Race Analysis Process - One Way Pt 1 of 4

[Because I Can Jim]

Hi Everyone!

This series of videos is in follow up to the ones I did on Contender Selection (Click here to see that thread: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9310 )

In it Latekick asked to see my analysis process. It took me a bit to think aobut how to present it. I actually made a series of 8 videos going from start to finish in a race, but, scrapped it and made these instead.

In these, I just want to try to show the general process of the analysis of the race after I have selected the contenders.

Understand that the process is sort of nebulous due to the nature of horseracing/handicapping. It does nto come as one size fits all nor is it a recipe for baking a cake. Each race is different and I approach each differently.

So, what I have done is to try to show the process, yet, provide my thoughts in explaining what I did for "this" race. The process can be summed up in a couple of sentences but the explanation can take forever.

Also, be patient with some of the mistakes I make in the video such as in Part 4 I say the 7 horse went off at 2.8-1 when it actually went off at 12.8-1. I was concentrating and focussing on what I was thinking and how I was presenting it that I stutter a bit, go too fast sometimes and make some minor mistakes. After all, I am only human and it shows in my handicapping! :)

As always - questions, comments, criticisms, exchange of thoughts, suggestions for improvement, wanting to see something specific, etc... are all welcome. Just post!

[Because I Can Jim]

Here is part 2

[Because I Can Jim]

Horses 1 thru 5

[Because I Can Jim]

Horses 6 & 7

[Because I Can Jim]

What? Part 2 is missing?
You idiot you! Your a bum!! You can't even put up a video so how are we supposed to know that you have any clue as to what yuo are doing when you handicap?!!!! Go back home to where you came from!!! LOL

But folks, it really wasn't my fault! It is Ted's fault!!! Yeah, blame it on Ted!!! He is the techie guy!!! LOL

You see, I started to upload the video and since it takes some time I made some dinner, had a bite to eat and when I came back.... The screen showed it had uploaded. Really!!!!

Anyway, it can be fixed. It is all good. And really..... I do know what I am talking about. :)

[Because I Can Jim]

Here is part 3 :)

[Because I Can Jim]

And here is part 4

Hope everyone gets something out of them. Be sure to post comments questions, etc....

And also check out Bill's video to see "another way" of doing an analysis.

[Because I Can Jim]

Here is a screenshot of my actual wager on the race using Amwager and of course the result chart.

How I wager is a topic for discussion in the future.

Best of luck in your handicapping!

Jim

[Bill V.]

I really enjoyed your videos
I can see what you know, and how your using many tools.
to be successful.

I know these videos are not about pace line selection.
I just am having trouble really enjoying them unless you can
clarify something.

Why did you use line 5 for horse 5 ?

anyway..

Thanks, and I look forward to more lessons.
I am so happy you give the gifts of sharing and teaching.
Showing others what you do to win is invaluable, We are all better because
of your work.


All the best
Bill

[Lt1]

Very well done videos Jim. As to your betting I have seen this approach used when one feels certain that the horse will hit the board. The only thing different was the show bet was tripled for a total bet of $18. I have tried it with pretty good results. Once again thanks for posting your process.

Tim

[vderdak]

I only see bets totaling $28.00, what other bets for the remaining $14.00 is not shown, who else did you wager on, just curious.

[Because I Can Jim]

Tim,
Thanks for the kind words.
I had not considered what a 2w/4p/12s wager would look like. I definitely will look into it and if you see me change, you will know why!

vderdak,
In the 6th race I wagered on H5. See the Amwager log.
I included the Segments screen. I was considering at 1 MTP the:
H4 at 4-1
H5 at 5-1 placing a 2w/4p/8s wager on this horse
H6 at 2-1
Hindsight being what it is, I was placing too much emphasis on the early running styles in the race instead of the sustained. My intuition was hitting me in the back of the head to pass the race, but, I did not listen (a skill we all must learn to develop). As you can see from the results the H4 wired the field and the contra horses 1 and 2 came in as place and show. The H2 going off at 19-1 and paying 8.20 was a killer. For a $14 wager, the return would have been 32.80 for a profit of 18.80.
WOULDA, SHOULDA, COULDA!!! :(

And that is handicapping. I made a mistake even though I had the winner as one of the horses I liked.

Hope that helps.
Jim

[Because I Can Jim]

Hey Bill,

This video is in response to you question in this thread about why I chose line 5 for H5.

I hope I answer your question and that anyone else watching might get something out of it as a further look at this 7th race from MNR.

