Need Help Finding the Win Bet

[CaptDon100]

I am having trouble picking my win bet. I go through all the pace lines. When I get to my top 4 picks, the winner is in the top 4, but I always seem to miss it.
If my top 4 are 3-1-5-4 and the winning order is 4-7-5-3. I use the top BL/BL and bet the 3 and 1. This happens a lot, I use the segment screen and BL/BL screen. I have spent a lot of time learning pace lines when I realized that was important to master ( still trying). Now, I am frustrated at being so close but keep missing the winners.
Thanks Don

[Bill V.]

Hello Don

I know this is not some deep key to the universe response that will solve all your problems on this subject but..

First off If you really never pick the winner out of your top 4 BLBl
you need to stop betting !!!! as Jim Bradshaw said ..go raise guppies

Now If you do your 20 race cycles and find that its more a case of your not winning enough, then here is what I suggest ..

First off if I had your issues depending on a readout or screen on RDSS as the only decision making tool is hard. you will usually be looking and zigging and zagging
I would need to make proper decisions. I would need to do my home work on contender and pace lines and then bet the two horse I feel have the best chance to win the race based on the odds I'm getting and the match up
This is were some screens like the segments or TPR early and late screens
can HELP. Every screen is not a final decision screen.

If and when I used to just wing it and bet my top 2 BLBL I was looking probably at at least 1 of the horses who has peaked in ability in the race I selected for a pace line.
Horses who rank third or fourth usually offer better value.
They might be third or fourth because I may have had a non contender in my top 3

I think the biggest key is limiting your decisions to horse who you truly feel can pay off in the win or underneath positions
and avoid extra work for the program.
I would keep better records too because I don't think you Never get the winner :)

[polambi]

I know what u mean. Having the winner in the top BL in not enough for you to win, since it is not practical to bet 4 horses.
My suggestion is to seriously pay attention to the RUNNING STYLE and the EARLY PACE of the horses in your top 4 BL.
In sprints, for example: if your top 4 BL are 1-3-5-7, and you notice that 7 has better EP than 1, therefore 7 should be one of your two horses to bet. Same goes for running style. You don't want to play an S horse over an E horse, simply because it is on top of your BL.
Finally, before making your final decision, look at what your two selections have accomplished in their last starts. Did they win anything, of finished within 2 lengths of the winner in either of their last three of four outings.
I make it a habit not to bet on losers. I hope that helps :)

[Ted Craven]

Don, can we have a couple of specific examples?

Ted

[CaptDon100]

I am trying to use my snip tool, but I can't get it to work. I need to get an example up on the screen. I can snip it, but I can't get it as an attachment.
I am working on it

[CaptDon100]

Bill, Thanks for your reply, It's not that I never get the winner, I am trying to improve my game. I do keep records, There are races that I should have won, but missed. I send a lot of time on pace lines and the fact that my winners are in the top 4 is good, I just need to narrow it down. The race I was trying to past was the 7th at FG on 12-15 I had 6-7-5-1 and 5-1-6-7 came in.
I played 6-7. I don't always pick all 4 on top, but this one I did. That is a frustrating miss.
Thanks
Don

[Bill V.]

Hi Don

When I get to my top 4 picks, the winner is in the top 4, but I always seem to miss it.

I thought you might be a little harsh on your ability:)

Don I can't do the 7th race at Fairgrounds myself as the card is not available.

Really at this point all I could have done is give you advice on why I might have by passed the 6 or the 7.

Since you have horse 5 right in your top 3 BLBL
If you can find reasons to bet against these two low odds horses you can get
the 10/1 winner.

Based on the odds I see following every thing in the follow ups and way back to the yellow manual. If you feel the 5 is a true contender you have to have something on this horse at 10/1

I hope you figure out the screen shot procedure

Bill

36402

[Appy]

Got some things I HAVE to get done this morn Don, but I play FG and think I remember this race was a puzzler. When I get back I'll pull my records and compare notes for you. I think that will give Bill a little more to work with here.
In the meantime, console yourself knowing there have been LOTS of frustrated folks playing FG so far this meet. :)

[Appy]

Before I go, found it!
I still do my final work w/ pen and paper.
My final 4 W contenders were 7-5-3-4.

