Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

Ted Craven · 11-30-2011, 01:00 PM

Alex, re your Oct 30 MNR races above, Race 1 is a good example of looking further back for a line representing what a horse is capable of when fit. You chose line 4 for the #9 winner, and it looks like its 3rd line would also have put it on top. Best of the last 3 comparable will do it here. In this race of sketchy maiden claimers, this horse at least finished ahead of half its field at good odds last, so I can see no reason to eliminate it from win contention (and 2 lines make it better than the rest). Given the odds, I see this makes a consistent case for betting.

Race 2, not sure if the #1 ranks being all over the board is a warning sign - we don't necessarily need to have the top ranked horse all RED #1s. We give careful consideration to the Top 3 and ties horses on that BLBL screen. By your line selection and by my alternate line selection, the horse ranks lower than 4th, leaving in reasonable contenders - a likely loss for me given that the other contenders were ranked higher and at reasonable odds. I note that the #8 winner was by far the best APV and CR horse - a measure of at least its back-class in 2010, and for those using NewPace, was the #1 Early. You have to admit, he's always there at the top of the stretch. I can see a case for including this horse in a trifecta, at least. At the odds, some may have seen him for better than that. If your analysis sees a 'fractured' race, inconclusive dominance by anyone - congratulations on the PASS assessment!

Race 3. Your 'hiding' of the #4 (or skipping over for Win) at EVEN odds is indeed a principle of wagercapping. Ask: does the #4 have ANY defects? It does look pretty good, according to your screenshot of the BLBL (and its own PPs), but I want to see an EVEN odds horse look a LOT better than the next one, let along the next 2 ranked contenders. Your BLBL screen shows the top 3 horses tied, so your analysis of the #4 shows it has no superiority over the #7 or the #3 - a great reason to pass over it (i.e. as opposed to passing the race) in favour of the #7 or #3 as Win bets, and whatever exacta combo you prefer. In its defense, the #4 did have severe trouble out of the gate, losing ground, BUT making up a lot late to finish a charging 3rd. Under other racing circumstances, you might have lost your bet against the #4 - but I can support the wagering decision you made. You need to make this kind of decision consistently - and take the inevitable losses when the occur (i.e. in betting against a heavy favourite).

Good work on the first 3 races! I believe you are on the right track!

cheers,

Ted

11-30-2011, 01:00 PM	#5
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,242	Alex, re your Oct 30 MNR races above, Race 1 is a good example of looking further back for a line representing what a horse is capable of when fit. You chose line 4 for the #9 winner, and it looks like its 3rd line would also have put it on top. Best of the last 3 comparable will do it here. In this race of sketchy maiden claimers, this horse at least finished ahead of half its field at good odds last, so I can see no reason to eliminate it from win contention (and 2 lines make it better than the rest). Given the odds, I see this makes a consistent case for betting. Race 2, not sure if the #1 ranks being all over the board is a warning sign - we don't necessarily need to have the top ranked horse all RED #1s. We give careful consideration to the Top 3 and ties horses on that BLBL screen. By your line selection and by my alternate line selection, the horse ranks lower than 4th, leaving in reasonable contenders - a likely loss for me given that the other contenders were ranked higher and at reasonable odds. I note that the #8 winner was by far the best APV and CR horse - a measure of at least its back-class in 2010, and for those using NewPace, was the #1 Early. You have to admit, he's always there at the top of the stretch. I can see a case for including this horse in a trifecta, at least. At the odds, some may have seen him for better than that. If your analysis sees a 'fractured' race, inconclusive dominance by anyone - congratulations on the PASS assessment! Race 3. Your 'hiding' of the #4 (or skipping over for Win) at EVEN odds is indeed a principle of wagercapping. Ask: does the #4 have ANY defects? It does look pretty good, according to your screenshot of the BLBL (and its own PPs), but I want to see an EVEN odds horse look a LOT better than the next one, let along the next 2 ranked contenders. Your BLBL screen shows the top 3 horses tied, so your analysis of the #4 shows it has no superiority over the #7 or the #3 - a great reason to pass over it (i.e. as opposed to passing the race) in favour of the #7 or #3 as Win bets, and whatever exacta combo you prefer. In its defense, the #4 did have severe trouble out of the gate, losing ground, BUT making up a lot late to finish a charging 3rd. Under other racing circumstances, you might have lost your bet against the #4 - but I can support the wagering decision you made. You need to make this kind of decision consistently - and take the inevitable losses when the occur (i.e. in betting against a heavy favourite). Good work on the first 3 races! I believe you are on the right track! cheers, Ted __________________ RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™