Looking for some help
 

I played a Trifecta today for the 9th at PRX. I bet 6, 7 & 9 boxed.

I will show these picks now.

They ran 8, 6 & 9.

I spent a lot of time going over this race. I must say that I wasn't impressed with this card, on the whole, as a good value interest but I thought I'd at least play the last race.

The fly in the ointment was the 8 horse. I cant see anything redeeming in this horse for today's competition.

I'm looking for some help as to why this horse won. As I set the pace of the race this horse didn't have the stats to be in ITM. I'm inclined to believe that stuff happens but perhaps I'm missing something.


Thanks for the help.

The wager....

Class.

Hi Terry
 

Did you bet and win any other race on today's Parx card?

Bill

Hi Bill:

No I didn't bet on any other race. I typically don't play on Sunday as it is usually a pretty busy day however I had a few extra minutes. Had I bet just to win on this race I would have chosen the 9th horse. The reason I chose a Trifecta is it looked like such a good lock.

Appy, not sure what you mean by class. The horse looks like it belongs in class of race, CL 7500, but really hadn't shown much in the past three races.

Perhaps insignificant, Segs, but I noticed the 8 had run second at $30K, which I believe is a higher level than the other 3.

Terry,

My view - in one single race, you can make ALL the right decisions, and consistent with every best practice you know or have heard of, and have a losing wager. This is NORMAL, even to be embraced - especially if your longer term accumulation of records for your analysis and wager methods shows you hit sufficiently at net odds you hold out for. At one end of the review: an opportunity to remind yourself that this is true. One race is neither here nor there.

That said - understandably, you want to review your decisions to see if something can be learned. Each of us will have to review a race like this in context of our own practice: what kind of races we bet, how we bet (which pools, single/multi-win bets, our chosen analysis methods - even in the over all umbrella of Sartin Methodology, what settings in RDSS you use, etc).

In the context of my practice (bets: win, WP, occasionally WPS, Exacta pools; PSS: Best of Last 3 comparable; contenders: must have a 'good' or 'good/bad' last race or else an excuse; eliminate to Top 5 Primary LS/Total Energy; assess Early/OTE bias; keep an eye on the tote-board) - I would observe the following, both from your screen shot of the Winner #8 and from the BL/BL screenshot below:

Attachment 36062

#8 was a contender off last race: ran in front through 6 of 8f and within ~ 1 length through top of stretch. The horse can run either Early (in 2 routes) or off the pace and is thus comfortable with either a few or several other horses in front of him early (especially June 2). This would serve him well today with up to 3 other horses who might go for the lead. It returns in 12 days.

Out of the box, the default PSS: BLT/C Perceptor gives the lines chosen above (I manually made the #2 and #4 non win contenders and the #5 ITM due to lowest Total Energy/Primary LS). The line #2 chosen for the #8 horse was from 5f, Adj SR of 82 which it has shown it can duplicate well in its June races, so not aberrant. It gained position and lengths.

If one were pursuing a multi-horse 'wagercapping' approach, and adhered to a minimum of 5/2 for one horse of a 2 horse 'synthetic entry', you might have chosen the #7 and then the best odds of the top 3 BL (and top 2 and ties VDC) = the #8 for a net range of odds of 1.25-1 ... 3-1 (final odds, not sure what they were a bet-time).

All day long at Woodbine yesterday (while enjoying very fine company, watching great Stakes racing and losing only a little money ) - we observed the rank 1 0.0 Tote Xray (TX) pointing to non-favourite though top 4 ranked Win pool odds, winners (someone or some collective of the public had a 'good opinion'). And so the #8 winner in your race was also favoured in this same way. Perhaps anecdotal, but I'd suggest always to check when a non-favourite top 4 odds horse is indicated thus by TX - use it as a supplementary confirmation of an other than stellar looking horse.

I only grabbed the above screen after the race was long over and did not bet it. I also 'explained' myself off of several horses yesterday which the program saw fit to elevate to Top 3 - so it happens. Part of a (my) growing discipline is to be more clear when to accept the rigorous analysis of an automated program and when to override it (e.g. because the program does not yet know how to make all of the same decisions I do - even though it does execute what it does know how to do with slavishly consistency).

You - and others - may differ with this analysis, perhaps because it is not consistent with your regular collection of methods. And that is how it should be. But if it were me, I'd want to at least have been aware of all of the foregoing observations, and then to make my own decisions. And there are likely decisions, for example, about who of the strict Earlies woulds survive (the 6??) - which others can answer better than I can in this race.

Not a prescription of 'how you could have gotten the race' - only: some things to have looked for and an approach you could examine further.

Good luck with the next 20 races ;) !

Ted

Top vdc horse
 

Hey Terry, I understand your pain, but #8 does not look so bad in the VDC ranking.
I learned the hard way, that any time a horse shows it can take the lead in the first call, that horse should be considered as dangerous. #8 did take the lead in its last race.
Sign for "redemption" ? its energy level is back where it belongs.

