Quote:
Originally Posted by porkchop
alright, here we go. This is Tampa Feb 21 Race 10, here are the horses I had in question.
#4 - Onwingsandaprayer - Do I use line 4 back because it is a comparable race, despite the horrible finish?
#6 - Dee's Rose - Go 5 back to get the comparable distance, dispite the finish?
#8 - Taylor Madison - Use the last race because its the only turf?
|
Porkchop,
If I can rephrase your question(s), I think they are:
1. what is a consistent approach in the face of uncertainly, and
2. how much uncertainly to accept before passing a race.
Re point #2: you have to strike a balance (of ability and of emotional comfort) between the opposing poles of '
clear and easily analysed' which leads to low priced favourites, and '
chaotic, horses-never-attempted-this-before' which leads to higher mutuels yet more error/low hit rate. I certainly think you can (and I attempt to) dabble in races where there are more unknowns; the fine line is knowing when there are too many of those unknowns for your analysis tools or your comfort level. Some say maiden races are too risky, the ultimate unknown: does the horse know how to/want to win? Yet many of us love maiden races because we have developed analysis tools and tricks to deal with them, and don't mind losing too often when the tools don't fire each time.
Re point #1: here are some ideas about the 3 unknowns you cite here:
#4 - Onwingsandaprayer
His chart shows he is a modestly successful sprinter, and so far an unsuccessful router (or Turfer). Use a couple of recent sprint lines AND the Turf line to see how it ends up in the mix. It does distribute its energy EARLY (see the E/L Graph), so we want to know, relative to today's field, if it shows any signs of ANY Late energy at all, or whether it is merely a candidate for in-the-money.
The horse is an Early horse, and also comes up uniformly pretty far down the list on BL/BL: low Total Energy relative to the rest. In the race, it was scratched, but that would be my analysis. If it ran, it might be a candidate along with #6 Dee's Rose to place due to its opposite energy distribution.
#6 - Dee's Rose
An Early horse (positional and energy distribution), successful sprinter, unsuccessful router, unproven Turfer. With
#4 - Onwingsandaprayer scratched (and using known Turf info where it exists for the rest of the horses), it is the horse with the most opposite energy profile to what you would expect of normal Turf route energy distribution (Late). Use a couple of its
best (and typically Early) sprint lines to see how it stacks up to rest of the field. Keep it in because it could be a fast sprinter (in-the-money), but exclude from Win today.
#8 - Taylor Madison
A mediocre sprinter, new to Turf, unsuccessful but not spectacularly so, so far. Use its only Turf line, because you do have something to go on. I know 5f to 8f projection is a bit of a stretch, so pick another 6f line with similar energy distribution to the 5f Turf. Doesn't help it much, and doesn't seem like a win or much of an ITM candidate.
Summary
Look to your Late energy horses in a Turf route (ask also for some Hidden energy - F2+F3). Identify your counter-energy horse(s). If there are too many unknowns, decide how much you want to be paid relative to the risk. Are there any defects in the horse(s) who look like the standout(s) - e.g. the #10 Lil's Lassie, ML favourite (and I'm guessing post-time too). Win bets on the #5 and #3 are supported by the ML odds, and exactas somehow involving the 5,3 and the 10,6 (opposite energy, add back the fave-too-low-to-bet) would not be the world's wackiest wager possibilities...
I appreciate that your original question was about decision making when confronted with uncertainty, and the foregoing hopefully give you some ideas. Consistent approach is the key. I would personally
not take the easy route and advise you to pass, and thus miss at least an opportunity for more in depth analysis. The foregoing is decision-making you could choose to apply over and over - sometimes without success in a given race, but other times (and when paid well), with.
Any comments welcome!
Ted