Enjoy!

Jim
P.S. Anyone having any questions, comments or even the next winning number for the next $400 million Powerball Lottery that you get from your psychic hotline, I am sure would be most appreciated if you post them here on the forum! LOL

[Bill V.]

Thanks for the video I will take a look
While I look at it, please look at this video.
This is in reference to our conversation in the thread
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9321

I see were you bet the 5 in the 6th race at MNR
This video is in my reply and supports that,When you follow a consistent set of guidelines,
It doesn't matter if you do the race before it runs or after it runs, you will get the same result, right or wrong.
As you will see I did the race in the same manner as I did in the race 7 video
I posted in this thread
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9329
I hope you and others enjoy the video
35254

[Because I Can Jim]

Hi Bill,

Sorry it took a bit of time to post this video going to Saratoga and all.

I was thinking maybe you could start a new thread in response to this video. In the video, I sidetracked a bit (actually a lot) about the tandem concept on the 1 horse if one went back to the third paceline.

The question I primarily was asking - you said several times that you select pacelines on how you think they are going to run in today's race. However, you did not explain how you "think" they are going to run. (I know that trying to explain "thinking" is like trying to catch light in a bottle.)

But, while you were talking about the 1 horse as an example, I wasn't following how you think it was going to run in today's race. You decided to not select either of the first two lines and then made it a non-contender. Which was all fine.

Then I got off on the tangent of tandems which was a separate concept unfortunately as part of my thinking on the 1 horse.

So, if you will after watching the video, don't even discuss my thinking about the tandem unless you feel you would ike to address it. That is why I suggest you start a new thread dealing separately with how you think today's race is going to run.

I am interested in hearing about it.

Thanks Bill for making some videos. Now I am off to watch the one you made for Latekick after I handicap today's card(s).

Best of luck.

Jim

[Bill V.]

Hi Jim

I made this reply video. In the video I go into more detail on why I did
not enter a line for the #1 horse.

I apologize for the quality, I made it from here at Del Mar. It was early and I was watching the workouts, I wanted to reply while I had a minute.
There is lots of back ground noise. anyway I hope you get something out of it.

Anyway here is my opinion in a nutshell.

I always look at the conditions of the race
I look at how the horse has run in each pace line.
If the last line is a zero race, I look for a valid excuse
as to why it was not a (+) or a + race.
If its a zero race with no excuse I will strop there.
To me this is not a good win bet.
Horses with 0 races with out excuses are bad risk
and very poor candidates to win.
In the case of the #1 horse I saw 2 zero races, but both were off tracks.
When I looked at horse #1 and saw his + race in line 3.
I would have used line 3 but my analysis goes deeper.

I had suspicions about that last pace line.
In the video you will see the steps I took to come to the conclusion that the
# 1 horse was not a win contender.
They are

APV,
Running Style
Life Time Record
Previous Races At The Same Condition


Here is a screen shot
and here is the video

35328

35329

[Because I Can Jim]

Thanks for that Bill.

Now I have a better understanding of your perspective which will help me in the future.

And I agree that horse 1 is not be a choice for win which you said in your video that you look are selecting to to win.

The thought occurred to me that due to our use of the English language, what we try to convey can oftentimes me misconstrued. (That is why I hope no one takes any offense to what I say or write. I am only presenting in everyone's best interest.)

For example, we use the word "contenders" freely in our explanations. Yet, what does that really mean? When I talk about my "top 5 contenders" does that mean for win only or deos that mean from the other side of the spectrum to mean horses that are going to hit the board or somewhere in between such as I'm selecting contenders to win but have a chance to hit the board?

This is made all the more complicated by having contra-horses who have a chance to win and if they don't are most likely to place, etc...

And this applied to my understanding of what you tried to convey about your paceline selection and how it is most likely going to run today.

Thanks for that explanation.

Jim

[lone speed]

Thanks for that Bill.

Now I have a better understanding of your perspective which will help me in the future.

And I agree that horse 1 is not be a choice for win which you said in your video that you look are selecting to to win.

The thought occurred to me that due to our use of the English language, what we try to convey can oftentimes me misconstrued. (That is why I hope no one takes any offense to what I say or write. I am only presenting in everyone's best interest.)

Very True..

For example, we use the word "contenders" freely in our explanations. Yet, what does that really mean? When I talk about my "top 5 contenders" does that mean for win only or deos that mean from the other side of the spectrum to mean horses that are going to hit the board or somewhere in between such as I'm selecting contenders to win but have a chance to hit the board?

