Practice Race Keeneland Race 8

[Mark]

These are not horses running for $5K at Mountaineer. These are extremely well bred horses, trained by some of the best horsemen in the country. Many of them are owned by their breeders. I just don't believe you can handicap this race like a cheap claiming race.
Look at the winner's pps from the bottom up: 4th lifetime start runs in a 3 year old Kentucky Derby Prep, Grade 2 finishes 3rd beaten 2.1 lengths. Goes to the sidelines for a year comes back and runs a evenish race and the very next start at KEE at today's level runs his lifetime best speed figure only to lose by a nose. Comes back in a Grade 3 at 9.5f at PIM finishes 4th against older horses. Not long and he's back on the sidelines for another 210 days. His first start back he runs an evenish race. Now what do you expect today? What does the pattern indicate? Again these are not sore, old claiming horses. Most of these horses have never seen a claiming race. Now look at the #6 horse: His first start off a 408 day layoff he is beaten 2.2 lengths in 21.9 - 44.8 - 109.8 - 115.3. He gains on the pace of the race from the 1st call home. 2nd race back they put him on the turf. This is a practice that has been used as long as I have been handicapping: dirt sprint -turf route, one for speed the other for stamina. He runs very creditably, moves in the 2nd fraction to within 1.6 lengths of the lead, gets closer by the stretch call before fading a little over a length. What do you expect? This is his first route race off a 408 day layoff. He just worked 4f in 47.6, 4th of 75 horses 5 days ago. You think his connections mean business? 3rd race off the layoff is a dynamite angle, even with cheap horses if there is some evidence that the horse is returning to form. Think about it! Why pay all those board and vet bills if the horse is broken beyond repair? I think you should expect the horse to run at least to his old top in the 3rd or 4th start back after a long layoff. He is happy, healthy and FIT!!
I have found that when I focus solely on the numbers, my brain numbs and I end up pissed off that I did it again. For me I have to evaluate the horses, one by one. Learn their story, what were they able to do and what evidence is there that they can do it again today if their best is good enough to win. When you only look at the last 3 or 4 lines you maybe not consciously but ultimately overlook valuable details and you also play right into the tote board most of the times. It's the horses whose lines are further back in their past performances that are going to pay very nice prices. Not that you do this willy nilly. You have to have reasons or excuses that justify that line selection. Two of them are Class and Speed.
Hope I haven't offended too many people but I am so passionate about this that it is upsetting to me when I see this kind of thing. Because it is right there in the pps. You just have to look and not get mesmerized by your program's numbers.

[Bill V.]

Thank you Mark This is why I call these races practice races
This way people can be honest and we can learn .
It is so easy to post races after the fact, but who cares because
most people only post the readouts we can't see the past performances and we can't see why horses were called contenders or not . And we also do not see when they loose Which is good too.
Also there are NO contests here, Contest should be about winning money .

Lets keep posting our FEELINGS So we can practice to improve .

I appreciate your work up, In the book Pace Makes The Race
Tom Hamilton tells us to look deep in the horse PP's for a similar TPR
The problem with doing this was it will bite you in a race like this.
To win I figured I needed a off the pace horse because the 9 and 11 ere weak, I figured I would need a TPR over 180
The winner # 4 has it but not recently, well really almost every horse
in the race has some kind of layoff issues.

Here is another interesting look, This is copied from PM

ALL of these horses appear to have been injured at one point or another. There are just too many long layoffs and races that go back more than 2 years in some cases. I avoid races like this. The outcome is too often full of surprises.

Also, Keenland is not a early speed favoring track and with so many question marks (at least in my mind) it’s too hard to tell which of these horses with no form are going to fall out of the sky.

So here we go.
#1 – shows a race from more than a year ago.
#2 – SCR
#3 - has only 5 races, but the oldest is more than a year old.
#4 – oldest race is 861 days old. That’s more than 2 years.
#5 – only has 8 races, but the oldest is more than a year old.
#6 – oldest race is 713 days old. That’s almost 2 years.
#7 – oldest race is 783 days old. More than 2 years.
#8 – only 5 races, but the oldest is more than a year old.
#9 – oldest race is 580 days old. More than a year and a half.
#10 – only 8 races, but the oldest is 804 days. More than 2 years.
#11 – oldest race is 447 days. Almost a year and a half.
#12 – only 8 races, but the oldest is 713 days old. Almost 2 years.
So as you can see, it's not 1 or 3 horses, it's every horse in the race.