[Ted Craven]

Bill, Thanks for your reply, It's not that I never get the winner, I am trying to improve my game. I do keep records, There are races that I should have won, but missed. I send a lot of time on pace lines and the fact that my winners are in the top 4 is good, I just need to narrow it down. The race I was trying to past was the 7th at FG on 12-15 I had 6-7-5-1 and 5-1-6-7 came in.
I played 6-7. I don't always pick all 4 on top, but this one I did. That is a frustrating miss.
Thanks
Don

Don,

I will post a workup of this race next, but just using YOUR handicapping, YOUR final Odds Line rankings of 6-7-5-1 (although I disagree with you about the #6) - I'd like to suggest that with the #5 closing near 10-1 - IF you presume that your top 3 BL/BL have an equally good chance to win (which you should strongly consider), your 2 horse bet should have been the 6-5, not the 6-7, and you could have considered betting the #5 to place as well.

The reasoning is - take your Top horse at YOUR minimum odds (you would have had to set that on the cusp of 5/2 or 2-1 for the #6 horse) and your longest odds of the remaining Top 3 (the #5). You will find this idea discussed often, not only in these pages but in the later Follow Ups under the topic of 'wagercapping'.

Pick any race you like - get your BL Odds line in order - include only true contenders to Win, separate out the not-for-win horses. Then apply the foregoing logic. You will win and lose some by omitting the wrong horse of your Top 3, but by including the BEST of your Odds Line horses at YOUR minimum odds (say 5/2 or 3-1) and the other longest horse - when you win, you'll be making up for the times you lose with better odds (and picking up the odd saver with the Place hedge). Exacta bets are a separate discussion.

However, kindly consider the points in my next post about paceline selection, contender ID (especially re recency), but most especially the effect of too much early pressure!

I'll take a look at your Message Editor layout and see why you don't have the 'paper-clip' attachment icon to attach screenshots to your posts. At the worst case, we can hook up and I'll show you how it's done, no worries.

Give me a few minutes to get my next post up ...

Ted

Ted

[CaptDon100]

Here is the race, Thanks Apply, it is good to see how you did the race. Looking at this race NOW. I have the 6 on top, and at 3/1, 132 days since last race.
The 6 should not be on top

[Ted Craven]

Further to my comments above, please consider the following line selections and contender identifications:

36407

36408

36409

36410

There are 4 Early horses in this 7 horse race, and 3 of those are arguably Fighters (they are inclined to go head to head for the lead). Question #1: do the Early horses suffer ANY compromises? (YES).

Question #2: Have any of the 3 horses returning after 100+ days off shown they've been able to win first back off such a layoff? (NO). Are they compromised? (YES) In other words, are there any negatives to mitigate that they will perform just as well as they did in their chosen pacelines? (YES - plus the traditional stats, see FTL's writings, about percentage of Winners returning after > 90 days off).

Question #3: Does the #5 horse have an excuse for his last race poor performance? (YES - 'bumped start, 2 path', per the Trip notes; also it was a route). Forgive that last race, especially as he's returning in 17 days (trainer thinks he's fit). Then try using any of his other previous 7 races (though the 2nd race will do) - you will find that he stays in 3rd position on the BL Odds line = a contender at good odds. He closed very well in the Nov 22 Tandem against the #7 and #1 horse. Allow that that Tandem may reverse. 10-1 odds is excellent insurance against the possibility that it doesn't.

The Early horses can ALL match each others' Fraction 1 times, causing some of them to try to exert more energy to attain their preferred lead position than they can spare (and especially the #3 and #6 who are still getting back into shape).

The OTE horse who runs positionally closest to the fastest pace is the #5. It IS a contender. For all the foregoing reasons, I make the #6 a not-for-win contender - PLUS, it will only pay us 5/2 or 2-1 if it wins despite the drawbacks it faces.

Thus, regardless of whether you make the #1 and #7 non-win contenders due to the Earlies getting wiped out, the #5 is your primary OTE horse and deserves to be one of your 2 win bets (some might say the ONLY Win bet).

For your consideration ...

Ted

[Segwin]

Ted, didn't you make a video once of how you went about the process of paceline and contender selection?

[Appy]

Oh man, Ted that is an outstanding breakdown process example.
Don has got to love that one. I know I do.

When you separate the entries into contender categories (tiers?) I presume you do that by secondary=itm and non=no line?

Great thread you got going here, Don!

[Segwin]

For The Lead has two threads that you should read as well Don (if you haven't already) and they are located in this forum.

Just Follow the Guidelines is one and Picking Contenders and Paceline's is another one.