This is made all the more complicated by having contra-horses who have a chance to win and if they don't are most likely to place, etc...

;)This concept is so valid!!! Most of us are focused on the top five Total Energy horses for the win spots. Some have done exhaustive studies or extensive data-mining from data bases of past race files. The second horse or the (win-default) horse from races where the pace was challenged or was set by a speed demon horse. (Palace Malice).

This concept was stressed a zillionth times by Doc. The second horse may not fit the profiles of win models. The "contra-energy" horse can have more than 3.0 total energy scores less than the win model horses (examples; 170.0 total energy contra-energy horse 167.0 total energy.)

This phenomenon occurs more often when one goes up the class levels. We all have seen races where a dominant early sets blazing fractions and the "UGLY" horse who has ugly pacelines but finds a race where he runs his own race and runs second or wins in a race where the contenders for the early pace collapse from the grueling early pace duels.

And this applied to my understanding of what you tried to convey about your paceline selection and how it is most likely going to run today.

Thanks for that explanation.

Jim


Great points, Jim:)

[For The Lead]

Thanks for that Bill.

Now I have a better understanding of your perspective which will help me in the future.

And I agree that horse 1 is not be a choice for win which you said in your video that you look are selecting to to win.

The thought occurred to me that due to our use of the English language, what we try to convey can oftentimes me misconstrued. (That is why I hope no one takes any offense to what I say or write. I am only presenting in everyone's best interest.)

For example, we use the word "contenders" freely in our explanations. Yet, what does that really mean? When I talk about my "top 5 contenders" does that mean for win only or deos that mean from the other side of the spectrum to mean horses that are going to hit the board or somewhere in between such as I'm selecting contenders to win but have a chance to hit the board?

This is made all the more complicated by having contra-horses who have a chance to win and if they don't are most likely to place, etc...

And this applied to my understanding of what you tried to convey about your paceline selection and how it is most likely going to run today.

Thanks for that explanation.

Jim

I really don’t think there is a need to define the word “contender”. It has already been defined and most people understand the meaning without further definition. Let’s look at the dictionary definition.

Definition of CONTENDER
: one that contends; especially : a competitor for a championship or high honor

In horse racing, I don’t think running anywhere, other than first, constitutes a championship or high honor.

Now let’s look at an example of contender from the same dictionary.
Example of CONTENDER
1. There are several contestants, but only two real contenders.

In horse racing, the entire field would constitute the contestants and ONLY those horses that can actually win the race would be the contenders.

This is the reason, in RDSS, for having a section for contenders, those most likely to win the race and another section for secondary contenders, those most likely not to win, but may run 2nd or 3d.

[For The Lead]

Hi Bill,

Sorry it took a bit of time to post this video going to Saratoga and all.

I was thinking maybe you could start a new thread in response to this video. In the video, I sidetracked a bit (actually a lot) about the tandem concept on the 1 horse if one went back to the third paceline.

The question I primarily was asking - you said several times that you select pacelines on how you think they are going to run in today's race. However, you did not explain how you "think" they are going to run. (I know that trying to explain "thinking" is like trying to catch light in a bottle.)

But, while you were talking about the 1 horse as an example, I wasn't following how you think it was going to run in today's race. You decided to not select either of the first two lines and then made it a non-contender. Which was all fine.

Then I got off on the tangent of tandems which was a separate concept unfortunately as part of my thinking on the 1 horse.

So, if you will after watching the video, don't even discuss my thinking about the tandem unless you feel you would ike to address it. That is why I suggest you start a new thread dealing separately with how you think today's race is going to run.

I am interested in hearing about it.

Thanks Bill for making some videos. Now I am off to watch the one you made for Latekick after I handicap today's card(s).

Best of luck.

Jim

Perhaps you could explain, to all of us, what "your thinking" was when you chose line 7 for the #9 horse in the 4th race at MNR last night.

What was it about the line you chose from 385 days ago, verses $5,000 maidens, and not even a winning line, that would lead you to believe that it is a REAL contender for the win in today's race?
Now Doc said it was 'ok' to use a horses maiden win in a NW2L race, but I don't recall that he ever said it was 'ok' to use a maiden line where the horse did NOT win!