Appy: I noted that the 8 had run at higher class in the past (with some success) but had continued to drop.

Ted: Thanks very much for the details - it truly helps. I've got a ways to go on the learning ladder as it were. It really helps to have experienced folks like you, B.V. and FTL looking over your shoulder.

edit: You must have posted just before me Paul. Thanks for the thoughts as well.

Redeeming Qualities
 

Terry,

Looking at the lineup, you have at least 4 earlies, which means the race will probably be won OTE. That's exactly what happened. The 4, 5 and 6 horses got into a pace battle and killed each other off. #8 Brahman passed them after they had spent each other's energy. The important redeeming quality of the #8 horse is that he can run both EARY and LATE, therefore he is a dangerous horse in this matchup.

What I am NOT going to do, is show you how you could have had the winner. I would not have had it, so how can I show you how to get it?

There is nothing wrong with re-working a race after it has run and been lost. That is how you learn. Here is the problem, however. If you “manufacture the race” until you find a way to make the horse that won, the winner of the race, ask yourself these questions.
Can I duplicate this procedure the next time?
Will I be able to recognize this same situation the next time I encounter it?
Will I end up looking at every race in this same way, possibly costing me money in the long run for doing so?
How will I know when to apply these procedures?
How will I know when NOT to apply these procedures?

What I am getting at is this, consistency. You can’t select lines this way this time and that way the next time. You WILL get caught in the switches. You WILL zig when you should have zagged.
You can’t get the winner of every race. When a race like this comes along and you lose it, just turn the page and move on.

Nobody takes more heat on this site than I do when it comes to posting races after they have been run. What they don’t seem to grasp is the fact that every race I post is approached in the same exact way. Nothing is “manufactured”. Consistency is what matters.

This race started with 10 horses. There were 2 scratches.
There were 2 horses with a ML 20/1 or higher, #4 and #8, so they would both get thrown out at the start. Obviously, this means I would not have been able to win this race. However, that doesn’t mean I would lose the race.

It has been mentioned many times that one should read the conditions before doing anything else. In this race the condition is “NW4L”. Ok, so now that you know that, what do you do? Keep it in mind as you look at each horse.

#2 – is 3 for 24
#3 – is 3 for 27
#4 – is 3 for 19
#5 – is 3 for 14
#6 – is 3 for 17
#7 – is 3 for 18
#8 – is 3 for 46
#9 – is 3 for 34
It’s clear this is not a field of “world beaters”.

Without picking a single line or evaluating any other aspect of any horse in the race…
Which horse is the worst?
Which horse is the next worst horse?
If you answered #8 and then #9 you would be correct.
Horses that are “3 for 46” and “3 for 34” do not instill a huge amount of confidence in me.

Now, there are 2 horses who won their last race, the #5 and #9. They both beat a NW3L condition, so today’s NW4L condition is the next logical step.
Although it does happen, like everything else in the world, horses have been known to beat a NW3L condition and go right into a NW4L condition and win again, but more often than not, they are unsuccessful. It is even more unlikely when working with a horse like the #9. Before its’ last race, this horse had a lifetime record of 2 for 33. Then it won, making its’ record 3 for 34. Ask yourself this question. How likely is this horse to win 2 races in a row? Not very likely.

For me, the most likely candidates for the win in this race are the #6 and #7 horses. Now, it becomes a matter of whether or not I am really interested enough or confident enough that one of these two horses will win before I actually bet the race. Since I was, in fact, watching PARX yesterday, my conclusion was that I was not interested in playing the race…so I passed it.

So, don’t be overly concerned that you lost the race. Don’t be overly concerned that a horse won the race that you can’t “get”. It happens.

Outstanding post right there.

Thanks FTL, I truly appreciate that you took the time to respond in detail. I always respect your skills.

The one nugget I pickup from your post was stacking the horses by wins:

#2 – is 3 for 24
#3 – is 3 for 27
#4 – is 3 for 19
#5 – is 3 for 14
#6 – is 3 for 17
#7 – is 3 for 18
#8 – is 3 for 46
#9 – is 3 for 34

Although I look at their past stats I've never looked at them this way. Good stuff.

This gig is a lot harder than it looks.

Great answers
 

Hi Terry

I am so glad FTL posted his great answer
I was hoping he would. I was hoping when I asked the question in
post #5 you would have come back with a winning race. but I understand this was your only race you worked that card.

FTL made a great point, that is I did not want to go back and manufacture
a winner. I was betting Parx too ( big surprise )
I can not make a case for this horse. I can't use this horse as a contender.
If I use a line for this horse I would have to use a line for every horses in the race.

