Pattern recognition
 

This is the case of a horse that flew totally undetected under the public's radar, to win at the whopping price of $57.00:mad: from a starting point of 8/1morning line.
I know that there are races that defy logic...and so on..but was this really one of those??? Was there any clue to the horse's potential, other than the fact that it was one of the 3 color coded horses in RDSS? In the BL/BL, that horse wasn't even near the top 5. However, I noticed that there is a 62% accumulation for this horse, in the newpace section, that I circled. What does that represent? Was that a red flag? All comments welcome.

Hi
 

I did not bet this horse but I saw a few things

There was not a lot of early speed in the race. I only had 1 Early
horse and I other EP4 horse
Attachment 33532
The 1 was scratched
The 1A does try for the lead, running 2nd at the first two fractions
in 3 of its 6 races when it ran well early. in its sprints it ran a 90 EPR
which is good
Attachment 33531
It its the #1 APV horse

In todays match up it was able to get the lead and go wire to wire

Attachment 33533

Hi Bill V
Thanks for your comment. I agree that the 1A did run second at the first two fractions, in a couple of races, but the #7, #9 and #2 all did better, by going first at the second or first fraction. So we would have never got the #1A just by looking at those two fractions.
So, I guess the only real clue is that it was the top APV horse. I need to pay more attention to those APV horses, anyway.
Have a good day!

Not sure what being the #1 APV rank means here when it's solely based on one maiden win.

The horse was lightly raced and I would pay attention to the turf workout (stayed within 3 lengths of the leader to the 2nd call) and the early positioning shown at the route - 2nd by 1/2 length to the 2nd call in a field of 14. Even more impressive if he broke from an outside post (I couldn't seem to find post position). Pace numbers or fractional times are not so important in the "workouts within races".

Bill's comments about lack of early pace are another positive. Not sure of his works, but if he had shown a nice one over a dirt track, that would have been another sign for me.

The biggest risk to me here is the switch from poly to dirt. I would also want to evaluate the fav from AQU.

If the fav is vulnerable, I've got a lightly raced horse with both a turf tightener and a route tightener cutting back into a sprint where he's shown me good early positioning and also the ability to win his maiden race off the pace. Ability to handle dirt is still an unknown.

I probably wouldn't get interested until about 10-1 but 27.5 - 1? Sounds like a good risk return ratio but you will still lose more of these than you win.

I have found that that morning lines of 5-1, 6-1, and 8-1 give me the best risk-reward opportunities when I can identify vulnerabilities in the fav. If I think I have a vulnerable 2nd fav as well, the better.

I am assuming the ml maker is competent. Since SoCal is is my home track, I've had no long term issues. I'm sure most major circuits are similar.

The caveat to this thread is that it's always easier AFTER the fact.

Lou and Paul
 

Thanks

Lou the 1A broke from post 13 Post positions are on
the trip tab in RDSS2

Attachment 33542

I think that what made this race so difficult to figure out was the fact that there were other horses who had won previously at higher RC than today's race. That includes the #3, #4 and #5 horses that were actually at lower M/L.
So 1A was climbing the ladder, when others were going down the ladder:)
I rarely bet horses going up the ladder to win. So, I would have never bet this one to win.

Yep, there sure was. The horse had all these positive angles:

1-2-1-1, B; CD; FOT2; GRIR, HiLO; JSW; L60; LC*; O/L; PI*; PP+; SD; TCD; WD; WIR

Regards,

Jon

I left out an important one: UFI

Jon

Jon,

Thanks for these. However, without definitions they are pretty uninformative (some would say - distracting). Yes I know, they are the BH Method which are some kind of descendant of ideas of Ray Taulbot. And FWIW, I have been given (with thanks) and have read ALL the works of Ray Taulbot including many of the unpublished ones.

My view echos what I suspect was Doc Sartin's view, which he summarized in his oft quoted article written for American Turf Monthly (http://www.americanturf.com/pace/sartinarticle.cfm) - that the crux of Taulbot's approach was how the horse set or overcame the pace of the race it faced in a previous representative race or races (simplified explanation). Taulbot's collection of 'angles' seeking to measure current form, identify moves, etc were always subsidiary to measurements of how the horse faced (and will face today) the pace of the race. Pace is primary - angles are secondary. And value when wagering is always paramount.

I am not, and don't seek to be an expert on either Taulbot's or BM's angles (Taulbot on steroids?). Therefore, I will recommend interested parties to check out the first link given above and use that forum for questions and support. But it is a long and winding road, with little (no) community support, unproven as to consistent profitability in the long run, and one in which even the author no longer even participates. I mention this not to denigrate his efforts, only to dissuade people here from diverting too much effort into seeking 'yet another holy grail'.

There is no holy grail, other than the one which is in front of you (whatever successful methodology you follow) - focus more attention on that one (for example, the Sartin Methodology). When you've mastered much of that, and have a good handle on your own learning strengths and weaknesses, then you can investigate everything else to see if it will enhance your existing profitable approach. If you spread yourself too thin before having mastered a winning method - and having mastered the psychological and mental aspects required for persistently applying these analytical and betting tools - you will almost certainly fail at each new, and newer, and newest patch of greener grass on the other side of the hill.

I endorse many of the concepts, and some angles, developed by Taulbot and have incorporated some of them into RDSS Workout Patterns and 'moves' markups. WIR and A and B Angles mean little to us without a key. If we're going to talk about stuff like this, please let's talk about it from a 'conceptual' point of view - about how it works, why it works, when and at what profitability, what it reveals about how a race is run or how a trainer preps a horse or how the ebb and flow of a horse's form cycle is elaborated by the inter-race moves and performances of a horse. This is much more work than simply stating that angles 'B, WIR, MMA, QE2, E=MC2, etc' applied in a given race. Some angle ALWAYS applies in EVERY race!

Permit me to repeat what I have stated elsewhere recently: this community is about The Sartin Methodology - primarily, and about credible horse racing analysis and betting practice in general. I have nothing but respect for Ray Taulbot, and no ill-will whatsoever towards BM. But FOCUS, focus, focus is what I will champion - and enforce - here at Pace and Cap, as long as I am primary moderator.

cheers,

Ted

To do so in a public forum would only take away from the power of these angles. That's why Boxcar decided to remove the BHM Angles Dictionary that was once posted on his forum.

No problem, Ted. I was just answering the gentleman's question. I will do as you prescribe from now on.

All the best,

Jon