Oaklawn Race 5 - Friday 2/9
 

I handicapped this race and felt that this race was better in winnowing down to the true contenders than the Gulfstream race from Wednesday. Before I chime in, I'll post the entrants with the race conditions.
Note: Post Time is 4:19pm EST:

Attachment 45357

PPs - 1-2-3-4
 

Attachment 45358

Attachment 45359

Attachment 45360

Attachment 45361

PPs - 5-6-7-8
 

Attachment 45362

Attachment 45363

Attachment 45364

Attachment 45365

PPs - 9-10-11
 

Attachment 45366

Attachment 45367

Attachment 45368

Hi Jeebs,


The (10) is coming off of 142 days but looks like he might be there if he runs his race.

Original/FTL guidelines
 

I will be working the race using both the original Sartin guidelines with FTL's added guidelines for non-contenders and the BLT/C.

Using FTL's recency guideline, we won't consider #'s 2, 9 and 10, as they have been off more than 90 days. Then, using FTL's ML odds guideline, we're not considering #'s 7 and 11, as both are 20-1 ML or greater. These two guidelines cull approximately 46% of the field before diving into a more detailed analysis of the remaining runners.

#1 - Line 1. An unknown factor as it is rising to the $8's for the first time in recent memory. Multiple win and "+" lines vs. OK bred bottom claimers. Usually runs late. Encountered a little bit of trouble 1st time over the OP oval. Trainer has hit at a low strike rate the past two seasons but is overall middle of the road in claiming events.

#3 - NO LINE. Former allowance level winner has declined in recent starts off the freshening. First two outs over the track showed nothing vs. $12.5 albeit NW1-4M condition. Today's race is for NW2-6M, which figures to be tougher despite the drop in price. Horse appears to have changed its running style to a bit more sustained than it has been, so it may not be the same horse that it once was.

#4 - NO LINE. Showed nothing last out off the freshening vs open $10 company over the surface, followed by another line at HAW where it showed nothing. It's most recent "+" race (a win) was vs. IL-bred $10 claimers, which would seem below this level.

#5 - Line 3. With 4 starts within the recency guideline, we have a garden variety of lines at our disposal. I bypassed Lines 1 and 2 because the DED "sprints" are of the two turn variety and that 2nd line down was a route. Line 3 fits on recency, distance, class and form. Slightly concerned that the horse ran a "+" race and was claimed for $15 in that line and is now dropped in for $8, but the trainer is overly aggressive with his claimers, hitting at 30% over multiple seasons, despite the low % meet stat. Owner is also very aggressive in this region's claiming ranks. If this horse is right, it is a winning spot.

#6 - Line 1. The only usable race off the recency guideline and it is a "+ within a zero (+)". Visually a late runner, but tends to use its energy early.

#8 - Line 1. We had two potentially rateable lines off the recency guideline, but its last was over the track and a "(+)" race off the freshening vs. $12.5 NW1-4M. Slight unknown is the fact that the horse has continued a descent down the ladder having been competitive for $25 and $20 and is entered for the $8 today. Respectable trainer with his claimers despite struggles at the current meet.

If my interpretation of the original guidelines with FTL's added guidelines is correct, this is my starting point as far as the "true" contention in the race goes:

Attachment 45370

Hi Bill,

I agree somewhat with your assessment of #10, as it blasted an open $8 field before hitting the sidelines. This race would seemingly fit the horse, but I do have my concerns regardless of whether the original or the BLT/C starting points are used. Its history suggests that it shows little off layoffs, and it has several. If that last line was more recent (i.e. this current OP meet), it would stand out and I would have to take more notice. However, it is an unknown whether it is capable of running a big race today off the sidelines based on what I can see.

Starting point
 

As Ted wisely alluded to the other day, the contender/paceline selection is merely a starting point to the handicapping process. While we may narrow our contention down to the horses who are the likeliest to win, it is easy to forget/overlook that the horses whose chances of winning are low % (our non-contenders) are still running in the race. A non-contender can impact the running of a race in many different ways, most notably in the early running.