[CaptDon100]

Thanks Ted This is great.
1.There are 4 Early horses in this 7 horse race, and 3 of those are arguably Fighters
Are you getting that from the RS screen or the Original Screen, where you highlighted the Fractions. By the way, those highlighted numbers in that screen
do they have a track variant on them, is it raw numbers, that will be different
from track to track.

2.Have any of the 3 horses returning after 100+ days off shown they've been able to win first back off such a layoff? (NO). Are they compromised? (YES) In other words, are there any negatives to mitigate that they will perform just as well as they did in their chosen pacelines?
Yes, I didn't follow FTL 90 days and I know that?

3.The Early horses can ALL match each others' Fraction 1 times, causing some of them to try to exert more energy to attain their preferred lead position than they can spare (and especially the #3 and #6 who are still getting back into shape).
The 3 and 6 are still getting back in shape, is it because there last line, that is their 1st line back and they could not finish

[HTML][The OTE horse who runs positionally closest to the fastest pace is the #5. It IS a contender. For all the foregoing reasons, I make the #6 a not-for-win contender - PLUS, it will only pay us 5/2 or 2-1 if it wins despite the drawbacks it faces.
/HTML]
I understand this, If it was a snake it would of bit me

Also, how do you tag a non contender, I use the ITM for that

Thanks for all for taking the time to post and thanks Ted

[Segwin]

Also, how do you tag a non contender, I use the ITM for that



Do not check Win or ITM to get a Non-Contender status. ITM checked gives Secondary Contender status.

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted

Looking at your screen shot

Since the 3 and 6 are Secondary contenders
and the 2 is a Non contender

Is RDSS just calculating the 1 5 7 and 8
as the only 4 horse's in the contenders BLBL ?

In Validator If you hid the 3 6 and 2
Validator's BLBL would calculate the
race with just those horse ( 1 5 7 8 )

I don't have the card or know your config settings si I can't try this myself,
But if you just did not enter a line for horse
3, 6 and 2 would the BLBL be the same
as what you show here?

36422

[borodin]

I'll give this race a try as well.

#1 P with the flexibility to run E Since its last race is off a layoff, I can expect it to improve today and can use a previous pace line. The second line back is okay.

#2 S. Off 141 days, workouts are okay, but its one win is off of a slower pace than today's is projected to be. Non contender. Last line is as good as any.

#3 E to EP. I don't like the horse doing well in the debut, then quitting on a slower pace, and now off 108 days, with no recent workouts. It needs to be left in, because it will probably be a pace factor. It's last line is acceptable.

#4 is scratched

#5 S. Last race can be excused, because it got bumped (trip) and was at a mile. If you saw the replay, the horse inside of it came out on it at the break, and it cost the horse a few lengths. I'll use the second pace line.

#6 E if a contender. Never got involved last time and then off 131 days. On a similar layoff, it ran back-pack the entire race. Workouts are slow. I don't see why it would be a pace factor today. Using last race.

#7 E. Pace factor. Use last line.

#8 S (at sprint). Last race was first off of over 6 months. Workouts are dull, suggesting that it isn't ready for prime time yet. Will use the last line.

Here's the raw shot of the horses' pace lines:

36417

Next is to find the probable pace of the race. #7 is fastest to the quarter with a 22.0. #1 and #3 are both 45.8 to the half. Highlighting those lines gives us this:

The first thing I notice is that there will be three horses on mainly equal terms at the half mile: #1, #3, and #7. #1 can run as a presser, so we'll change to its third paceline back. We now have this:

36421

Looking at this matchup, we can easily eliminate #2 and #8, neither of which gained any significant ground against the same pace. #6 did face a faster pace, but there's still the issue of it being off four months, and its competitive races have been run as E or EP. It goes to secondary status. It looks like #7 will survive the early pace matchup better than 3, so 7 goes to secondary and 3 to non-contender. Since there are two more-or-less evenly-matched early horses (plus a presser who might cause them to extend further), I'm looking for something OTE (other than early pace).

After categorizing the horses, we have this screen:

36423

#2 is off-screen as a non-contender

#1 will get first run at the leaders, but notice that it was beaten 8 lengths at the finish, admittedly in a fast time. #5 made up some decent ground from the second call to the finish. If #1 gets sucked into the early duel, #5 will be the lone decent OTE horse.

Looking at the BL/BL screen, we see:

36424

BL/BL rates them about equal.

With #1 at 5-1 and #5 at 10-1, there's probably room to play them both. As it happened, they finished 1/2.

