Double Race 11/12 at Oaklawn

[shoeless]

I see that only 1 of the races a arrow horse won


Jeff

[kahunab]

Jeff,
Remember our data is that the Key horses will win OR place 85% of the time. Thus the strategy of leveraging our bet with a key box Exacta or a key box trifecta or if the odds are high enough we win and place our Key. In the 8 races shown one of the arrow horses won or placed 7 times. Of the 8 races we had a Key candidate Win 1, Place 6, and Show 1. In two races they Placed and Showed. We just have to get good at choosing the right key horse.

Dick

[Jake]

Originally Posted by kahunab

Jeff,
Remember our data is that the Key horses will win OR place 85% of the time. Thus the strategy of leveraging our bet with a key box Exacta or a key box trifecta or if the odds are high enough we win and place our Key. In the 8 races shown one of the arrow horses won or placed 7 times. Of the 8 races we had a Key candidate Win 1, Place 6, and Show 1. In two races they Placed and Showed. We just have to get good at choosing the right key horse.

Dick

Dick,

Are the actual winners shown consistent with having been qualified as a potential key horse? Or are they outside your guidelines for Leverage\Pace key horses, as they appear to be here.

It was my question about Marc's double selections, as well. It didn't apparently seem to follow your top 3 high percentage combinations, either.

You might say they could be the companion choices in an exacta, but they don't seem to me to be the horses that you might get directly using the Leverage\Pace approach.

Trying to understand here, not attack. Only I believe it undercuts using Leverage\Pace a bit for getting all your exacta contenders, when you step outside your top win percentages
(especially the Blue Arrow contenders) to select a horse as your win candidate. JMO.

Jake

[Jake]

Dick,

I'm not trying to butt heads here over any of this. I'm grateful that both you and Bill were generous enough to share all your research and findings generated from your method approach.
Tons of work, far more than anyone probably understand. And, it's apparent that Marc is a good pace handicapper from his posts.

I have been handicapping for over fifty years, and I know handicapping can be a slippery slope when you start moving away from hard-earned guidelines or rules for finding good wagers.
It may work for Marc and others, including yourself, only to confuse those new to this approach. That said, I appreciate the time spent posting screens and all the advice being offered.
Everyone can choose to follow along or not, and make their own choices. Much thanks.

Jake

[kahunab]

Originally Posted by Jake

Dick,

I'm not trying to butt heads here over any of this. I'm grateful that both you and Bill were generous enough to share all your research and findings generated from your method approach.
Tons of work, far more than anyone probably understand. And, it's apparent that Marc is a good pace handicapper from his posts.

I have been handicapping for over fifty years, and I know handicapping can be a slippery slope when you start moving away from hard-earned guidelines or rules for finding good wagers.
It may work for Marc and others, including yourself, only to confuse those new to this approach. That said, I appreciate the time spent posting screens and all the advice being offered.
Everyone can choose to follow along or not, and make their own choices. Much thanks.

Jake

Jake,
It is never wrong to ask questions with good intentions to clarify or learn. I have been doing this for 36 years and gone through all the phases of Sartin Methodology. (I hope you can take some time and read my introductory document on this site. Using RDSS to play in the Modern Game with Sartin Principles.)
I no longer look for the winner. I look for the horse that will most likely Win or Place using the data. It is a very different mindset.
Lets look at the data that should drive our decisionmaking. In a sprint with over 1300 sprint races, we know that:
1. 94% of the time the winner is in the top 5 RX3 and 93% of the time in the top 5 EPR.
2.85% of the time the Exacta is in the top 5 RX3 and 86% of the time in the top 5 EPR/TPR.
3. That 73% of the time the Trifecta is in the top 5 RX3 and 78% of the time the Trifecta is in the top 5 EPR/TPR. Here is where we can also look for longshots outside the top 5 RX3.
4. 85% of the time one of the arrow horses will Win or Place.

So our process is:

1. Demote any horse not in the top 5 RX3 to secondary or non-contender status.
2. Find the Arrow horse most likely to win or place and make him the key. (As an aside I spent a great deal of time working races to just find the right key. If you get this part down you will do well.) Use New Pace and the Segments screen to back up your choice. New Pace gives us a look at the totality of the horses past performances. Segments gives us two different match up looks at the horses both Early and Late.
3. Identify companion horses to pair with the Key. Here is where you start with the top 5 RX3 but you look for secondary contenders who might replace one of you keys. You are looking for probabilities here.

Let's look at a couple of races. The first from today. (I bet 6 races and won 4 trifectas. So I know this approach is not just happenstance.)
We work the above process. The 7 is our key but we could have screwed up and made the 8 the key and we still would have won. So we bet a trifecta Key box 7/3,5,6,8. Our 7 wins the favorite runs 2nd and we win a nice tri with the 3. None of our secondary contenders give us any pause to be added.


Here is a race I posted that led to the questions. We work the process above. We make the 8 the key and the 3,6,7 companions. I used the 4 as the 4th companion instead of the 5 because of the 4s EPR #2 rating. Notice also that the 2 ran 4th with an EPR of 3.
Our data is strong. Because of the vagaries of this modern game I do the Key box so that my pick for Key can be anywhere on the board. Some of my best wins are when 2 longshots come in Win and Place and my Key runs 3rd since our key horse are often lower priced horses.
I hope this helps clarify what we are doing.

Dick

[Jake]

Dick,

Thanks. Your response to my question told me what I needed to know.

Jake

[MM42]

Dick,

Always great to read your responses!! Thank you!

Marc

[shoeless]

Dick

Thanks for explanation

Jeff