing at all, it should be clear this is a horse with problems and turned out to be a horrible claim for $40,000. Fortunately, the owner finally lost the horse through the claim box when it won for $7,500 last time out. What happened next confirms what you should have been thinking about the horse a couple of races ago. The horse has problems. The new owner paid $7,500 for an ailing horse. They had no choice but to take the horse out of training and address whatever the issues were with the horse. That took 190 days. Today, the horse is a crap shoot. If it loses, you can understand why. If it wins, again, you can understand why. Not the kind of horse I want to back.

So I have lines for just three horses, #3, #5 and #7.
#5 has a lifetime record of 3 for 27.
#7 has a lifetime record of 3 for 27.
Neither of these horses instill confidence in me, which leaves just the #3 that ran 2nd by a neck at 8.70/1 and is one of two “early” horses in the race….by my standards.

I’m with you, Jeebs, in your decision to pass the race.
Good job.

[Mitch44]

AS I said earlier I actually tried to bet this race but saw it too late and was shut out. I would have posted my bets and didn't have time to comment. My two horses were the 4 & 10 and I liked the 4 best. What I liked about the 4 was that every time it ran in a sprint it ran a big race. It obviously is a better sprinter than a router. Look at its POH Tot Energy. Why they keep entering it in routes is a mystery.



Additionally if you exam the # 10 Tot Enery POH you get a different picture of this horse than the man made class designations.
It would serve ( I believe) handicappers well to get away from these man made class designations as their fraught with many unknowns. Particularity with restricted races and where there is big casino purses. Sartin used Tot Energy, also there are better things such as CR or CR+.
My two horse bet would have compensated if the 10 didn't run well. I also thought the 10 would be on the lead so was surprised how he won. Either way its just another race and all this is only important if one has to play the race such as a contest etc. But based on everything and the odds for me it was a bet. Actually was surprised it went off at 7-2 and not the favorite.
Mitch 44

[For The Lead]

AS I said earlier I actually tried to bet this race but saw it too late and was shut out. I would have posted my bets and didn't have time to comment. My two horses were the 4 & 10 and I liked the 4 best. What I liked about the 4 was that every time it ran in a sprint it ran a big race. It obviously is a better sprinter than a router. Look at its POH Tot Energy. Why they keep entering it in routes is a mystery.



Additionally if you exam the # 10 Tot Enery POH you get a different picture of this horse than the man made class designations.
It would serve ( I believe) handicappers well to get away from these man made class designations as their fraught with many unknowns. Particularity with restricted races and where there is big casino purses. Sartin used Tot Energy, also there are better things such as CR or CR+.
My two horse bet would have compensated if the 10 didn't run well. I also thought the 10 would be on the lead so was surprised how he won. Either way its just another race and all this is only important if one has to play the race such as a contest etc. But based on everything and the odds for me it was a bet. Actually was surprised it went off at 7-2 and not the favorite.
Mitch 44

Actually, at 3.50/1, the #10 horse WAS the betting favorite.

In nine races showing, the #10 horse has never broke better than 4th and has never been on the lead at the first call.
In nine races showing, the #3 horse has never broke worse than 3rd, broke 1st 5 times and has been on the lead at the first call 4 times. I’m not surprised that the #3 horse was in front of the #10 horse.

Also, based on the #10’s horses last two races, at the two lowest class levels it has ever run for and breaking from the nine post, today’s race fit those races well. With better early speed inside of it, the #10 horse had its’ best break ever, breaking 3rd, got good position at the first call being 3rd just a length and a half behind, being 3rd at the second call behind by just 1 length and wore down the leader from there to earn a neck victory. A very nice “early presser” style race.

Finally, man doesn’t make class levels. Horses, based on their performances, make class levels.

A horse that constantly runs up the track for $10,000 and then runs good races when lowered to the $5,000 level is telling the trainer at which class level it runs best.

Understanding class levels, including conditions, is an important factor. I’m not aware of the many unknowns associated with class levels. I can see, however, where not understanding class levels and conditions might make one feel as though they were unknowns. My suggestion is this, if class levels and conditions are unknown to you, take the time to learn what they all mean.

State Bred races, as an example, are “restricted” races. They are restricted to horses bred in the state in which the race is being run. I think this is common knowledge. If these races are unknown factors for you, take the time to learn about them.

Philly Park (now PARX) used to run the “Gray Ghost Handicap” at Halloween. This was a “restricted” race. The restriction? Every horse entered had to be gray or roan. This was clearly stated right in the conditions.

Any “restricted” race has the restriction clearly stated in the conditions AND the race is noted as a restricted race in the PP’s.
What you need to know about restricted races is that they are lesser races. A $10,000 race that IS NOT restricted is better than a $10,000 race that IS restricted. Why? Because a restricted race is NOT OPEN to all who wish to enter, whereas a race that is not restricted IS OPEN to all who wish to enter. Therefore, the quality of a non-restricted race is better.

I can’t say anything about races with big casino purses, simply because I’m not sure which races they are. Here’s where I can learn something.

[Mitch44]

I love this game which requires the bet be made before the gates open. Its the difference of opinions that make this game or merry go round turn.


The understanding of the class factor which is a basic fundamental of this game can enhance the decision making process greatly. It also explains why horses run poorly or don't win at certain distances, surfaces and especially man made class designations.


I offered two better class concepts that outperform man made designations in my previous post that are contained within RDSS. POH and CR or CR+ It greatly helps to evaluate layoffs and dropdowns etc. That advice can be taken or ignored which is fine also.
Good skill,
Mitch44