[CaptDon100]

Thanks Segwin

[Ted Craven]

Is RDSS just calculating the 1 5 7 and 8
as the only 4 horse's in the contenders BLBL ?

In Validator If you hid the 3 6 and 2
Validator's BLBL would calculate the
race with just those horse ( 1 5 7 8 )

I don't have the card or know your config settings si I can't try this myself,
But if you just did not enter a line for horse
3, 6 and 2 would the BLBL be the same
as what you show here?

36422

Yes. The Primary group is calculated without reference to the other groups. The other groups show what the ranks were when those lines were in the Primary group (i.e. so you don't forget about them, so you can see the tote for them).

Ted

36425

And, as always, these are my Settings.

36426

[Ted Craven]

Don, replies in blue text:

Thanks Ted This is great.
1.There are 4 Early horses in this 7 horse race, and 3 of those are arguably Fighters Are you getting that from the RS screen or the Original Screen, where you highlighted the Fractions. By the way, those highlighted numbers in that screen
do they have a track variant on them, is it raw numbers, that will be different
from track to track.I modified some of the Running Styles from what the program initially calculated. If it runs 1st the first call or 2nd fighting for that lead (within .5 lengths - i.e. along side the leader) - it's Early. When you do that, the Running Styles show up on ALL screens.

Those Early horses are what I check a Projected Pace on. Not the fastest 1st fraction - just the fastest among the Earlies (and EPs if any). Yes the times on the Original Screen are RAW, no variant. Usually that's good enough to identify a) too much pressure b) an Early who cannot get the lead or who will 'die' trying (and take other Earlies down with it). Sure, some tracks with a longer run-up will look faster than others with a shorter run-up, and I guess you have to know a bit about that. But checking several lines for horses, not just one recent one, you usually get the drift if an Early can dominate or survive the other Earlies using the Projected Pace tool.
2.Have any of the 3 horses returning after 100+ days off shown they've been able to win first back off such a layoff? (NO). Are they compromised? (YES) In other words, are there any negatives to mitigate that they will perform just as well as they did in their chosen pacelines?Yes, I didn't follow FTL 90 days and I know that?Don, it's a useful guideline, however if a horse has previously shown in can return first asking and win or finish very close, and if it was working at regular intervals, perhaps with some good Workout Patterns, and especially if it was a good price - I would be somewhat liberal with that 90 day guideline.
3.The Early horses can ALL match each others' Fraction 1 times, causing some of them to try to exert more energy to attain their preferred lead position than they can spare (and especially the #3 and #6 who are still getting back into shape).The 3 and 6 are still getting back in shape, is it because there last line, that is their 1st line back and they could not finishI meant - those 2 horses are returning after 100+ days and this race is where they're working themselves back into shape. It was their last lines - and their reaction to it - which put them on the shelf. Many horses need at least a race. Where there are sufficient PPs, look to what they did before for guidance.
The OTE horse who runs positionally closest to the fastest pace is the #5. It IS a contender. For all the foregoing reasons, I make the #6 a not-for-win contender - PLUS, it will only pay us 5/2 or 2-1 if it wins despite the drawbacks it faces.
I understand this, If it was a snake it would of bit me

Also, how do you tag a non contender, I use the ITM for thatSegwin answered that. But to recap - if you have a paceline selected but NEITHER the Win or ITM Contender boxes checked on either the Entries Screen or the horse's PP Header - they will appear in the Non-Contender group. Use the Secondary Group (ITM Contender check-boxes) for horses who you want to retain for 2nd-4th contention - OR to visually retain their 'counter-energy' readouts (i.e. for Place status).
Thanks for all for taking the time to post and thanks Ted
A pleasure! Let me know if you still need help getting images to appear in your posts.

[Ted Craven]

Ted, didn't you make a video once of how you went about the process of paceline and contender selection?

Terry, I made a few videos ;) Not sure which might have been about pacelines specifically ...

In this case, re pacelines - it was simple: use BLT/C (best of last 3 comparable) PSS setting (the default). I poked around a bit to see if my eye identified any chosen lines as truly 'non-comparable' to today's surface and distance structure. Also checked for last line excuses (#5).

The most important changes I made from programmed choices were:

a) the Earlies Running Style markings (getting the software better at that, but not the current circulating version)

b) Identifying the long layoff horses as non-win contenders (partly due to the layoffs, but also partly due to their compromised Early Positional tendency - the #3 and #6).

These steps are pretty much what I do regularly (it is programmable).