8 out of the 10 races showing in its' PP's are route races. Today's race is at 6 furlongs.
If the line you chose was such a predictive line of the horses chances of winning a sprint race, then why have the horses connections been running it in route races?
Its' only win came in a route.
To make matters worse, the maiden line you chose was run at FP (Fairmount Park). How do horses racing at FP compare to horses running at MNR?

Here is your segments screen and the PP's for the #9 horse.

[For The Lead]

Before there is any further discussion regarding "tandems", let me just say tandems are useless. I know there will those who disagree, but wait, I will explain.

Exactly what is it that you are trying to accomplish by using the tandem concept? You don't have to answer...I already know.

Well let me tell you, you're beating a dead horse, so to speak. The tandem concept does not provide enough information for you to accomplish what you think you are setting out to accomplish.

The first thing you don't know when using the tandem concept is, who were ALL OF THE HORSES in that previous race?
How did the horses YOU CAN'T SEE impact the race and influence how your tandem horses ran? YOU DON'T KNOW!
Does today's race have the same match up factors as the previous tandem race. YOU DON'T KNOW!
So what good is the tandem concept?
How does it help you?

Now, you want to know about "thinking"? No problem.
I would like everyone to click on the link below and go read this post.
You will see how Bill V. "thinks" and how his demonstration of evaluating lines and contenders far exceeds the tandem concept.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8969

[Because I Can Jim]

Hmmmm....Let me see.....
Contenders.....thinking.....tandems....

I get it.....

Contenders - I don't use the definition the same way you do FLT.

Thinking - I went back to the 6f 7th pace line because I do not use class the way you do.

Tandems - I do not think about tandems the same way you do either.

I post in the spirit of cooperation and learning. I am not perfect and am the first to admit it. I know I have much to learn.

My cup is empty when I stand at the feet of the masters.....Yet, even the master will not know what a student is thinking unless the student asks....

Jim

[For The Lead]

Hmmmm....Let me see.....
Contenders.....thinking.....tandems....

I get it.....

Contenders - I don't use the definition the same way you do FLT.

Thinking - I went back to the 6f 7th pace line because I do not use class the way you do.

Tandems - I do not think about tandems the same way you do either.

I post in the spirit of cooperation and learning. I am not perfect and am the first to admit it. I know I have much to learn.

My cup is empty when I stand at the feet of the masters.....Yet, even the master will not know what a student is thinking unless the student asks....

Jim

My point is this. There is only one definition for a "contender", therefore a contender in the race is that horse, or horses, that have the best chance of winning the race. There is no alternative view of a contender. Certainly a horse that has been running around the track for the last ten races without finishing 1st,2nd, 3rd or in any other way not impacting on the race is not a contender.

Doc always said the first thing he did before he started to handicap a race was to read the conditions. It was sound advice. How can one effectively handicap a race if you don't know what type of horses you are dealing with. For those out there who do not understand class and conditions, I would strongly urge you to read up on it, ask questions or both.

Naturally you don't view tandems as I do, but, again, the point is to elevate those who wish to improve. By showing them the shortcomings of the tandem concept and offering a better way to accomplish the goal they are trying to achieve, they improve their game. Sure, it is a lot more work, but who said this was an easy game? There are no shortcuts.

I post in the spirit of trying to help people win using tried and true methods.

People tend make what is already a hard game that much harder. I always fail to understand why they don't just start on page one of the methodology and learn from there.

Sure, there are things that the methodology doesn't teach, such as class, conditions, injuries and the effect of those injuries on horses, but they can be learned from other venues.

The recent talk about no right or wrong way, just another way, made me think of something.
The 7th race at MNR on 8.13 was offered here in couple of different ways. The horses are posted earlier in this thread.
Now, for anyone who has been following this thread, we already know the #4 horse won the race. Suppose I picked the WORST line for every horse in the race based on adjusted speed rating. How would it work out? Let's see.

35376
35377
35378
35379

They look like any other screen shots, taken from the best of lines, don't they? If you didn't look at the "original" screen you would never know just how bad the pacelines are. Yet, there is the #4 horse, head and shoulders above the rest on the "TS+F3" screen and second on the "blbl" screen. Maybe this is just one of those races where you get the winner no matter your approach.

So as not to confuse anyone, I would NOT endorse the use of this alternative concept. However, if there is anyone out there who wants to risk their hard earned cash over the next 400 to 500 races using this concept, please post back and let us know how you made out.

[trotman]

FTL dammed straight on making it difficult. What I like to see is some one that would start a thread "Reading Between The Lines" or better yet they should just stay mum and listen.