Since I don't do that, its pointless to manufacture a winner.
I asked if you had any other winners on the same card for this reason.
If you had won another race Its almost a sure thing I could give a
good example of following the pace line manual and follow ups
and FTL's guidelines I too had the winner,

Nothing works all the time,

I hope you can see that learning to pass races is very important
As is learning to find races and focus on your consistent approach.

I am also thankful for FTL's post, and especially for his continued encouragement to be sure that the approach you adopt is one you can apply consistently, not zigging and zagging to try to 'catch' a winner. He has consistently emphacised this truth, as have others here.

FWIW, I stand by my analysis given above - which clearly differs from that given by FTL, and I took care to state that the approach I use is one I always use (or at least know how to use). It is the approach described by Howard Sartin in the latter Follow Ups, the one Validator was built around (and also RDSS).

I did not look at Morning Line Odds. I did not look at Earnings or win stats. I did not consult Trainer or Jockey stats, or par times for the track/distance. I hit the PSS button and got initial pacelines based on 'Best of the Last 3 Comparable / Perceptor' (and not 'Last line unless ...'). I eliminated from contention horses who had not been competitive in their last race, then further eliminated to top 5 Total Energy and Primary Line Score on BL/BL. I identified 2 horses with acceptable bet-time odds from the Top 3 BL/BL and Top 2 VDC as candidates for Win bets.

I observed the Early versus Late bias and noted a lot of Earlies and then checked that both bet candidates had Running Styles that were not overtly compromised by the likely Early runners.

It was easy to do this after the race because I follow this routine every time I analyse a race, and a fair amount (though not all) of the analysis is automated, thus guaranteeing a recurring approach. I win some and lose some others. I make a profit on my race betting, over all so far. I got this method from the writings of Dr Sartin in Follow Ups 70 - 88, and also from studying what Jim Bradshaw and Richie P wrote in the Hat Check Forum. And from practicing and making lots of mistakes due to inattention, greed and not knowing what I was doing.

It is a hard game - but it's not inscrutable. FWIW, my approach is NOT the approach of For The Lead. His is a winning approach. If each person's eventual analysis is that his described approach suits their own style - then, why not adopt that approach.

If it is NOT your style for whatever well-considered reason, then adopt a different approach. You won't get anywhere with the Methodology by not thinking deeply about why you do what you do. Develop methods to consistently apply whatever approach you are currently working on.

In my mind's eye (or mind's ear) I can hear Howard intoning the approach I described above. Howard evolved his methodology over the years, and I believe what I have described is my understanding and practice (warts and all) of that evolution. Go through the later Follow Ups and see how many times advice was given about avoiding 20-1 and higher Morning Line horses, or about checking win ratios, or about using only the last line if it was a good one. Check for the same advice in the Hat Check Forum describing the Matchup (it's not in either collection).

Understanding race conditions is very important. Understanding who is and who is not a Win contender today is very important. Understanding the later methodology described by Dr Sartin is very important. After understanding all these, THEN you have the breadth of understanding to CHOOSE the tools and components for your own game.

Ted

then
 

Thanks Ted

That is good advice, I agree to go back and read all the follow ups 70-77
If you want to do best of last 3 at a comparable distance and competion level and the hat
check match up threads for advice on Early - Late and the match up

But then you also should go back and study your records of how often 3 for 40
horses win at your track
How often 20/1 Morning line horses win at your track

You will also learn not to base everything on 1 line. Especially if the
line is an extracted or projected line. Even if a horse gets adjusted from a sprint to a route to make it top 3 total energy and pls,
does the horse show any other lines in its past performances to support those adjustments ? If you are not familiar with class
rankings you can use total energy as a class factor

thanks
Bill

About using only the last line if it was a good one
 

I,m one that the last line will tell a lot about the race and how the horse was re-acting to all of the excitement at the starting gate and of when the gate Pop's and seeing how the race unfolds from the beginning.

Well....
 

I was reading Teds post on the Tote Xray FAQ when I noticed the horse in his example, the # 8 that had to 0.0 in the TX section, looked familiar. I thought that's the name of the same horse that gave me a fit in my "need help" post. After staring at it for a few seconds it dawns on me that it is the same horse and from the same race I was talking about. When Ted posted it in this thread I never bothered to look at the TX part. Now it appears that at a ML of 20/1 it was now at 6/1 and the betting favorite to win. Hmmm..... Seems everyone was in on it but me lol.

I will pay a lot more attention to this in the future however.

(why does it have to cost money when you make a mistake??);)

It was not the betting favourite (4th ranked), it was the #1 ranked Tx. The Tx should be used as a corollary, a confirmative or tie-breaking readout, not necessarily a primary decision maker (IMO).

It was a convenient race to use to illustrate your Tote Xray query :)

Ted

Thanks Ted. I went back and reread your post in this thread. My mind must have been elsewhere when reading through your post (which happens if I get a business phone call while I'm trying to have fun) :D