Match Up
 

from Randy K.
"When Jim would just simply look at a race and toss out most of the field because "they can't win", there was no way to nail down exactly "Why" he decided that."

ATM- March, 1962 RT wrote:
"From what has been said so far, it becomes clear that one of the first step in handicapping a race is to eliminate all animals in the race that DO NOT ENJOY at least, fair current CONDITION. Since a horse can't win if it is not sharp it is a waste of time to figure horses that are sadly lacking in this department. They should eliminated before one starts to figure the race."

Is horse's condition= "why" Jim would toss out most of the field?

That's part of it, but mainly, I don't think I ever read or listened to anything from Jim Bradshaw that he did not go on and on about SLOW horses, and how you must get them out of the race.

He was talking mostly about messing up your readouts in the programs, but it would certainly apply to matching too.

A lot of times a slow Early horse will have a decent 2nd fraction, but if he was shut down in the 1st fraction and came into the 2nd 6 lengths back, he's not going to figure in the race though he might make something else look worse in the 2nd fraction.

I suspect his slow horse definition encompassed a lot of things, but I've spent a lot of time in recent years trying to get better at identifying how to spot The Hat's SLOW horses.

In the manual entry programs and in the Match Up you just leave them out of the mix. In download programs, it is vital that you actively take them out.

As Tom B used to say GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT.

Socantra,
a good example of what appear to be a slow horse is a race where Richie and I discussed after the fact. No software was used. The race in question was AP 5-24 race#9. The Match Up clearly indicate an OTE race and #6 as the probable winner due his last race. We know that #7 did place and my question to you is:
Is #7 a slow horse that can't overcame today's POR based on his past performance? Do you see anything positive about this horse that would allowed you to use him in an ex, or toss him out?
Btw the ex paid $451.00

Hi Pino
 

Hello Pino

I hope its ok to jump in here
I know you asked Socontra but I kind of have a question based on how I do races - matching up but using software too, First off I am following the hats guidelines of only using turf and poly lines on a Poly surface

My lines
#6 - 1
#5 -1
#8 - 6
#7 - 4
#1 - 5

Maybe It was the position move
7 7 7 4 at 7.0 furlongs against the fast pace 109.3 ?

Thanks for asking and helping me

Bill

Bill,
can you find a faster line beside line 4 on poly? I'll bet you can.

Yes
 

hello Pino

Yes I see it now and its from AP too
line 6

Bill

Bill,
run you software using line 6 and line 7, see what you end up with.

Hi Pino
 

Hello Pino

When I first ran the race using line 4 the 7 was tier 4

when I ran the software with lines 6 and 7
but without the line 4 line 6 was also tier 4

when I used all 3 lines this is what I get
I didn't want to use line 7 because its not poly or turf
Is this right

Thanks
Bill

Bill,I agree with you about not mixing poly and dirt lines they are 2 different animals.But in my opinion the same is true for turf and poly I dont think just because a horse runs good on turf that he will run well on poly.Jeff

Jeff
 

Thanks I thought the 8 was a good horse
It seems to do well at all distance and surfaces
I will watch out for turf Poly and dirt lines

Not really an issue for me doing Philly Monmouth and Finger
lakes although I have not had the chance to do much up there
yet this year

GS
Bill

Bill,Actually Tim made a good point in that Woodbine thread about not putting Kee or TP lines in for horses running at WO.The poly tracks differ greatly.Jeff

was #7 investment worthy at those odds?

Okay, First the disclaimers. I did not look at this race before it ran. I do not have the Trackmaster past performance, but do have the TSN PP. I have handicapped as little artificial surfaces as possible and generally look at lower class tracks. I am not, in any way a Match Up expert. I've read a lot of Bradshaw and a lot of Richie's posts, and feel I have learned a lot. So far though, I have not discovered the magic.

Most likely, I would have glanced at this race and passed right on by. There are too many horses too close together and nothing jumps out at me.

If you and Richie have looked at the race and determined other then early and the #6 as your most likely winner, I'll start from there.

The #7 doesn't look like a slow horse to me. If you go back to when the horse was running well, it was running against stronger fractions that the #6 horse. In fact, it is running against stronger fractions in its recent races.

I also notice the #7 is running its 3rd race off a layoff (which is kind of magic to me) and that it gained in beaten lengths in both of its last 2 races and in position in its last race.

I would have probably used line #6 for the 7 horse and I don't see any other line for the 6 horse other than the last, which appears to be the best of its career.

So no, I don't see the #7 as a slow horse. That 3rd start after a layoff is enough to send me back to earlier races. Whether I would have gotten to the exacta or not, I can't honestly say, but Bill's readouts make me think I might have been in the neighborhood. I'm still not much of an exacta player.

Dick

Dick,
3rd. race of layoff, gaining lengths in the last 2 races is what made this horse a strong contenders. That jumped at me as soon I saw the horse's pp. Good and brief handicapping. Thanks

I wonder what would happen in the rankings with the #7 horse if you took away the adjustments by RDSS. I believe he will come to the top then.

The Hat from reading his books and the post here at P&C handicapped with original times and used only mental adjustments only for certain tracks.

Robert