You know me, the #1 and #11 get thrown right out with a ML of 30/1.
The #12, unfortunately, is stuck on the outside of the #10 and #11, which appear to be the early speed horses. This does not bode well for any of these three horses.
There really isn’t much to choose from, so like I said, I wouldn’t be involved.

Also there was no fulcrum, More often than not when there is no fulcrum horse, you get a good price on the winner.

Good Skill
Bill

[lone speed]

Mark.

I appreciated your detailed write up. You are absolutely correct in "the way" that we should analyze a race. From the last line up!!! I do believe that most classified allowances are won by layoff horses. A trainer usually has a stakes competitor returning from a long layoff but is training " like a monster" that he begs the racing secretary to write a race for his entrant. Usually.

Most optional claiming races vary greatly but a trainer can usually place a stakes caliber horse in these type of races without fear of his horse getting claimed. It's an optional claiming race but his stakes caliber horse qualifies to be entered in the race. FTL will be the most qualified person to comment in detailed about race conditions.

Regarding these practice races, I always enjoy an active board so I try to participate in these races posted by Bill and by others in the match up board. I enjoyed reading the thought processes of fellow matchers or handicappers. If not for theses match up races, most of us know that we will hear " crickets" on this board as most are studying past posts and/or the immense collections of past seminars in PDFs or "follow-up" issues.

In this race, I will admit that I did not spend much time on it. Top Billing did catch my attention as the "class horse" in this match up but he comes from the clouds and today's race was at a mile so I didn't think that Top Billing will get up in time. I do recalled that the trainer had Top Billing and Honor Code in the Derby trail from a couple of years ago.

When I looked at a race quickly which we are not "supposed to". I usually try to find the speed of the race or which horses has a possible "pair". Thorograph speak for a horse who might "move up" off two similar efforts which comprise of one race where the effort was expended in early pace energy and another race where the effort was expended in late energy. Only the "pair" reference pertains to Thorograph. The front/back energy expenditures was learned from many past observations.

In this race, I thought the #10 was the speed of the race and the #8 Chipit was the possible "pair" horse.

Thanks again, Mark....I appreciated your post for the proper thought process when analyzing a race.

[Mitch44]

In a recent post I mentioned about players becoming figure blind and horses should be evaluated. Evaluated to todays conditions, equipment changes, claims medication changes etc. Anything that could effect its performance for improvement or decline. Shame on those who don't and keep it up as we need your money.

In this particular race I did exactly that and determined this was a dangerous ugly race that was fraught with unknown factors. My evaluation of the winner was he had suspicious layoffs, declining speed ratings, ran in this type race several times and was at best inconsistent at this level. Horses don't get laid up for long periods without having serious problems. Some come back and overcome it and some don't. These type of horses are like FTS in that their form, soundness etc. belong to the connections. I was actually looking for a closer and went with the 5 & 7.When you don't feel you made a mistake you move on and if you did then take the lesson.

These forums are great to learn from and much can be learned here. Much more can be learned by participating and doing your own post mortems. Then you'll learn much more and are forced by reality prior to the result to expose your weaknesses, which just isn't the same as after the fact. Get aboard Bill V's train to higher learning. No one is too good not to participate.

Mitch44

[gl45]

Mark,
Well said. How about selecting the best TPR (to be considered as back class as well) for each horse and use the final quarter time as one of the handicapping factors to be used in selecting contenders.

