Why NOT Maidens?

[lone speed]

Bill...


As usual, thank you for taking the time to posyt the screenshots of Thoromation...

I shouldn't have interjected this thread...my post was more about concept...I should have started a different thread....this horse was 14 to one because the public seemed fixated on the finish and beaten lengths at the finish line...

As I have posted in another thread, the horse the sets the pace of a race is always the one who expended the most energy....I have zero problems betting a horse who seem to falter in the stretch after setting a blitzing early fractions. I have focused many years researching the early matchup but with a different twist with Bradshaw's matchup principles as a guide...



I appreciate your time teaching and showing examples here immensely...

Sincerely,

Lone speed

Fwiw,I had chose my screen name deliberately, as I will always seek a race where there is a lone speed on the front end of a race.....

[nysbill]

Maiden races containing a number of first time starters can be lucrative. Will a 1st tmr win? The only way to tell is to have reliable pace, speed, and pedigree data. If the runners in a maiden race that have raced have very low speed #s and no extenuating circumstances to explain them then a 1st tmr is where to look. If anyone is interested in greater detail reach me and I'll take the time to provde my insight.

[Bill Lyster]

In a field with six first time starters and 3 who had some experience, the fastest early paid over 7:1

Thanks FTL

[Bill V.]

Hi Bill L

Hey Bill, you know were I hang out at Surfside at Del Mar
I'm sitting with the SA monitor right in front of me.

I watch this 7 horse win and only then when I see 7/1 do I look at the race
A LONE E8 7-1 !!!!!!

Asleep at the wheel !!

Bill If you throw out the 1 off over 150 days
it even make the race easier !

GS
Bill

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Hi Bill L

Hey Bill, you know were I hang out at Surfside at Del Mar
I'm sitting with the SA monitor right in front of me.

I watch this 7 horse win and only then when I see 7/1 do I look at the race
A LONE E8 7-1 !!!!!!

Asleep at the wheel !!

Bill If you throw out the 1 off over 150 days
it even make the race easier !

GS
Bill

Doc Sartin always wrote in the follow up that our inner voice is just as important as the readouts in front of us....We must strive to control our "self talk" as sometimes we may find ourselves caught in web with our inner voices.....

It doesn't matter, Bill....at least you are aware of what kind of races and the model of the match up that you are looking for....(the Lone E-8 runner in a maiden race)

Repetition of successful patterns....

Looking forward to your next successful post....

Good skills

[For The Lead]

Good job by Bill L hitting that maiden winner and “thanks” for posting it up here.

I had 5 cards on my plate for yesterday, PRX, LRL, PEN, SA and TP. Unfortunately, PRX cancelled. Just as unfortunate, LRL had no maiden races, so I was left with SA, TP and PEN, so I thought I would post all the maiden races. Keep in mind, I do not do turf races, so I was left with a total of 8 maiden races. Also keep in mind, this thread was about “early” horses in maiden races.

The results are, there were 4 winners from these 8 races. Here are the prices of those 4 winners;

TP 2nd $15.80
SA 7th $17.00
PEN 4th $12.40
PEN 8th $12.60
The total return comes to $57.80.

If you played two horses per race, even where it wasn’t necessary, and based on a flat bet of $2 on each horse, your investment would have been $32.00, giving you a profit of $25.80. That’s an ROI of almost 81%. Not bad.

I’ll comment very briefly on the races where the winner was not among the contenders and post screen shots where the winner was among the contenders.

In the second race at TP there were 6 contenders, therefore it would make sense for two horse bettors to play the two early types.



In the 9th race at TP there were just 3 contenders. None of them won.

In the 5th race at SA there were just 3 contenders. None of them won.

In the 7th race at SA there were just 2 contenders. It is clear that just one of these horses were of the early type, so I really see no need to bet 2 horses.



In the 10th race at SA there were just 3 contenders. None of them won.

[For The Lead]

In the 1st race at PEN there were just 3 contenders. None of them won.


In the 4th race at PEN there were just 3 contenders. Here are the screen shots.




In the 8th race at PEN there were 4 contenders. with 4 contenders I guess it makes sense for the two horse bettors to bet the two early types.

[ray lopez]

FTL, what if the horse that is projected to be the on the lead at the 1st call is also the projected leader at the second call? Will you just bet that one horse to win ? or do you bet a second horse to win also ? How do you look for a second-horse-win-bet?
Thanks.

Ray

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by ray lopez

FTL, what if the horse that is projected to be the on the lead at the 1st call is also the projected leader at the second call? Will you just bet that one horse to win ? or do you bet a second horse to win also ? How do you look for a second-horse-win-bet?
Thanks.

Ray

Many times the horse that has the lead at the first call is projected as the leader at the second call. This is common place. However, the best case scenario is for a horse to have the best first fraction (first call) time AND the best second fraction time. Obviously, this horse will show as having the best first fraction time AND the best second call time, but understand the difference. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is the best case scenario and not the only scenario in which the first fraction horse can go on to win.

Having the best first fraction time is self explanatory.
Having the best second fraction time means that this same early horse is running faster (or at the same pace) than all the horses behind it. When this is true, the horses attempting to make up ground on the leader is impossible. They just can't make up any ground if the leader isn't slowing down. In this scenario, the horse on the lead has a huge advantage.

RDSS provides the means to see these different scenarios. On the "segments screen" there are a couple of sections. One shows the computerized beaten lengths. This is at the first call (F1) AND the second call.
The section to the right of this shows the first fraction (F1) AND the second fraction (F2). The best second fraction (F2) horse could be any horse in the race. It could be the horse running dead last at the first call or it could be the horse on the lead at the first call or any horse in between. Where you see a horse that is last in the computed beaten lengths section at F1 and first for F2 in the incremental match up area, this does not mean this horse now has the lead at the second call. It only means it was running the fastest during the second fraction.

As far as how I bet, I am a one horse bettor. I either get it right with one horse or I don't. I spent many years as a one horse bettor, then I found the Sartin Methodology. At that point I became a two horse bettor in order to follow the methodology concepts. Later I went back to betting one horse.

If you look at my last post, right above your post, take a look at the 7th race at SA. There were only two contenders. It is obvious that only one of those two horses are of the early type and since an early type is the focus of the thread, you only need to bet that one horse. Now, if you are uncomfortable with only betting one horse, then bet both horses, I just feel the second bet is not worthwhile.

Finally, look at the the post of the 8th race at PEN.
In this race there are 4 contenders. If you look at the "computed beaten lengths" area it is easy to see that the #5 horse is the fastest first fraction horse. And as I stated above, this horse is also projected as the fastest "second call" horse. However, if you look to the right in the "incremental match up" area, you can see that the fastest second fraction horse is the #1 horse. Now look back at the "computed beaten lengths" area. You can see under the second call section that although the #5 shows best at the second call, the #1 is only 0.40 (less than 1/2 length) behind the leader. Notice that these two horses have a clear advantage over the other two horses at that point in the race. If the #5 does not go on to win, which horse is in the best position to win the race turning for home? The #1 and therefore the #1 would be your second bet.

I hope this helps.

[Bill V.]

Here are the PP's and my comments
this is race 1 Penn 2/14/13