AP 6/22 - Race 8 Analysis

[Ryan.p.coli]

Arlington this past Sunday was a headache. They moved all turf races to the All-Weather Track. When working through these races Sunday morning, I found myself passing more races than not.

Keep in mind they moved this horse to the AWT. I couldn't really find usable dirt/AWT lines for #3 and #1A.

Also, take a look at the PP of the winner.


Last rate, trip comments said "Awkward Break," I thought that it was reasonable to skip that race. I ended up using the Hawthorn Dirt line, but it was reluctant. I really dislike using Hawthorn Race Track lines for Arlington AWT races.

I don't think I would have ever done this, but I did take comfort (going back through the race) in the fact that when I went back to September 19, 2013, RDSS showed me the top 3.



Here are the results.



Let me know if anyone has an thoughts...

[mowens33]

Ryan, line selection can be tuff when the race gets moved to a different surface. Not sure I would have went back to line 8 (ATW) which was the only one available, but it looks like he definitely likes the surface., and it looks like in this case it was a good selection.

Ted, when you make the surface change in RDSS will the program adjust for the change?

Mike

[Ryan.p.coli]

Mowens, I want to caveat that this was not the only horse where it was difficult to find the correct line. I passed this race. I actually passed all the turf races that were moved to the AWT on Sunday.

[Ted Craven]

Ryan, You can change the surface and distance on the Card Summary screen.



Mike, when you change the surface (or distance) a different set of surface adjustments are used, so you should have (relative) confidence that all lines are as comparable as possible. The software does not judge whether a horse has shown suitability to the particular surface - you must do that yourself. But you can have some confidence that the numbers and ranks mean something IF a horse is fit to run today and does not dislike the surface.

The #12 has shown that it does not dislike the AP Poly, finishing 2nd in line 8. It has shown that it (probably) does not excel on Turf - so at least for starters, don't hold those last 2 lines against it.

The following discussion is based on reworking the race as 8f on Poly (AWT - All Weather Track).

After identifying Contenders and choosing a consistent line to present them today, I propose that you always consider 2 things first:

1. What will happen with the Early horses
2. What will happen with the betting favourite

In this race, those 2 points of focus dove-tail, as one of the main Earlies was also the betting favourite (the #1A at ~ 2-1). The #1 is a Turf horse, but was not scratched from this race when it was taken off the Turf. Who are the other Earlies? Definitely the #9 and to a certain extent the #5 but that one can close from 4 to 6 positions back and so has demonstrated the flexibility to not be compelled to participate in a speed duel.



Question: what will happen to the #1A when it tries to respond to the Projected Pace set by the other Early Fighter #9 (conservatively: 23.4 47.3 or even faster if you use the #9's 2nd line)? The #1A has NEVER run against those paces and finished - EVER. It has not had to run that fast to gain the lead on its customary Turf courses. The Projected Pace Tool helps show that. None-the-less, it will run as fast as it can to get the lead, chased by the #9 and possibly the #5. Consider that it will not survive and possibly take the #9 down with it. The #9 is proven only in the lowest open and conditioned Claiming levels at Hawthorne, and probably takes a serious step up today facing proven competitors at today's level (open Claiming 12.5) and even higher.

So - throw out those 2 Earlies #1A and #9 for Win and take a new look at the race. We have also answered the question: what about the favourite: it is not a Win Contender. Even if we left it in for Win, it would rank below the Top level which is where we want to see our favoutites.



Now, who closes the best against the fastest pace? The #5 (5/2 odds) followed by the #12 (8-1 odds). Having tossed out the Early horses as having a high probability to compromise each other - we would say the race should run Other Than Early (or 'OTE') and these 2 horses have the potential to perform well in a failing Early scenario. The OTE horses who perform best against the fastest pace then may be investigated further based on their adjusted velocity/energy derived factors and rankings

Ryan, you said that using line #8 the #12 looks good, but sometimes I try the following when seeking evidence whether a 'class horse' will be a player today if a) the pace scenario favours it, b) it recovers previous form, c) the calibre of competition is lower than it has recently faced (or all of the above!). Use several good, previous lines of a horse and get a 'picture' of whether it has some advantages over its true competition:



Then ask: is there ANY wager which would include such a formerly dominant horse? Perhaps not a straight Win bet if you are conservative, given the uncertainties of its current ability, but good chance for Exacta, Tri or Super? One thing I like to consider is - a formerly more classy horse than the rest of today's lot does not have to 'work quite as hard' as it had to when it earned its CR Class Rating (a dominant #1 CR and APV rank for the #12 today).

So, returning back to even a single recent line for the #12, knowing that there is proof of some hidden potential, the resulting Odds Line definitely gives us something to work with, IMO.



For me, if I can address the Early matchup and find compromised Early horses, what so speak of a favourite to toss - the wager possibilities sometimes become clearer. I can't say if I would have had confidence to bet the #12 to Win/Place. But a good case can be made to include it in vertical exotics.