[Mark]

Few trainers have the pedigree of Shug McGaughey. He doesn't seek attention but for the last 30 -40 years he has trained for a few families, the "Blue Bloods" of the industry. At one time I could rattle the names off to you, but while you gain wisdom with age, you lose memory and youth! His last top horse was ORB to win the Derby a few years back.
I admit it though I shared your concerns about the #4 and the #6 was my bet in this race. I will rarely bet a horse less than 6/1 because the way I handicap leads to a few torn up tickets. But I also bet win and place on horses over 8/1 because I am a 1 horse better. While my variegation was OTE, and I projected a somewhat moderate pace, 1:11 and change, I thought the #6 would be ahead of the #4 for the entire race. That SA sprint was fast and I only bet S horses if I can eliminate the Ps and SPs first.
However, the subject of this thread is TPR and my first post here was that a focus solely based on numbers, for me, leads to a mind numbing experience. While I respect and admire Bill V's for his long experience and tenacity, I can not bring my self to focus solely on the last 3 or 4 pacelines. If I limit my paceline selection to just those lines, and only a "+" or "(+)" race without fully exploring the horse's entire pps, then I don't know what this horse was capable of at one time. And it directly conflicts with Jim Bradshaw's instruction, through Richie P in the Hat Check Blog, his books and the old Red "Match Up" manual.
While this was an exceptional race, by far the majority of races we all play are claiming races. Bill's discipline and guidelines save him a lot of lost wagers when betting those horses. However, when racing has been interrupted by layoffs in the last 4 lines, there is an opportunity for betting away from the Public which means higher returns. Without those layoffs which the Public find very hard to deal with, and I might add shippers to that list, it is improbable that lines deep in the pps are valid today. Most often the races proceeding the layoff will be very poor as the horse was suffering some infirmity and the trainer could figure it out. So the likelihood is that there are 4 or 5 races depending on the number of races since his return, that are very poor. So to get an indication of the horse's capabilities you have to look way back. Is there a line or lines that make the horse competitive today? If not then there is no further need for discussion. But if there is then you have to investigate him further. By far the leading infirmities in a race horse are problems associated with the front legs. Bowed tendons and suspensory problems probably lead the way. But also in older runners Arthritis in the joints is a painful issue. Most often you see this in the pps by their inability to run the turns. Just like modern football players, straight ahead running is not the problem. The problem is in the stability of the joints while cutting and moving laterally. The centrifugal forces caused by running around turns at 30+ miles an hour stresses those injured areas and causes the horse to want to stop. So the single most important aspect of conditioning from a handicapper's perspective is determining whether the horse has had enough conditioning to be racing fit and sound upon his return to the races. His finish position is less important than how he has run his return races. This is why my most rewarding angle is 2 or 3 races off an extended layoff.
Limiting the paceline selection to the last 3 or 4 races will cause you to completely miss these horses. Since you are only going to select from one of these lines it is natural not to look farther back. And if there isn't a big speed figure or a dominating win to look back at, it is on to the next horse, check the Non-contender box.
In a race that Bill posted a week or so ago, there was a horse who had run at Hastings before shipping to Golden Gate Fields and now was at TUP. In his bottom 4 races the horse had the lead or was second at the Stretch call of these 6.5f races, in other words at the 5.5f point in those races. He ran Early or EP in most. His races at GG were over the Poly track and he had run well and won in 5f races most all at higher claiming levels. He had won as an SP. His first race at TUP he broke last but made a huge move in the 2nd fraction in I believe a 6.5f race before fading. Huge I mean more than 5 lengths gained on the leaders. Well, you can forgive the first start over a new track but ignoring the Turn Time move was critical. This horse doesn't have physical problems. The races at Hasting at higher levels tells you the horse can perform on dirt surfaces and his wins at GG from off the pace was exactly what you were looking for in a race loaded with EARLY speed. The horse is versatile and fast and has won from a position off the pace at 5f. His first start at TUP and the wicked move in the 2nd fraction tells you the horse is sound and ready on the cut back to 5.5f today.
To form a valid opinion on a race horse you must review the entire pps, not limit your focus to the last 3 or 4 lines. That's like reading half the text book before your exam. You gain a much better level of understanding of the horse by noting the freshenings and layoffs, days between races, movements up and down the claiming ladder, changes in ownership and improvements or regressions in the new barns. These are not numbers. This is thought provoking analysis that give you a much higher level of understanding which can lead you to a more well founded opinion of the horse's current condition.
But I will get off my soap box because this is just one man's opinion and I state it in hopes that it will make sense to some who read it and benefit them.

[The Pook]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

These forums are great to learn from and much can be learned here. Much more can be learned by participating and doing your own post mortems. Then you'll learn much more and are forced by reality prior to the result to expose your weaknesses, which just isn't the same as after the fact. Get aboard Bill V's train to higher learning. No one is too good not to participate.

