Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie D
Result
|
Charlie D.
Thanks for posting and analyzing this race - like the Tampa longshot race, it illustrates the reason I avoid these races. I actually downloaded this one and knocked it out on Spec 160. I'm not great with the screenshot utility, but I'll just say the #1 appeared to have a huge edge in every way, and since it appeared to be a very solid and heavily bet favorite, I would certainly have passed this race. In fact, he just lost by a nose. I also wouldn't have bet the Tampa longshot based on the readouts that were posted. If Jeff liked the Tampa horse on the basis of a trainer move - fine - but I think we can agree that this is traditional handicapping, and doesn't involve the Sartin methodology.
Both of these are very characteristic of cheap races. It seems to me that the main problem with cheaper races is not that it's impossible to find winners, but that the few horses that clearly can run are easily spotted by the betting public and thus offer little wager value, and the horses that do often hit at a price, like those you pointed out, are relatively unpredictable form-reversal specials, as Brohamer once explained to me. There is very little hidden value (by pace figure standards) of the kind that is found in higher-class races (50 claimers work best for me) that is also relatively *reliable*.
Thanks for your comments.
Cheers,
B Jennet