Layoff logic

[TaWee]

Backing a layoff horse is an "iffy" proposition since you are depending upon past performances that are not recent. You have to "fill in the blanks" when considering just WHY the layoff was undertaken and what has the trainer done to get his charge back to the game today. What WAS that horse like, and what WILL it be like today. At Keeneland today (10/08), similar layoff logic in projecting to today's pace totally BOMBED in the 6th (Bwana Charlie) but was successful in the 8th (Host).

Anytime that one is considering a layoff horse it has to be at least 4 or 5 to 1 to make that "iffiness" worthwhile.

I want to ask the group what guidelines they use to consider these horses.

Here are some of mine: 1) has done well after a layoff before 2) blade runners (turfers) do better than dirt horses 3) it helps that the trainer is a one of the better ones and 4) sprinters don't do as well as routers.

[RichieP]

[QUOTE=TaWee]I want to ask the group what guidelines they use to consider these horses.

Mine is kinda simple:
PRICE

oh yea and Jeff Mullins in So Cal He just tinkles on me all the time and finally I have worked a plan up for dealing with him :)

Rich

[shoeless]

The only trouble with your logic is Bawana Charlie had done nothing in his last 2 races to warrant going back to a race from Oct 30 last year.Meanwhile Host hadnt run since last Feb but was coming off a big race that Mr.Light won setting a track record.Besides that anything trained by Todd Pletcher can win off of any kind of layoff. Shoeless

[TaWee]

The only trouble with your logic is Bawana Charlie had done nothing in his last 2 races to warrant going back to a race from Oct 30 last year.Meanwhile Host hadnt run since last Feb but was coming off a big race that Mr.Light won setting a track record.Besides that anything trained by Todd Pletcher can win off of any kind of layoff. Shoeless
tactful as ALWAYS, but Keeneland is all about speed and this one (in spite of its going wide) still had very fast times to the second call. MANY horses win with the same profile, but hey I did not bet that one: it was only an observation, the 4 was a very logical choice...couldn't see the 8 as it was LATE

[TaWee]

this is relevant to considering that layoff

http://horseracing.about.com/b/a/127446.htm

so one has to consider it a possiblity especially coming in ranked 4th in total energy

[shoeless]

This is just my opinion nothing written in stone,Im here to learn not to argue.Shoeless

[Fast4522]

Hey Shoe,
Its all about credentials in graded stakes races, #6 was lacking other than running from the barn without racing in 100+ days. I did give equal time and did post its past performance lines but of the three past performance screenshots I posted #6 did not make the cut and would not look good to anyone who knows how to read a daily racing form. We use tools and I am not telling anyone only use this tool only, but I am saying do not just use software only so you forget how to use and read the racing form any more.

[shoeless]

Fast, Good advice.I went to a manual input program because I feel by punching in the data myself it allows me to concentrate better.I probably wouldnt have picked up about the rider switch otherwise.To me it was a definite plus to be switching from a 13% percent rider to the 2nd best rider on that circuit behind Pat Day of course.Basically Im using the readouts to get me to the top 3 contenders and then go from there.I like the forum Binder has setup for us here allowing us to express our ideas even if they dont 100% agree with Doc's way of thinking.Also kudos to you for getting that going in the first place it really got some good response going.Binder I think was glad as well because maybe now I will stop complaining to him that hardly anyone ever responds they just look at the posts. Shoeless

[Binder]

Steve and Jeff
Thanks , The best part of VDC is that I get to see in action all
the things Doc wrote about in the follow up
we all worked the same race our own way. And almost all of us got the heathly $17.00 winner. Steve, if you hand me a racing form ,or when I look at the Past performances you posted,I'm lost. Jeff- I totally agree with you
When I type in the running lines to make my Philly Park models
I am amazed at things I see that I never noticed looking at the Adjusted ,
Normalized lines in Val 3
For me it will always be all about the follow ups and doing it Doc's way
But thanks to VDC I can see by example the good and the no so good

Good Skill
Binder

[Binder]

Great points Rich and Tim
for me is where they rank on BL/BL and VDC

[gl45]

Kee Race 6

In the last 3 races that Bwana run, he did sucks. For the purpose of find the true contenders I did leave the horse in. I didn't post my original readout from Syn2 with my projected paceline selection and TPR. After I discuss the race with Shoe I decided to post only the contenders readout, big mistake. I know Richie would love to see this. Notice the FT (Final Time) and TPR. We have two counter energy #1 and #5. Based on SCBL we going to concentrate on SP ranking, and what we see!!!! One step further, lets see LP ranking, ooopsy again. Enjoy.
Pino

[RichieP]

Kee Race 6

In the last 3 races that Bwana run, he did sucks. For the purpose of find the true contenders I did leave the horse in. I didn't post my original readout from Syn2 with my projected paceline selection and TPR. After I discuss the race with Shoe I decided to post only the contenders readout, big mistake. I know Richie would love to see this. Notice the FT (Final Time) and TPR. We have two counter energy #1 and #5. Based on SCBL we going to concentrate on SP ranking, and what we see!!!! One step further, lets see LP ranking, ooopsy again. Enjoy.
Pino

Oh My :eek:

[Fast4522]

The follow up is ok but can one make a case in speculator with printouts in the same format as that follow up. Something that is current may prove to be the defacto standard of what people like to see and understand. I guess I am not current myself not having Speculator. Do we have a strong Speculator person in our membership that is not Binder and is willing to step forward and make the case properly in speculator that # 6 was seriously lacking? Ok the race is cold and old now but feel current is good.
Steve

[shoeless]

Pino,I dont know how you got that horse 1 like that I sure cant.Check out how the 1 rates on FW,DR and turn time fraction.He is the only one 1st or 2nd in all 3 like that guy's article said.I had one like that today at Keen he went off 9-1 and ran 2nd.This is something to keep an eye on.Shoeless

[TaWee]

The follow up is ok but can one make a case in speculator with printouts in the same format as that follow up. Something that is current may prove to be the defacto standard of what people like to see and understand. I guess I am not current myself not having Speculator. Do we have a strong Speculator person in our membership that is not Binder and is willing to step forward and make the case properly in speculator that # 6 was seriously lacking? Ok the race is cold and old now but feel current is good.
Steve
Don't know how to present a screen copy in Spec to show you the screen so private e-mail and I will

[TaWee]

analysis was the same, but even if this one did not fire, according to these lines it had to be CONSIDERED. Note that it was the LAST line used, not three back.