Maybe I should make another video.

cheers,

Ted

[Bill V.]

Thank you

Ted I think that you have added a very powerful tool
and thank you for the good work up on Don's race

Bill

-

[Ted Craven]

Thank you

Ted I think that you have added a very powerful tool
and thank you for the good work up on Don's race

Bill

-

Bill, instead of 'hiding' lines (i.e. removing them) - this is what I have called 'hiding in plain sight' :)

Ted

[Bill V.]

Ted

This is a good feature, because in Validator Doc said to "hide the favorite" for win bets only.
to do this it only happened when you hid a horse you took away its pace line.
Then in Validator you had to re- enter a line for the favorite
to see how it ranked and ran on the early late graph if you wanted to bet
exactas and trifecta's so this saves a step for sure.

Bill

[lone speed]

Further to my comments above, please consider the following line selections and contender identifications:

36407

36408

36409

36410

There are 4 Early horses in this 7 horse race, and 3 of those are arguably Fighters (they are inclined to go head to head for the lead). Question #1: do the Early horses suffer ANY compromises? (YES).

Question #2: Have any of the 3 horses returning after 100+ days off shown they've been able to win first back off such a layoff? (NO). Are they compromised? (YES) In other words, are there any negatives to mitigate that they will perform just as well as they did in their chosen pacelines? (YES - plus the traditional stats, see FTL's writings, about percentage of Winners returning after > 90 days off).

Question #3: Does the #5 horse have an excuse for his last race poor performance? (YES - 'bumped start, 2 path', per the Trip notes; also it was a route). Forgive that last race, especially as he's returning in 17 days (trainer thinks he's fit). Then try using any of his other previous 7 races (though the 2nd race will do) - you will find that he stays in 3rd position on the BL Odds line = a contender at good odds. He closed very well in the Nov 22 Tandem against the #7 and #1 horse. Allow that that Tandem may reverse. 10-1 odds is excellent insurance against the possibility that it doesn't.

The Early horses can ALL match each others' Fraction 1 times, causing some of them to try to exert more energy to attain their preferred lead position than they can spare (and especially the #3 and #6 who are still getting back into shape).

The OTE horse who runs positionally closest to the fastest pace is the #5. It IS a contender. For all the foregoing reasons, I make the #6 a not-for-win contender - PLUS, it will only pay us 5/2 or 2-1 if it wins despite the drawbacks it faces.

Thus, regardless of whether you make the #1 and #7 non-win contenders due to the Earlies getting wiped out, the #5 is your primary OTE horse and deserves to be one of your 2 win bets (some might say the ONLY Win bet).

For your consideration ...

Ted

Ted already presented a great "work-up" of this race so I don't want to beat a "dead....."

I will try to keep it simple as this endeavor is challenging enough...The best "Matcher" was Jim Bradshaw, hands down! But on this board, we have RichieP. Pete C, and Capcondo...just to name a few...

We cannot be self-absorb in rankings, especially the top rankings....Who is number #1 in V/dc or on B/L......You have to take into consideration how they earned the rankings or final times...Keeping in mind that final time (raw or adjusted with the best speed figures are not the answer to the matchup puzzle)

Bradshaw stated that using One-fifth or one tick of energy early creates a lost of two-fifths or two ticks late (in the final time adjusted for the loss of energy)

So first call (loss of one-fifth) results in the loss of two-fifths in final times.

In this matchup:
#7 is the fastest to the first call at 22.0...

what happens then....

the #7 will cause the #3 and the #1 to run 3 ticks faster at the first call and the #6 who came off a race on the poly surface which are run like turf races. #6 will have to run more than one second faster since he ran his last race in 23.3 and 46.6 on the lead. So all these early horses will be force to use more energy early at the expense of losing their closing ability in the last fraction of this 6 furlong race.

In this readout by Ted, the #1 horse is clearly the best of the early front runners but will not be able to run his final time from the last paceline of 1:10.5 since he will be forced to run 3 ticks faster early at the first call. So to use Bradshaw's "formula", he loses at least 6 ticks on his final time.

Like Ted stated, we are looking for an OTE horse with the abundance of early pace runners in this matchup.

May the better match up posters carry the baton from here...