Based on my contender mix, #'s 5 and 8 are Early/Early presser types. If the race only consisted of the 4 contenders in my mix, the early pace analysis would be cut and dry, as #8 has an F1 advantage over that rival. But it's not that simple. The reality is that there are 7 other horses entered (pre-scratch), which means that others may impact the pace. Judging by #3's recent form cycle, I don't see that one impacting the early running, although it did chase a strong pace in a compact field two starts back. However, #7 (20-1 ML) is an early energy runner and tends to be forwardly placed. Looking at its PoH velocity and E/L differential graph, it is capable of throwing down aggressive early fractions and burning up energy:

Attachment 45371
Attachment 45372
Attachment 45373

The presence of the #7 horse figures to have an impact on the early pace scenario as both #5 and #8 will either have to outrun #7 to gain the front end, or keep up with #7's potential pace so that one doesn't get an uncontested lead. Likewise, if either #5 and/or #8 outrun the #7, all those runners figure to burn extra reserves to keep to task. Either way, this spells bad news for those horses, as they will have to use a greater amount of energy. This is reflected in the %Med:

Attachment 45374

Barring scratches and/or an out of the blue change in race dynamics, this race does not favor the early matchup.

Looking at OTE
 

With the likely pace scenario favoring horses that are "OTE" (other than early), I turn my attention to my other set of contenders, #1 and #6, who visually make their moves late:
Attachment 45375

In nearly every pace scenario that it faces, #1 tends to run evenly in F2 and F3. This is reflected by it's visual run style, %Med and the E/L differential:
Attachment 45376

Now, compare to #6, who tends to run more evenly in F1 and F2. In fact, when matching our contenders together, #6 throws down a superior TT fraction. Based on my initial line selection using the original guidelines, #6 has a high %Med for its run style. However, a deeper look into its PPs reveals that it typically runs its %Med in the P-EP ranges. If I go against the FTL recency guideline and alter my paceline for that one to Line 2 (91 days ago, 24 hours past the guideline), its energy distribution goes south of 69%, an EP line:
Attachment 45377

With the line changed on #6, the complexion of our contenders change somewhat:
Attachment 45378
Attachment 45379

Who can match the TT fraction on #6? Nobody. The ability for #6 to make its move at F2 instead of F3 makes it a more reliable closing runner than #1.

Blt/c
 

I had this all typed out and Mr. Fat Hands here (myself) had the meat of his palm on the touchpad and accidently deleted my analysis. So here is the "Reader's Digest" version:

#1 - Line 2, Contender
#2 - Line 7, Non-contender
#3 - Line 2, Non-contender
#4 - Line 3, Non-contender
#5 - Line 4, Contender
#6 - Line 3, Contender
#7 - Line 6, Non-contender
#8 - Line 5, Contender
#9 - Line 5, Contender
#10 - Line 1, Contender
#11 - Line 10, Non-contender

Attachment 45380

Matchup
 

Attachment 45382

Basically the same contenders as the Original/FTL guidelines except now #'s 9 and #10 are at play. BLT/C paints a more complex picture of the race, as #10 shows ability to run fast in F1 and not burn itself out so much. The non-contending #7 still figures into the pace scenario, which means that #5 and #8 will need their running shoes on in the F1. However, #8 owns a superior TT over #6, who still runs strong (Top SC). #10 owns F3, which with a combo of a strong F1 and F3, would likely be enough to overcome the potential early burnout. #1's F3 move appears too little too late.

Match-Up Graph:
Attachment 45383

Final thoughts on BLT/C and Original
 

In this race, BLT/C yields more possible "true" contenders than the Original/FTL guidelines did. However, more can sometimes muddy the waters a touch. Although #10 looks dominant off that last line, the reality is that the horse typically doesn't show up in the initial race off the layoff. In layoffs of 50+ days in its 10 race chart, the horse shows nothing. We won't know until after the race is run whether this one will be able to run a big one off the bench. I would downgrade this one based on its previous layoff history. I would also downgrade the #1 based on its Total Energy and nasty habit of doing its serious bidding in F3. Lastly, if you downgrade #9 due to an ice cold trainer at the meet, you're left with the trio of 5-6-8.

The BLT/C matchup flatters #8 more than the other matchup did, although #6 still looms a major threat. In fact, both Sartin elements flatter #6.

Overall, I don't see this as a prime opportunity. For the most part, both paceline/contender guideline sets point to the same runners, albeit a few extra runners and differences in pacelines. There are some unknowns that exist that are tough calls. However, for entertainment/small profit, you can't do wrong playing the #6, as it passes the acid test on both the Original/FTL guidelines and BLT/C.

Nice write up Tim. I gave this a quick look and my top 4 are 6-8-3-5. I also looked at the 1 and 10 but made them secondary contenders. If payoffs look ok I might take a shot here at some exotics.
Tim

Jeebs:


I didn't think there would be time to complete a look at this race as I've been in meetings all day & have one tomorrow afternoon. While away my CP screen has been driving me crazy, I did figure out how to go from 3 views in RDSS to two which helped .However sizing is still giving me issues. Can't maneuver as usual.Driving on.