[Fast4522]

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. No Current followup case has been made for this horse who can not win at this class level against older horses. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

[RichieP]

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. No Current followup case has been made for this horse who can not win at this class level against older horses. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Hi Steve
While it is true in THIS race spec made a horse a contender that Val didn't ( who turned out to be a p.o.s.) it also goes the other way in a different race. I think that's the beauty of the programs whether it's val,spec,k-19,"proggie" :eek: etc. The 17 dollar winner is right there on ALL the programs to be had.

The part the program can't show is the decision making on pass/play and which horse(s) to wager on. That will always come from within. This is the biggest seperator of winners/non winners in my opinion. DECISION MAKING. Not one's software of choice.

Just my 2 cents
Richie

[TaWee]

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Basing a decision of dominance (Val or Spec) on a SINGLE sample is LUDICROUS. Sample error abounds in projecting HISTORY upon FUTURE performance. As many times as ONE program scores, I can give you just as many times it is the OTHER way round. Imagine that you were an advanced guard of Martians coming to invade the Earth and landed in a field in Wisconsin and ONLY saw rabbits hopping around then based your ENTIRE strategy for invading based upon that SINGLE observation. "There are no strong beings here to conquer. Only these weak rabbits." SAMPLE ERROR

Secondly, the winner was right there on the SAME readout. The reason we are told to BET TWO horses is based on the fact that even with a solid PROJECTION, many times a horse does not fire again.

Ever hear of "leaping to conclusions?" I'm afraid you did that here.

[TaWee]

This runner did not have the Credentials to stack up against the runners it was running against. Binders screen shots do a better job of discounting it as a contender. The Speculator Match up screen must be worthless and flawed to reflect this runner as a contender. At this point looking at that screen shot I would have to contend VALIDATOR 3C as being a better product and urge people to go with VAL3C. So that makes VAL3C is the defacto standard, the Validator being the last product Doc Sartin approved of.

Basing a decision of dominance (Val or Spec) on a SINGLE sample is LUDICROUS. Sample error abounds in projecting HISTORY upon FUTURE performance. As many times as ONE program scores, I can give you just as many times it is the OTHER way round. Imagine that you were an advanced guard of Martians coming to invade the Earth and landed in a field in Wisconsin and ONLY saw rabbits hopping around then based your ENTIRE strategy for invading upon that SINGLE observation. "There are no strong beings here to conquer. Only these weak rabbits." SAMPLE ERROR

Secondly, the winner was right there on the SAME readout. The reason we are told to BET TWO horses is based on the fact that even with a solid PROJECTION, many times a horse does not fire again.

No credentials??? 40% SPRINT winner vs some of the best competition around, solid works, one of the leading trainers in the country?? sound certified.

Ever hear of "leaping to conclusions?" I'm afraid you did that here.

[TaWee]

go to the section on 'capping the Vosburg and compare the screen shots there. BOTH programs showed the winner as a possibility, BUT IN THAT CASE, Speculator made the decision to bet the winner easier. GOES both ways all the time.

[Fast4522]

Sorry for not posting sooner, on my lunch break.

More Psycho-Babble from the master, I am sorry I am so direct but folks if you want support that you are not getting you have to say and or question things a bit tougher. I am sorry I read the racing form like a old timer but I am getting there. I in my heart believe the body of readers did not like #6 for good reason and I do not mean to offend anyone who paid for Speculator. However I stand by what I said and remind all I asked if someone would step up to the plate and do a follow up in Speculator as Doc did in Validator to make it more current, addmiting I must not be current. Does anyone care to now step up and make the case that #6 was not worthy in the follow up style like it was done before?

[TaWee]

Anytime that one is considering a layoff horse it has to be at least 4 or 5 to 1 to make that "iffiness" worthwhile.


listed in the OPENING line OF THIS THREAD made Bwana Charlie a non-Play

[Binder]

Tim
like the brother says to Ray Casella in Field of Dreams
What the heck are you talking about

I thought you liked # 6Bwana

[shoeless]

Fast, Im right there with you reading the form.I did put the 6 in the program even though I didnt like him and he didnt come out on any of my readouts.Form wise I didnt like him because to me his last 2 races looked dull after a layoff from his 3 year old campaign.Shoeless

[Fast4522]

Well maybe next Saturday we can do it all over again, but I have to admit it will not be that easy getting double digits like that. With just a little help from the past performance lines we should conclude if a favorite is good or not. It is not easy to get the $17 winner without covering the favorite in some way (backing it up) because they do win 33 1/3 % of the time.

[TaWee]

Tim
like the brother says to Ray Casella in Field of Dreams
What the heck are you talking about

I thought you liked # 6Bwana

Never said that... Re-read the lines: CONSIDER, CONSIDER was the word. One evaluates the wagering chance based upon ONES OWN expectaction of the horse winning and the ODDS board expectation of the horse winning.

Iffy propositions don't get wagers unles, as I stated, they are worthwhile (4 or 5/1)

Quote my saying LIKING that horse please, just said CONSIDER

[Binder]

The post says what it says