Good skills

[Appy]

That is really impressive borodin. I like it.
Only thing is I think you are using unadjusted fractions to denote POR. As I understand it the only true numbers (as shown) for the first fraction are by horses leading at that point in their chosen line. All others need to be adjusted by 1/5 per beaten length.
I'm sure you already know this, but you can make that adjustment by entering the line fraction number shown then left clicking for each 1/5 you want to slow it to the actual pace that horse ran. Right clicking speeds the POR time by 1/5 per click. That way you can get adjusted times to use for comparison without going to the adjusted screen which no longer shows your matchup POR.

Is that correct?

[borodin]

That is really impressive borodin. I like it.
Only thing is I think you are using unadjusted fractions to denote POR. As I understand it the only true numbers (as shown) for the first fraction are by horses leading at that point in their chosen line. All others need to be adjusted by 1/5 per beaten length.
I'm sure you already know this, but you can make that adjustment by entering the line fraction number shown then left clicking for each 1/5 you want to slow it to the actual pace that horse ran. Right clicking speeds the POR time by 1/5 per click. That way you can get adjusted times to use for comparison without going to the adjusted screen which no longer shows your matchup POR.

Is that correct?

I didn't know that the highlighted numbers could be adjusted that way.

I don't trust the internal fractions on the adjusted time screen, except to give me a barometer of a generally faster track (i.e. Turf Paradise) vs a generally slower track (i.e. Mountaineer).

I look to see what PoR the horse ran well off of.. When I figure out what the pace of today's race is, I look at each horse and see if it can run well against that or a faster pace. If it ran well against a slower pace, I see if recent races show it running well against today's pace. When I know which horses can run well against today's pace, I then see how many horses run early and match those against each other. Sometimes I throw all of them out. Then I look at the non-early (OTE) horses and see which one had the best move against this pace or had any kind of move against a better pace. I then figure what position they'll be in today and if they can run well from that position---I believe it's called "comfort level" here.

In the race above, I figured #3 and #7 would go for the lead, with #3 quitting, and #1, which could sit in 3rd, a good spot for it, would challenge #7 at the second call and probably wear that one down. From there it was a question of whether the effort/energy #1 used to get to the lead would take enough out of it for #5 to go by in the stretch. My instinct told me that #5 would arrive too late to catch #1, making #1 a good bet at 5-1, but at 10-1, #5 was still a decent win bet. Had 5 been 4-1 or lower, I probably wouldn't have played it.

[Appy]

You're doing very well, IMO. I think you have accomplished more in less time than I did.
It's just that I think those raw fractional times can be misguiding in a matchup attempt where differences can be slight. But they're easy to adjust for beaten length by noting their running line position to the right of the fractional times.
I LOVE that feature of being able to enter your POR fractional times at top of form. Those times though, even adjusted for beaten lengths, still don't address differences in track deviance for times from various tracks in chosen pace lines. I believe that difference (as well as surface) IS addressed once you switch to the adjusted screen.

I only mention all this because I'm just like all students trying to get better at incorporating all this info and use of the software.
As for this race, it is THE RACE where I ceased actually trying to play anything and just capped the races to see what happened relative to my top contender choices. That turned out to be my best choice of all. :)

[CaptDon100]

Thanks, There is a lot of information here, and I got lots out of it. I make some notes and will try to work some races.
Thanks
Don

[CaptDon100]

Those Early horses are what I check a Projected Pace on. Not the fastest 1st fraction - just the fastest among the Earlies (and EPs if any).

The fastest E Is the #2 but it's a 7f race only one furling off the 8f race
If I use those times, The only pace close to that one any of the others are in sprints this is a route.

Thanks
Don

[Appy]

Don, based on the chosen lines I would not consider the 2 an early at all, but a very strong closer. Note the running line shows the position of your horse at first fraction is 12 lengths behind the horse who recorded the time shown. If you were to look at the segments screen I expect it would show the 2 lagging miserably early, but #1 in the final.

[Bill V.]

Hi CaptDon

I don't see the 2 as a early either. With the 5 and 6 in this race
and considering its a 1 turn race, I don't see the 2 breaking ahead of them.
We will see :0

I have no fulcrum in this race .
( these are not my pacelines)

In races like this I do not project a pace of race .

36433


^
*
A

[Appy]

"We will see :0 "

Bill, I don't understand what that means. Where will we see :0?

[Bill V.]

Hi Appy

:eek: = :0

The race is still 2 hours away ! Lol

We will see ...

If there are scratches
If the early match up materializes
If Laurel is like Parx and the decide not to run at all :rolleyes:

36434

[CaptDon100]

I didn't think #2 was Early, I was trying to Project the Pace and was not sure how to go about it.