I agree and believe this race has too many contenders for serious betting and more than the other you recently put up. I prefer less for any serious size bet. It should provide a price but that doesn't always happen even in MD. races. I see some dropdowns but their soundness is always or in most cases ? and will be know after the race.
Contenders:1-3-5-6-8-10 Final order: 8-6-5-3-10


Mitch44

Jeebs, you picked a great work-up race.

well, my 5 contenders 4-6-8-9-10.

Wow 3min to post wide open so here goes nothing $wp 368,$1ex box 3568 $1exs 3568/110 tot $32.
Tim

I had a little something on 8 who I thought ran a good one, but needed less pace pressure.

5 not on my radar. i guess those ALW race really counted. the 7 was S. ALW.
" "^shrug^ " "

5 went off 9/2 missed those odds thought is was lower...:o

Saver saved
 

For the odds, I felt 6-5 were getting good bang for my buck and spread the wealth betting both. I thought that the winner was going to be more forwardly placed, but instead let the #8 and non-contender #7 hang themselves. #6 never got rolling today. Made a few bucks. Good race. Congrats to those who cashed!

Attachment 45403

Attachment 45404

Apologies for the large screenshots last post. Cut/paste from my phone and it sent it as a high res.

Nice analysis Jeebs and always nice to make a profit. I wouldn't have put that much in but can argue or contest success. Congrats!!
Mitch44

5 was at 7/2 with about 1 min to post the lowest of my top 4. Also the 5 &10[ the old Woolworths Dept stores angle lol ] were the only ones with wins over the track. Exacta pd $24,40 for a buck so I took a small $7.60 loss. 50 cent tri was ok $86.25.
Tim

Nice job Tim. This was a fun race.

Good call, Bill. He was indeed there, but the down time probably left him a tad short in the fitness department in those final yards. Next time!

Yes, sir. I remember the old Woolworths Dept store angle. And of course, there's the Dr. Pepper angle - 10, 2 and 4. :)

That was good, Tim.

also called them "murfs" (murphys 5 & 10)

Good ones Mick and Rverge.
TIM

First things first.
Congratulations, JEEBS, on having the winner.

Thanks for posting the PP’s. That allows me to comment.

The first thing is, I think this is a terrible race. (sorry Mick, we all have opinions) Why do I say that?
If you just look at the last two races for each horse there are 8 different tracks in play. Couple that with all the various class levels and conditions at each of those tracks, it makes for a chaotic mess.

The second thing is, this is not a standard claiming race. It is a “waiver” claiming race.
Attachment 45399

For those who do not know what that is, here is a link to the post I wrote about it.
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10855

OK. Now to the guidelines.

I agree that the 2,9 and 10 get eliminated for being OFF more than 90 days.
I also agree the 7 and 11 get eliminated for their ML being 20/1.
Now I will look at the remaining horses for line selection.

#1 – last line. It is a “+” race where the horse ran 3rd 19 days ago across today’s track.
#3 – line 3. JEEBS missed this one. It is a “+” race where the horse ran 2nd. Both lines 1 and line 2 were at the $12,500 claiming level where today the race is at the $8,000 level. I don’t like line 3, but it is the only other line in the last 90 days. It is a 5f race, which I don’t like, but it is within 1 furlong of today’s distance.
#4 – No line.
#5 – line 3. It is a “+” race where the horse ran 2nd. It is a 7f race and I don’t like that either, but it is within 1 furlong of today’s distance. The horse only shows four sprint races. One on the turf (throw it out) another at DeD, a “bullring” track (throw it out) a third at 6f at the ALW NW1X class level where it ran poorly (throw it out) and the 7f race, which is line 3. I dismiss how the horse ran in route races. Today the distance is 6f. That DOES NOT mean the horse will go to the lead as it did at 7f, but it’s all there is to use.
#6 – No line. JEEBS got it wrong. The only line to consider is the last line. In that line the horse did NOT run 1st, 2nd or 3rd. It did NOT run first or second at the first and/or second calls. The horse did NOT make up ground between the first and second calls to be withing 2 lengths of the leader at the second call.
#8 – last line. It is a “(+)” line. The horse fought for the lead at both the first and second calls. The race was 27 days ago across today’s track.

So, we are left with #’s 1, 3, 5 and 8 horses as contenders.
Just to be clear, these horses do NOT represent the “top 4”. They are the ONLY 4.
This is the starting point.
By the way JEEBS, Ted didn’t say that, I did.
#5 wins paying $11.20

It is my opinion that these types of lines should never be used. They represent nothing. NOT early, NOT presser, Not sustained. They were just “in the race”.

claimed
 

Hi

I was unable to be home in time. I feel bad cause Jeebs posted the race in
plenty of time .

