Race opinions

[JIMBOB1002]

'''

[Bill V.]

If I had done the race and had to use sy lines for horse 5 2 9 and 6
I probably would have too many issues and with my top 2 as "hide" I would have passed
If you tell me the track was Sy I again would pass the race

I like the note pad with screen shot format

[JIMBOB1002]

Thanks for the advise Bill.I know you don't like using an offtrack for a paceline,but if you had to go back five or six races to get the right distance and fst track would you rather do that than take an off track?Jim

[Ted Craven]

Jim,

My take re off-tracks: be careful about judging the adjusted running times, and resulting velocities and subsequent compounded factors (through to BL/BL) based on the raw times and apparent track condition.

Here is the #2 Torres Strait (using RDSS2, numbers will be the same as your RDSS 0.99.2)



You chose line 2, a good one if you are choosing to go by Perceptor Total and/or Total Energy, recent, similar distance (and that would be my choice here). However, check the Daily Track Variant (DTV) for line 2: -17 (17 points FASTER than par for that track/distance/surface) despite the track being sloppy. While the 3rd line shows the opposite DTV of +17 (17 points SLOWER than par, despite a listed track condition of WF or 'wet-fast'). Comparing the final times (same 8f distance and same track, BEU) we see a 3.5 second difference faster on the line rated as sloppy than the one rated as wet-fast. The difference in Total Energy and Perceptor tells the difference between them too.

The adjustments attempt to put these disparate track conditions (and different tracks, and varying distances, when that applies) on an equalized basis, which is reflected in all the numbers derived from the Adjusted call times. So the critical thing becomes to make whatever choices you do about how far back to go, whether to avoid wet lines, whether to use sprint lines for a route or vice-versa - to make these choices be consistent, consistent - otherwise you won't know whether your results in a given race are the result of lucky zigging and zagging, or the result of a functional, repeatable methodology.

And, IMO, such a methodology (perhaps one Bill employs - I'll let him comment further) may well be that off tracks can present too much dis-information that if there are too many decisions to make based on wet lines, then there's just too much 'noise' in the analysis; better to stay safe. That's fine, if that's the approach you evolve, but - do it consistently, and don't, for example, go back and kick yourself when a well ranked horse off a sloppy line, sitting right there, pays boxcars when you passed the race due to 'noise'. That will happen often enough regardless of your method, but we are not just trying to hit ONE RACE, (or trying to develop an approach good for just one race), but rather we're trying to re-use an approach in 10, or 20 races LIKE THIS ONE, and hit our fair share of them at acceptable mutuels. By definition we lose some, and we win some - but approach it consistently.

So, not saying you shouldn't go back 4 or more lines to get a dry track, but consider if the adjusted numbers put horses in about their right positions using the last few lines, including apparently 'off-tracks'.

For myself, in this case, this horse, I would use line 2, and note that it was sloppy, note that the race was run fairly fast, the horse closed very well against that pace, and even repeated the effort (against a slower pace) 13 days ago, so it is running well, recently. I'm not making a case for this horse to win, only offering ideas about why to use apparently off-track lines.

As an amusing exercise, try taking the #9 horse and using ANY of its lines (try all 10!!) and see if it changes anything about its relative ranking in BLBL or VDC. (Hint - it's always 4th, given the lines you chose for the others). Regardless of distance, track condition, DTV, Perceptor. Quite hilarious. So: the DTV, ITV, distance equalization adjustments at work. They're not always effective, nothing is in this game, but it gives a perspective on that particular horse (relative to how you're representing the other contenders).



Just some food for thought in the analysis department. FWIW, based on your hypothetical bet-time odds, the favourites in our analysis would pretty much match the public's opinion. It's one thing to skip over one top ranked betting favourite, but skipping 2 favourites having almost 90% of the Win pool money is, for me, pressing my luck . In that scenario I would pass the race - not because I was concerned about wet lines 'muddying' the analysis, but because I likely have no edge over the public.

Different decision paths perhaps, same end result: pass the race.

Hope that's some food for thought (and not too much of it )

cheers,

Ted

[JIMBOB1002]

Thanks Ted for all the information. I really like getting different views on this to find which way is right for me.I have read some of the follow ups, are there any you know of that would help me more than others? Thanks

[tom]

This is one of the reason I like K Gen so much - put in multiple lines and see if the off track is aberrant. But using tom Brohamer's advice, cross out that line and see if there any any others that still make the horse a contender.

[JIMBOB1002]

Thanks Tom