[CaptDon100]

Got it Bill

In races like this I do not project a pace of race .

[Segwin]

Hi Don, not sure if you've seen this before however this comes from Pace Makes thee Race.

E - Early - These horses, in their good efforts, always try for the lead.

EP - Early Presser - These horses tend to run first, second or third and less than two beaten lengths at the second call in sprints and less than three beaten lengths in routes. These are not hard and fast rules but guidelines.

P - Presser - These horses tend to run third, forth, or fifth and are more than two lengths back at the second call in a sprint and three in a route.

S - Sustained - These horses run in the back half of the field and are usually more than four lengths behind at the second call in a sprint and five in a route.

[CaptDon100]

Thanks Segwin, yes I have, I am trying to use the projective pace numbers in the original screen. Don't forget the F for Fighters No more than .5 of the leader on the entire race. I have Modern Pace and its not on that on either.
Thanks Don

[Appy]

"In races like this I do not project a pace of race ."

That is how you know Bill is smarter than I, because I always try.

I am seeing 6 and 4 fighting for it at the quarter, maybe with an edge to the 6 based on the presumption he made his running line mark versus higher class competition. 5 will be right there with them. The fight continues to the half pole. While the 4 shows a slight advantage in speed figure I like the 5 to gain a slight lead, but now there are others entering the fight. 6 is close and the 2 is closing fast coming to the 3/4 pole.
2,4,5,6...who's going to win it?
Here I would consult the track bias profile over the past day, days, and week AND check the trainer and jockey stats to see if one of these deserves extra consideration.

The thing about 7 F races is I consider those a discipline all their own. It's a "tweaner" distance that can favor either E or OTE. I believe certain horses can excel at 7 better than at 6 or 8. Sometimes an examination of dosage profile can reveal a tendency.

Looking at the screens by Don and Bill I would watch the board figuring to choose between 2 and 6, if any, as my W bet interest. Looks like a decent pace setup for your 2 if OTE has a shot and it can get 8.

[Ted Craven]

I have to step out very soon, so I'll put these thoughts down while I can.

The 4-5-6 are Earlies, or can be (the 4 can also close from 4th and 5th). The #5 is the Fighter and he WILL take the lead. However, the fastest pace he has been able to win against - recently is 25 49.4 (my Projected Pace) and the #4 and #6 will beat him up to run faster. I'm erring on the side of using his recent paces (not his older July CT Allowance efforts - he's not that horse anymore).

The #5 cannot win. If this is true, it's huge because it's a ML 1.8-1 and likely favourite. The race runs OTE. If the #4 stays out of the early fight it will be one of the OTEs: 4-2-3.

Which OTE runs positionally closest against the fastest pace? The #2

Any bet would depend on net odds offered on 2 of these 3, but currently I prefer 2-4.

36435

36436

36437

36438

36439

[JIMBOB1002]

Hi everybody I haven't posted in a while.
Thought I'd show what I had on this race.
I bet the #1 and #2.

[Segwin]

Hi Appy

:eek: = :0

The race is still 2 hours away ! Lol

We will see ...

If there are scratches
If the early match up materializes
If Laurel is like Parx and the decide not to run at all :rolleyes:

36434

Hi Bill,

With regards to your picture in this post, what program/web site is that from?

Tnxs.

[Bill V.]

Terry
The screen is from my 4NJBets / TVG betting account

Bill

[CaptDon100]

Hi Ted #5 is a Fighter, I must have the definition wrong. What do you consider a Fighter?
Thanks

[Ted Craven]

Hi everybody I haven't posted in a while.
Thought I'd show what I had on this race.
I bet the #1 and #2.

Nicely done Jim! I made a judgement call whether the #1 was going to close any better against the projected pace than it didn't in its 2nd back (25.3 49.4). I could forgive the last race as way too fast a pace for it - but not 2 races in a row. I hope I would make the same kind of judgement (was it fit today, did it have an excuse) the next time and win because of it ;)

The analysis was correct - the 4 and 5 dueled each other throughout (though the 5 did not get it's F1 lead - the kiss of doom) - setting up for an OTE.

It's nice to see that it ranks on top on its natural line selection (Line 3) - but I would still have had trouble selecting it over the 2 or 4, even if I thought it was a Win contender today.

36441

36442

36443

[noddub62]

nice win JimBob

:)

[Segwin]

Nice hit Jim!

[Bill V.]