I worked the race this afternoon. I had a issue with the 5 as being a negative dropper
I see FTL noted it was a waiver claimer, The only horse eligible to run in and not have to be claimed was the #10
It fit because it had not run in longer than allowed in the waiver claimer
rules.

The 5 was offered for the claiming price
I was suspicious of the drop of nearly 1/2 the claining price

When I worked the race I would have bet the 3 and 6

Bless
Bill

Attachment 45407


Attachment 45406

I used line 4 for the # 5 horse and it was on my radar however like Bill the drop concerned me so I placed him 3rd in my order. I also downgraded the 10 as stepping up in class and that one of the droppers had to be sound but which one.I did have a 5-3 Ex but the 3 stopped about 20 yards from the finish giving it to the 10 for place.


My analysis said the race had to many contenders and questions on droppers etc. therefore it wasn't a good betting race. I also thought there were some good paying Ex's, worth the risk verses the win bet. I'm very satisfied with my evaluation and Ex bets before post time to take advantage of some overlays based on my analysis /money management.
Mitch44

Good analysis, Bill. I agree that the #5 dropping did smell a little funny. However, those connections (Caldwell/Villafranco) play the claiming game quite aggressively in that region, so you had to take that somewhat into account. Even though #5 appeared disadvantaged by the paper matchup, the connections, BL tier and tote odds made it an easy saver under #6 whom I had bet aggressively, albeit probably too much so! 🤑 In the end, #5 made the save (as an OTE). No complaints.

Great job Tim (Jeebs) no one can argue or dispute success. Nice call.
Mitch44

This horse switched trainers from its last race back to a trainer who previously trained it. It went from a 11% trainer to a 23% trainer from its last race, This horse was going to improve from that move. The question becomes when and at what class level ? one reason I had it 3rd in my order. This is a favorite move of both Lt1 and I that we consider and jump off the page at us in our analysis. The trainer had four stats all well over 20% & Jeebs was correct about the connections.
Mitch44

You are entitled to your opinion and while I suspect that the following response will do nothing to change that opinion, I'll still go ahead with it anyway.

When Doc shifted his tack from velocity to the esoteric "chaos math" based algorithms (V/DC, Entropy, etc) that transformed the Methodology in the mid/late 90s, he moved away from the visual ESP that guys like Hat, Brohamer, et al had popularized in the years prior. While a line like the two lines you highlighted in your rather candid and spirited postmortem may appear to represent nothing from a visual standpoint, it may very well represent something when the chaos math and Median Energy run styles are applied. The end result is the ability to detect hidden form through numbers and graphs, which could be difficult to see or envision looking at a race from a more traditional, visually conservative lens.

Bill V. Yes the winner was claimed and connections and the inside game always have a advantage over us. I tried observations at the track but could never obtain an edge with it.
A trainer who looks at thousands of horses and whose livelihood depends on their skill of the game ,particularly claiming have an edge on us. Ditto for maidens. Good looking out Bill and on their claim.
Everything points to a very sound horse as I always contend hindsight is always 100% and decisions have to be made before the bell. Had I had that conclusion it would have been in my top two in lieu of 3rd choice. Didn't have time to look at a DD but would have been alive for it you I was suspect of the suspicious drop which becomes an unknown factor.
Mitch44

Jeebs: Post #36 was an excellent post. I might add his later recommended procedures for picking pace lines was and is superior to his original journey into that area. This was also confirmed by an independent & outside analysis from a firm in Las Vegas. Results of that analysis is well published in the Follow Ups.
Mitch44

I like to once again congratulate Jeebs on getting the winner. Also in my opinion he did not make a mistake in considering the 6 as a contender. Using the best of the last 3 at a comparable dist, surface ,and class I went with line 3 which was a win at 6.5f @7500 clm.on dirt. The line has the best adj sr and perceptor of the last 3 lines. As a side note, based on contender selection process of 2 teaching members, I would have qualified the horse off its last line. I know this line doesn't meet the the original pace line method favored by FTL but I would like to point the following At the 1993 Vegas seminar Bruce Jorgeson pointed out that he kept as a contender any horse that beat half the field in its last. The horse finished 4th in a 9 horse field at a higher level in that race. Additionally it was only 2 lengths behind at the stretch call which qualified it as up close as per Tom Brohamer advise for picking contenders. So in my opinion one could stick the horse with that line if the 60 day l/o concerned them. Again, keep in mind, as FTL and Ted have pointed out, this is only the initial process and in no way means the horse would be a play.
Tim

Jeebs,


Nice post. You got the job done with your 2 horse picks.
The name of the game is "profit".
Congratulations.