Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill V.
Hello FTL
I think my stats on win percentages of horses in the top 4 (RX)
are very different than yours, I would like to do a easy race from today
To show you the steps I use from start to the final step, which is sending
the results file to my spreadheet,
The race was race 6 today from Santa Anita.
Its was a short field and the winner only paid $5.40.
I know this is not a hard race to get the winner, but I wanted to
show this to demo the steps I use, not the final price of the winner,
This race is only a 6 horse field. I used it cause it was a easy race to show, Because although it is only 6 horses It still shows 3 horses that were not win contenders. using my flavor of your guidelines.
Here is the entries screen This race is a strait open 25,000 claimer
This is a important step to know the conditionsof each race
In this race knowing the conditions will be very helpful when we look at horse 6.
Again there are no surprises here. The winner was very easy to get .
but it only paid $5.40
Attachment 45650 |
Hi Bill,
Let me start with this, not that it matters in line selection or contender selection. This is a “Waiver” Claiming race. (see result chart) You’ll have no problem identifying the horse that meets the criteria.
Here is my rundown of the field.
#1 – last line – it is a “+” race so no need to go further. In its’ PP’s it shows a win (twice) for $8,000 claiming. It also shows a win in a starter allowance for horses than have started for a claiming price of $8,000.
#2 – no line - the last two races were at today’s class level or a step below and the horse showed nothing. Previous achievements are meaningless.
#3 – No line – the horse is a throwout. It hasn’t raced in a year. It also has just 2 lifetimes wins and should be looking for an easier condition. Previous achievements are meaningless.
#4 – line 2 – this is the obvious choice for a line. It is at today’s class level, distance and surface. All other lines are turf. Although on the turf, this horse has shown it can beat open $40,000 claimers and Optional $40,000 with a “NW$1X” so the only question is how it will perform on dirt. The race 2 back answers that question.
#5 – last line – it is a “+” line and a win. This is a horse who has had problems in the past. In race 10 it beat open $40,000 claimers. Off of that race it was on the shelf for 260 days (almost 9 months). After its’ return, they searched for a level where it was able to win. They found it $20,000 open claiming. It then won for open $16,000 claiming and open $20,000.
#6 – last line – it is the only line in the last 90 days and is at today’s distance. This is another horse with problems. It has had 10 races in the last 411 days. That’s a race every 41 days, on average. Even for a router, which horses generally have more time between races than sprinters, that is a lot. It indicates to me the horse may have some physical problems and needs the time between races. It beat open $40,000 claimers 411 days ago. No wins since. The fact that it was claimed from its’ last race for $40,000 and is running today for $25,000 is a red flag.
So, I have 4 contenders. All of them using the same lines you chose as you stated in post #13. YOU picked them, not RDSS.
I read your note about the #6 horse and I am in agreement with you, however, this exercise is just about picking contenders and lines...
a starting point. All other decisions about the contenders come after this.
I don’t expect anyone else to evaluate horses in a race the same way as I do.
If you are using the Rx feature in RDSS and it is working for you, then stay with it. (how you should handle using RDSS to separate your contenders is something you will have to work with until you are comfortable) Frankly, I don’t know what the three Rx features are. It’s been 4 or 5 years since Ted gave me access to RDSS so I could post races with it. Obviously, the Rx feature came after that.
You know from all my posts that I only look at and evaluate the horses I get as contenders. Again, if your approach works for you, then keep doing it.
As an example, Neil S doesn’t evaluate a race the same way as I do, yet, in the past few weeks he has told us of three races where he won approximately #2,000 on less than a $40 investment. Do you think I would tell him to do something different? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! SUCCESS IS SUCCESS!!
OK, the racing surface.
Dirt – this is about as straight forward as you can get
Turf – this, too, is about as straight forward as you can get
Artificial – whomever came up with this idea should be shot! Horses naturally run on dirt and grass, not some artificial surface, nevertheless, now we have to deal with it.
There are those who substitute grass for artificial surfaces and artificial surfaces for grass like they are the same thing. They are not. Like dirt and grass they are two different surfaces.
In my lifetime I have seen horses that were being readied for the slaughter house saved from that demise by a last ditch effort to try the horse on grass. In the case of one particular horse, the result was the horse becoming a grass champion.
I have heard the argument and read the discussions that horses distribute their energy on an artificial surface in a similar way as they do on grass. I’m not going to get into that discussion here, simply because it is not how I reach my determination as to where artificial surfaces “fit”.
Some horses love the feel of dirt and hate the feel of grass. The opposite is also true. At this point in time I’m not sure if there is any solid information regarding artificial surfaces and how horses feel about those, especially in a comparison to dirt or grass.
Let me put it this way. Take off your shoes and socks and go run on dirt. Then go run on grass. Then go run on some artificial surface. Let me know which one you liked best. Which one felt best on your feet? Did the artificial surface feel like grass?
Grass is grass and dirt is dirt. Whatever an artificial surface may be...
it ain’t grass.
Therefore, like it or not, I will use a line from an artificial surface in dirt races, but not in grass races.
One last thing.
You started by saying your results are very different from mine from the standpoint of the percentage of winners in the top 4.
I’ll just say this. You must first
HAVE 4 in order to have a “TOP 4”. YOU know from all the races I have posted that many times I do not have 4 contenders. And even where I have more than 4 contenders, I don’t have a “TOP 4”. I just have whatever number of contenders there are. I don’t rank contenders by some final ranking number. I just evaluate the contenders I have.