Hi Appy

I don't want you to think I was being arrogant
If I can't find a fulcrum then I don't project a POR
Its something Michael Pizzolla writes about on page 117 of
Pace Makes The Race

Nice work Jimbob ,, Its good to see you back
I hope the Del Mar Blue Star shirt is keeping you warm in OHIO

Here is the chart
As we can see thanks to Ted for posting the PP's
I had no line for all the horses !

36444

GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

Hi Ted #5 is a Fighter, I must have the definition wrong. What do you consider a Fighter?
Thanks

Don,

I consider a 'Fighter' to be one who is in 1st or 2nd position within .5 lengths (ahead or behind). That's why you see the position italicized and and the beaten lengths italicized and underlined. The #5 is the only horse here who (consistently) fits that bill. Watch the replay - the 4 and 5 were often along side and right next to each other. They were 'fighting' with each other to get their nose infront - not letting the other get away with it. The #4 never typically did that before (except for line #7), needing open lengths last race.

36445

The Fighter Earlies will often run on until one gets its way, or they tire each other out completely. This is distinct from the kind of Early horse who needs open lengths ( > .5 lengths and often a full length ahead) and a pace to support that. If they are challenged by a Fighter style early, they often collapse. Here, the #4 got an open length lead over the #5 the entire first 2f, and at a F1 time (24.5) we know the #5 cannot survive.

HTH,

Ted

[Capcondo]

First off, I'm a matcher. This post seems to talk a great deal about matching concepts which is good. So I'll pipe in here. Secondly, based on Ted's screen prints, I'm know I wouldn't have gotten the winner. However, when he showed the 1 total past performance, you can see that there wasn't a pace he might face today he couldn't handle. What's more, his running style had changed in the last three races to become an OTE horse.

Three more points:

Ted correctly analyzed this race as OTE (nice call). The 1 had a slow pace to run against in each of his last three races. As a sustained horse, he can only run against the pace of the horses in front of him.

His last three races all show power moves (gaining position from the first to second or second to third call). This is a good thing.

Deeper in his PPs, he showed that he could run closer to the pace which he did today. The chart shows he sat 4th at the first call today.

[CaptDon100]

This is where I get lost. After I take my time and pick pace lines, I have trouble seeing the race.
I look at the segment screen at each position and see who will win each one.
I look at beaten lengths, I look but is put more into the running positions on the screen. I then look at TPR screen and see if the CPR is between the 1st and 2nd pick.
I then go to BL/BL screen to see the top four then check the Segment screen.
I know there are video's I have watched, and have not grasped the concept
of seeing the race. I am back to the 1st post, After I pick my pace line where
do I go.
Thanks for all for taking the time to reply, This probably has already been
addressed already, but I can't seem to grasp it. I know it's right in front of me.

Thanks Don

[Appy]

"I know it's right in front of me."
:) :) :)
CaptDon, I've been training horses and involved in horse racing to one degree or another for the better part of 6 decades, but have only taken a serious interest in handicapping in the last year or so. And I'm right there with you!
I'm just starting to see it happen. You're looking, and learning the right way to look by threads like this one (thanks for starting it!). We just need to keep practicing.
Sun comes up after every dark night.

[Segwin]

Sun comes up after every dark night.

As George Harrison once said " Daylight is good at arriving at the right time".

You are not alone Don, we all struggle with this.

There is a treasure trove of information here which will help light the way. Read, read and read some more. There are no shortcuts.

[JIMBOB1002]

Thanks Bill. The shirt is little small for me right now
but if I can keep losing weight I will get in it soon.
Its been really cold and snowy here but this weekend
its going to get about 60, oh well thats OHIO weather
for ya.

[JIMBOB1002]

nice win JimBob

:)
Thanks Budman.

[JIMBOB1002]

Nice hit Jim!
Thanks Terry

[JIMBOB1002]

Nicely done Jim! I made a judgement call whether the #1 was going to close any better against the projected pace than it didn't in its 2nd back (25.3 49.4). I could forgive the last race as way too fast a pace for it - but not 2 races in a row. I hope I would make the same kind of judgement (was it fit today, did it have an excuse) the next time and win because of it ;)

The analysis was correct - the 4 and 5 dueled each other throughout (though the 5 did not get it's F1 lead - the kiss of doom) - setting up for an OTE.

It's nice to see that it ranks on top on its natural line selection (Line 3) - but I would still have had trouble selecting it over the 2 or 4, even if I thought it was a Win contender today.

36441

36442

36443
Thanks Ted