HTH.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Ryan, I moved this discussion from Selections to this 'Races of Interest' Forum where we delve into pre- or post-mortem analysis for educational purposes.

Generally, Selections Forum is for race picks which don't necessarily have to include any reasoning or analysis (though they may) - just for the glory of being right or having a fun play-along time with others -- but before the fact.

No worries, though

Ted

[mowens33]

Ted, thanks for your detailed analysis!
Ryan, thanks for the post!!

[Ryan.p.coli]

Ted,

You're analysis was very very helpful. This is exactly the kind of live "Match Up" commentary I was looking for. I'm much more familiar with the correlaries than the match up process. Clearly, they are both most powerful when used in harmony.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why we assume that the #1A will take the #9 down with it. If we look at the #9's 2nd line, it was forced to run faster than than our projected pace, was only 1/2 L ahead at the 2nd call, and easily drew clear for the W (albeit against lesser foes).

Clearly you were right in this situation, but I would like to learn how to deduce whether the best early will in fact run out of gas, which was clearly my mistake here.

[CaptDon100]

Clearly you were right in this situation, but I would like to learn how to deduce whether the best early will in fact run out of gas, which was clearly my mistake here


(whether the best early will in fact run out of gas), Good question, I ask myself that question in every race!

[Ted Craven]

Just to be clear - all this analysis has the benefit of hindsight! I'm not making the case that I 'called' anything correctly - only pointing out things I observe from some experience, which are possible to see during pre-race analysis. Observations which I think carry over to many, many future races.

Speaking of zeroing in (in this race) on which of the Earlies might survive (or none of them) - let's stipulate that the #1A is too slow and will not win, and so focus on the fate of the #9 which I said will be taken down by the early fight. (And set aside for the moment that with the #1A out of the Win pool at a little over 2-1 or a little less than 33% of the pool - you could dutch ALL the rest of the horses and make money ...). Let us then demote the #1A from Primary contention but leave the #9 in for the moment.

Since I used the #9's last line (or 2nd line) as a projected pace against which the #1A will fight, what are the credentials of the #9 to hang on? How would we measure that?



For those who don't know, the Balance number on BL/BL is the sum of the E/Ep (Early Energy Potential) and the L/Ep (Late Energy Potential) from the Energy screen (2nd image above). It is intended to show the 'balance' between Early and Late energy. With 5 horses in the Primary section of BL/BL - the worst balance you can have is 10 (5th + 5th). Dr Sartin had long written that horses with a Balance greater than 8 are poor candidates to Win - either because they are ALL Early and NO Late, or simply TOO Late. The reason for this, for the #9, is simply because - relative to the rest of the horses we have called Contenders - it has the lowest Total Energy (and E/ep and L/ep is another slicing and dicing of Total Energy).

Look at a collection of the last 5 races of the #9 (and there's really no reason to use a 5th line back, or a 4th, to measure this horse when we can see it is relatively fit, given its inherent ability):



It is almost the inverse of the #12's past lines. It has all Early energy, but very little Late. If it was not being challenged by the #1A and (pre-race) possibly by the #5 (who ended up the actual challenger to the #1A) - in other words a LONE EARLY, then it might be a candidate to steal the race. But not today. A tangential observation to this is that it has accomplished its recent good results in much lower calibre races and now steps UP against other horses who are indeed stepping DOWN (all of which is corroborated by its relatively low Total Energy numbers).

So - is there a weakness to the #9? Is it possible it will outlast BOTH the #1A AND the #5? Perhaps, and our entire game deals with things we cannot know, yet must make decisions about based on 'seen this kinda thing before ...'. The #9 is typical of a horse who does not have a sufficient Balance of Early and Late energy. That's one way I know to judge whether an Early horse may dominate in a speed duel.

It is interesting that this observation about Balance of Early/Late touches on the article written elsewhere here by Tim Y on Order within Chaos, specifically the part about universal complimentarity or yin/yang. Within every predominantly Early horse is a relative measure of Late energy distribution, and within every Late horse is a certain measure of Early (the yin within the yang within the yin). Everything about analysing the horses on our readouts is measuring relative - not absolute performance. A slow Early horse wins a one-horse race! How little Late energy is an Early horse allowed to have (relative to the rest) before it needs to call on that Late energy and find it insufficient? How close to the early pace does a Late energy horse need to stay before its too far back to capitalize on a collapsing group of Earlies. That is an example of relativity, as Tim Y might put it . And often this relative Balance is not knowable enough to make a clear decision, which sometimes causes us to pass the race. OR - use such 'random' horses with equivocal Early/Late characteristics in vertical betting positions which compliment the positions where other horses' abilities are more clear. (If that's clear ...).

Anyway, that's something I see about the #9, and why it is not the prime candidate Early to prevail over its other Early competition. You can apply this analysis on many races and some of those scenarios will work out and some not. Regardless, it's still worth observing.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

The Chart, for the record.