TED

The two best races going 7F were:

Altius -- 11/3/10 -- a HUGE, and I do mean HUGE, against the grain effort
Lucky Lotto -- last race, where he WIPEDOUT the field.

How in the world do people make the 6 the chalk? The horse has DEMONSTRATED that it can't go beyond 5.5F/6F. Even with the Jordan JUICE and the top jock it quit like a pig. You can't juice went it comes to distance limitations on POLY.

I'd pay money to see the look on Jordan's face during the running of the race. Or, even better, the look on the faces of all the people he gave the horse out to. :rolleyes: Or still even better: Jordan's supplier.

ha ha ha

Bill Wood
 

Thanks Bill for the race
I just got a chance to work it.
I feel for you Ted I was not on the 5 here either
But looking back It does have the 5.0 workout
6 days since last racing 18 days ago
A powerful plus factor at some tracks
Its been a plus at Monmouth
Have to watch it. Beware of horse working 5.0 with poor recent form
The 5.0 works better with layoff horse 30 - 50 days
and good form horses running back in less than 21 days
The 5.0 within 14 days is a good factor

GS
Bill V.
Agusta GA.
Attachment 22764

Bill and Bill:

Putting my 2cents worth. I came up with exactly the same RDSS readout as you did. I guess it it is......as always.....a matter of paceline selection.

Al B.

Looks the programs pretty much had all the finishers as top contenders. What I meant, was that sometimes the program is smarter than I am ;). EXDC had the top 3, RDSS EL 2.0 had the top 2, BLBL had the race 1-2 - only I chose to downgrade the winner's maiden race effort. Reinstating it as a Win Contender does the trick. TFM was right - the winner's last line was a major effort.

Thanks for the tip Bill V about workouts at MTH.

Redux
Attachment 22765

Bill V.
Are you reading Taulbot?

Scott
 

Hello Pino

I have read some.
I follow Wm.Scott's How Will Your Horse Run Today
Most of whats in the book does not seem to work as well as it once did.
But understanding form has helped me
The 5.0 work out chapter seems to be working well at Mth

some examples
my last 27 races that I bet from Monmouth

8 winners had 2,3 or 4works since there last race no longer layoff than 57 days
with one of those works being 5.0 or longer
2 winners had only one 5.0 work but they both were in the less than 14 days
since last good race window

In this 27 race sample
11 had 1 WSLR (work since last race)
3 had 2 WSLR
3 had 3 WSLR
3 had 4 WSLR
7 had 0 Works but all 7 had raced in the last 21 days

GS
Bill
Someplace in South Carolina :confused:

Ted, about the #7 horse, horses with a ML of 20/1 or higher only win about 5% of all races. For me, they are immediate "throw outs". I mean, one could look at a ML 20/1 shot if they want to, but they should understand that the odds AGAINST that horse winning REALLY ARE 19/1, regardless of how the public makes the odds through betting.

I understand that everyone is searching for "value" so let me offer this. I searched two random years and found each of those years to be almost identical. This is what I searched for.
(1) how many horses won at a price of $40.00 or higher
(2) how many horses won at a price of $40.00 or higher and had a ML of 20/1 or higher
In the first year the answer to #2 came back 28%
In the second year the answer to #2 came back 26%

So the answer to "value" is to look for it among the horses that have a ML LESS THAN 20/1. Not only do those horses win more frequently, but they represent the majority (by a large margin, about 75% to 25%) of the horses that actually end up paying $40.00 or more.

Ted, really, I'm not picking on you!:) The condition of this race happens to be one of my favorites. Regardless of the condition abbreviation, N1-X or NW1X, it is still a race for "non winners of a race, OTHER THAN maiden,claiming, starter, etc, etc." It means, the most likely race for a horse to enter after it broke its' maiden is this race, especially if the maiden win came in a "maiden special weight" race. Think of a maiden special weight race and an allowance race of being similar, in that a horse cannot be claimed out of either type of race. So what you would expect to find in these races are a bunch of horses that are "1 for ?"

I didn't look at this race, but what I look for in these races are horses that HAVE won more than one race and they would be "claimers". The fact is, they have demonstrated the ability to beat a field of horses OTHER THAN maidens.

In races like these where ALL the horses have only one win, just keep in mind that none of them have ever beat anything except a field of maidens, so where it is generally not a good idea to back a horse coming off a maiden win, in this case it isn't quite as bad.

Hope this helps.

FTL,

I accept that those statistics are valid. I accept that one will lose many more bets including 20-1 shots than less than. What to do when a consistent (e.g. automated) contender selection method points to a horse, which type has appeared to finish in the money sufficient enough over many races in the past to pay for itself? To not bet it somehow because the public has over-valued another odds-on horse or horses (thus pushing our longshot above the statistically magic 20-1 point) is squandering a hidden observation in deference to those who have no means to see it.

Consider WO Race 6 last night July 6, two races after my 20-1 longshot failed to win (analysis posted well before it ran: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...93&postcount=1). The winner, a horse whose PPs looks like that and let go at 22-1 should lose more than it wins (must lose, for the game to remain valid). Yet when it appears on your own validated method - you must bet it, otherwise your method is useless. You count on winning a few of these, plus many more at < 20-1 as you point out, to spike the average mutuel resulting from mostly betting 2 or more horses at < 10-1 (for example).

NewPace (and a few EL 2.0) users around the world had to have included at least something on this horse if they were deploying that method in a series of races including that one last night. The recommended betting strategy would also have included the 7/5 favourite in a vertical exotic strategy. All vertical exotics, plus a Win and Place mutuel were accessible.

Attachment 22768

Attachment 22769

Attachment 22770

Attachment 22771

Again, I have no doubts whatsoever the statistics show all horses over 20-1 lose 95% of the time. The really interesting statistic (which I accept is inaccessible to you at the moment) is how much net does a horse over 20-1 pay who looks like this one did on a valid longshot method (NewPace or EL 2.0, to be specific). I submit the win frequency is a lot higher than 5% and the ROI in the Win/Place pools alone (forget about exotics), is greater than 0%. When such a horse loses, I look to getting a reduced share of my other 5-1 or 10-1 horses who do win. When this type of longshot horse wins, I look to set aside a majority of the profits to cover when it will lose (then spend a little bit on my celebratory beverage of choice ;))

In the end, you have to bet according to your method. As the readouts show, the BLBL readout had this horse nowhere for Win due to very low relative Total Energy, however its opposite E/L Differential energy distribution pattern (TPR+EL screen) showed that it was possibly capable of at least finishing in the money. The EL 2.0 (NewPace) suggestion that it was worthy of further investigation is dismissed only at one's peril. I don't yet have long term stats on such horses' ROI, but I believe Dave Schwartz does.

Ted

22-1
 

Hi Ted
If I see a 22- 1 on my vital readouts i'm putting a little something on it too
Hey don't forget the show pool

found out
Aiken SC