View Single Post
Old 09-16-2013, 05:48 AM   #23
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by atkinsrr View Post
Would also like to comment on layoffs...please read follow up #81 page 35..."Doc" discusses layoffs from 79 to 195 days...if you use the proper P/L and the horse is in your top 3 BLBL then it's a contender...it's actually a matter of record keeping and from my own experience the higher class horses are more likely to win off a long layoff than the "cheapies"...of course follow up #81 was published in 2000 and a lot of things have changed in racing...so record keeping is very vital..actually I had a Chad Brown horse at Belmont beat me saturday with a 111 day layoff (9th race).......good skills to all!!!!!!
Although I did not research it before answering you, "I TEND" to agree with you that it is more likely for a high class horse to win off a layoff of more than 90 days than it is for cheap horses to win off a layoff of more than 90 days. Nevertheless, when taken in an overall pictutre, horses off more than 90 days win just 5% of the time.

Let me make myself clear, since horses off more than 90 days win 5% of the time, they obviously do win....sometimes... so one can find a race where they either won with a horse that was off more than 90 days or got beat by a horse that was off more than 90 days. But that is only one side of the coin. The question becomes, how many horses have you bet that were off more than 90 days that lost? Or, how many races were you NOT beat by a horse off more than 90 days?
When I did the research, I "stretched" the number of days off to give myself the greatest number of horses to choose from without including every horse. At some point you have to conclude that some horses are just not primary contenders based on recency. Here's how it breaks down:
A race in the past 30 days = 77%
A race in 31-45 days = 11%
A race in 46-60 days = 4%
A race in 61-90 days = 3%

More than racing changing since 2000, is the fact that "Doc" never had as many races as I do for his research. I mean, the internet didn't come along until 1994, which doesn't mean that everybody was immediately on line with a PC and downloading race cards everyday. I started in 1997, so I am in my 16th year.

Taking the parimeters you mentioned above, 79 to 195 days, possibly takes a horse away from racing for more than 6 months. My first question would be "WHY"? The owner can't make any money when their horse is in the barn or on the farm, yet they have to pay the bills. My first thought would be an injury and that isn't a good thing, especially where an older horse is concerned.

You mention a "proper paceline". What is a "proper paceline" for a horse that has been off that long? If the horse has been off 195 days, how much further back are you going to go for a paceline? How old is THAT LINE? What would make one think a horse off 195 days is ready to run back to a paceline that is, perhaps, 240 days old?
You will win more races by ignoring horses off more than 90 days than you will betting ON them. And including them as contenders with a very old line will just muddy the water for you.

With regard to the #3 horse you asked about, let me first say this.

+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line

What is a useable line?
Any line where the horse had an impact on the outcome of the race.
The "+" and "(+)" notations above are the types of horses that have an impact on the race.
If this appears in a follow up, I can't point you to it. I don't have the follow ups commited to memory. However, you can also find paceline information in the Paceline Manual.

If you are using RDSS, the next time you choose contenders and lines, look at your "original" screen. Do the horses show they had an impact on the race?

The #3 horse finished second in its' last race, which makes the race a "+" race and also in that race it was 2nd at the first call and although losing one position to the second call it gained 1 length between the first and second calls, putting it within 2 lengths of the leader, which would be a "(+)" by itself.

Lastly regarding the #3 horse, there is no other line to use for this horse. All its' other races are sprints with the exception of one route race on the turf, which doesn't qualify and is too old anyway. For this horse, the last line is the line! I would also say that this is not as much a case of the #3 horse losing all this ground in the stretch as it is a superior horse just running away from the field. Here's the horse.

Name:  MNR9_3.JPG
Views: 1588
Size:  142.0 KB
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline   Reply With Quote