Quote:
Originally Posted by Segwin
They ran 8, 6 & 9.
I spent a lot of time going over this race. I must say that I wasn't impressed with this card, on the whole, as a good value interest but I thought I'd at least play the last race.
The fly in the ointment was the 8 horse. I cant see anything redeeming in this horse for today's competition.
I'm looking for some help as to why this horse won. As I set the pace of the race this horse didn't have the stats to be in ITM. I'm inclined to believe that stuff happens but perhaps I'm missing something.
Thanks for the help.
|
What I am NOT going to do, is show you how you could have had the winner. I would not have had it, so how can I show you how to get it?
There is nothing wrong with re-working a race after it has run and been lost. That is how you learn. Here is the problem, however. If you
“manufacture the race” until you find a way to make the horse that won, the winner of the race, ask yourself these questions.
Can I duplicate this procedure the next time?
Will I be able to recognize this same situation the next time I encounter it?
Will I end up looking at every race in this same way, possibly costing me money in the long run for doing so?
How will I know when to apply these procedures?
How will I know when NOT to apply these procedures?
What I am getting at is this, consistency. You can’t select lines
this way this time and
that way the next time. You WILL get caught in the switches. You WILL
zig when you should have
zagged.
You can’t get the winner of every race. When a race like this comes along and you lose it, just turn the page and move on.
Nobody takes more heat on this site than I do when it comes to posting races after they have been run. What they don’t seem to grasp is the fact that every race I post is approached in the same exact way. Nothing is “manufactured”. Consistency is what matters.
This race started with 10 horses. There were 2 scratches.
There were 2 horses with a ML 20/1 or higher, #4 and #8, so they would both get thrown out at the start. Obviously, this means I would not have been able to win this race. However, that doesn’t mean I would lose the race.
It has been mentioned many times that one should read the conditions before doing anything else. In this race the condition is “NW4L”. Ok, so now that you know that, what do you do? Keep it in mind as you look at each horse.
#2 – is 3 for 24
#3 – is 3 for 27
#4 – is 3 for 19
#5 – is 3 for 14
#6 – is 3 for 17
#7 – is 3 for 18
#8 – is 3 for 46
#9 – is 3 for 34
It’s clear this is not a field of “world beaters”.
Without picking a single line or evaluating any other aspect of any horse in the race…
Which horse is the worst?
Which horse is the next worst horse?
If you answered #8 and then #9 you would be correct.
Horses that are “3 for 46” and “3 for 34” do not instill a huge amount of confidence in me.
Now, there are 2 horses who won their last race, the #5 and #9. They both beat a NW3L condition, so today’s NW4L condition is the next logical step.
Although it does happen, like everything else in the world, horses have been known to beat a NW3L condition and go right into a NW4L condition and win again, but more often than not, they are unsuccessful. It is even more unlikely when working with a horse like the #9. Before its’ last race, this horse had a lifetime record of 2 for 33. Then it won, making its’ record 3 for 34. Ask yourself this question. How likely is this horse to win 2 races in a row? Not very likely.
For me, the most likely candidates for the win in this race are the #6 and #7 horses. Now, it becomes a matter of whether or not I am really interested enough or confident enough that one of these two horses will win before I actually bet the race. Since I was, in fact, watching PARX yesterday, my conclusion was that I was not interested in playing the race…so I passed it.
So, don’t be overly concerned that you lost the race. Don’t be overly concerned that a horse won the race that you can’t “get”. It happens.