[Ted Craven]

J,

I haven't seen studies. And I would make NO initial eliminations based on APV or CR. When CR doesn't land you on an obvious favourite, it touts a horse who used to be better than it is recently. Whether it's a Win pool contender today depends on form cycle and energy measurements. Perhaps a good CR horse returning after a long layoff is an in-the-money contender.

I suspect there is a reasonable co-relation between, say, top half CR (or perhaps also APV) and win rates, but I also suspect the corresponding average mutuels are disappointing because the components of CR (Average Purse Value the horse competed successfully for, in-the-money %) is so visible to the public. Far less visible are energy disbursement interrelationships, the matchup, the usefulness of accepting lines beyond the last one (or beyond the last 2).

Myself, I sometimes use Top 3 CR horses as a place to start in manually choosing lines - i.e. who are the principal actors today. Often these will have the upper ranges of Total Energy, and as I add the rest of the horses, if they fall significantly below these (often) upper TE ranges, I eliminate them just as fast (unless there are significant match up issues - very early horse, very late horse, opposite E/L graph standout, etc). But I enter a line or lines for almost every horse.

I would not hesitate to remove from Win consideration any higher ranked CR horse who did not cut it on Total Energy. I may re-include them for ITM if they also have some reasonable counter-energy readouts, or are heavily bet. Whether this adds confusion to a practitioner who over-relies on this readout, is for one's own record-keeping and feedback loop to advise.

HTH.

Ted