Limits of the Methodology?/ Cheap races

[For The Lead]

I have read some threads where a guy by the name of Jim (The Boot) McElwee was compared to Jim Bradshaw in his ability to select lines for contenders, to the point where inputting data became a matter of formality.

I have read many posts that talk about using this line or that line or best of last three or whatever, but I can tell you this, Jim McElwee is a friend of mine and we have worked races together for many, many years and he is a staunch believer that the unless there is a very good reason, and I mean a very good reason, the LAST line is the line.

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Is this to say that a trainer who places his horses in the right races will win every race in which he enters them?

No - You've got to allow a certain loss % for competition etc FTL

[Charlie D]

the LAST line is the line.

One Line does not always give a true reflection of horses overall ability and the Last Line only tells you how a horse performed in it's last race

[gl45]

BJ,
Limits of the Methodology?/Cheap races.
About, Limits of the Handicapper in selecting contenders in cheap races, regardless of the method used. Also I don't understand the differences between Traditional or non Traditional handicapping. Can you elucidate on the subject?
gl45

[Charlie D]

.

Thanks for posting and analyzing this race

No problem

Both of these are very characteristic of cheap races. It seems to me that the main problem with cheaper races is not that it's impossible to find winners, but that the few horses that clearly can run are easily spotted by the betting public and thus offer little wager value, and the horses that do often hit at a price, like those you pointed out, are relatively unpredictable form-reversal specials, as Brohamer once explained to me. There is very little hidden value (by pace figure standards) of the kind that is found in higher-class races (50 claimers work best for me) that is also relatively *reliable*.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers,

B Jennet

Those easily spotted by the betting public are also prone to erractic factor too and it is the "easily spotted" your trying to take advantage of, like in the Hawthorne race

The #1 was a true contender, but not unbeateable, the #8 had a tandem loss to #1, but a reverse of that was not out of the question and that being so, it meant the #8 was a true contender and an overlay as the result proved


This is the type of race to look for at this level, if you don't want to bet two in this scenario, bet the other contender (#8) w,p,s, if the tandem holds your still collecting

[RichieP]

[QUOTE=RichieP;49665]Curious if anyone has done a workup of these specific races using Howard's guidelines of best of last 3, 7.5 blf as max. Talking minimum of 200-250 races specifically for nw2l.

Also using the TM download as data source and advanced Methodology software:
1) Synthesis
2) Validator
3) Validator 2
4) Validator 3
5) Validator 4
6) Rdss in Validator mode
Talking specific races where NO horse has won beside his maiden win. Not these multi condition jobs.

Hiding to top 5 total energy and primary line score and tracking % of winners top 5.
[code]

Following up here.

Out of curiosity I ran the last 102 nw2 lifetime races from all tracks through an automated validator type application (to save some serious time)using Howard's guidelines above for line selection:

Winner is in the top 5 83% of the time and when broken down by specific tracks some real strong ENERGY biases are emerging:
Golden Gate - Epr
Santa Anita - Lpr
Tampa Bay - Lep
Philly - Eep
Mountaineer - Fx

Worst performing track by FAR - Sunland Park

Will be interesting to see if some of this carries forward to live races. Most interesting stuff and thank you to thread starter and Chris for getting the juices flowing

[Charlie D]

Richie


Can you tell me how many of these races were run at each track and the average Mutuel??

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

No - You've got to allow a certain loss % for competition etc FTL

And there is A LOT of "etc". That is why even the best (so to speak) trainers struggle to obtain more than 20% winners over any reasonable period of time.

[Bob Cochran]

I had a couple of thoughts regarding limitations of the methodology dealing
with cheap horses and tracks.

I feel the limitations are a cheap horse's inability to run successive good
races in form. The better horses maintain good form longer than the cheap
stock. They are less "cripple" than the cheap horses.

Many times when searching for a paceline for cheap horses, you have to go deeper in the PP's to look at a horse to see how it trains up to a win, or good effort. Recent lines for the better horses are far more predictable.

You will probably find fewer "repeaters" amongst the cheapies than the classier horses. Wins and closeup finishes in cheap races produce a lot of vulnerable favorites, creating not-so-obvious overlays. The limitations are in the handicapper who fails to analyze this.

IMHO,
BobC

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

One Line does not always give a true reflection of horses overall ability and the Last Line only tells you how a horse performed in it's last race

Just offering one well respected Sartin practitioners point of view.

Of what value is using the third line back if the most recent line doesn't give an indication that the horse is ready to run back to the third line back? And if the last line DOES show that the horse is ready to run back to the third line back, then the last line IS the line to use. It is the most recent piece of information about the horses current condition.