Mitch44

Mitch and all the others enlightening us with your opinions on these practice races,

You guys seem to know your stuff. I read it, learn what I can, and jump in occasionally. Lone has mentioned the Matchup forum and that he likes to follow along and now Mitch writes the above. I am curious. For guys that think we should expose our weaknesses why have you not done it in the M4$? I personally would have loved to have some of the in depth analysis that you guys spend a lot of time writing, written over there on a weekly basis. A perfect place to show everybody how good you are.

From this thread Bill V. is the only one to have taken it on. I think Lone was involved briefly last year but why a guy like Mark (a knowledgable pure Matchup guy) hasn't joined I don't know. We even had Richie volunteer and post a race. He will probably do another one too but he can't play at this time because of other commitments. I am sure there are legit reasons but you folks don't seem to have too much trouble writing words. Ted threw an extra $100 into the pot to make it more interesting. We have 10 players out of over 100 active members. It could easily be higher than 10. I know many are rookies but not you guys.

However it is too late for this M4$ but there is another 20 race sequence planned in late July/August.

If you truly want to keep the crickets away and add life to the board, consider it.
Pook

[Mitch44]

Pook the reason I'm not in M4$ it is that I'm not a matchup guy. I'm well aware of its concepts and having tried it realize my limitations. Very few can employ it on any consistent winning basis. The number that can vs. those that can't is a huge gap.

The matchup was included in Sartin later programs by the Doc. In the readouts in RDSS the matchup is included and on a consistent basis by a computer program which can outperform me and most who attempt to mimic "The Hat". One should know their capabilities and limitations. Oh I suppose I could enter and do what I normally do and throw some matchup stuff up there for justification but it wouldn't be what Jimmy did or what you guys are trying to achieve.

I have no problem posting picks and I'm not embarrassed at all by a lost. I don't red board, nobody gets them all. Before the fact is where the rubber meets the road.If it were a different format I would have no problem with a competition or one for money. At a minimum it would sharpen ones skills. My time is limited but I try to participate whenever possible.

Some of my analysis for that race came more from my knowledge of the old Entropy program and or deceleration rather than the matchup per say. From what I see most matchup guys don't carry the race into the 3rd FR which is the most difficult part so they ignore it. Most not all that is. Some analysis came from reviewing the horses chart beyond just picking a line.
Mitch44

[Mark]

GL45,
We all have to find a successful method. That said this was a very unusual race. Maybe 2% of the races run in this country fall into this category. It presents a wealth of challenges and problems to the handicapper.
What made it so special is that this type of race is normally filled with lightly raced horses on the way up to Stakes company. Yet their were horses in the field that didn't fit that mold. The #4 was the perfect example. A highly regarded 3 year old who ran 3rd in a Kentucky Derby prep over two years ago. Who had a couple of lengthy layoffs. The #6 out of California also a 5 year old. I wouldn't have thought much about him if I hadn't seen his sprint prep off the 408 day layoff and the subsequent turf route. This is classical preparation for bigger and better things.
What caught my attention initially with the #4 was the GP race but as I worked my way up his pps, I saw the prep race and then the huge effort in a graded race loss by a nose. The first race off his layoff wasn't all that much but then BOOM he runs that second race top.
Everything has to be in context. If this were a $10,000 claimer N3-L I probably wouldn't have given it as much emphasis. But look at the trainers in this race. This is a who's who in American Training. These guys don't train claimers and they work for big breeders and buy very expensive stock. The race conditions, the trainers, a spring race at KEE all tell me these are good horses, some maybe top class.
If you are to look at their best TPRs, you also have to look at where and how they were earned. A 180 CPR on turf is not going to impress me unless there are similar ratings on dirt. Bill mentions that everyone had layoffs and 180 CPRs, I want this race because you can smell money. A lot of handicappers today just give up or cut back their bets or bet the best current form horse or the best of the last 3 races. And that is why there is money to be made.
Many things can give you an insight into a race. Most are not number related. Note for instance, that neither the #4 or #6 have been gelded. Note the number of homebreds. And again the trainers. The #4 has some physical problems it is apparent due to the layoffs but if the connections didn't have a high opinion of the horse why not drop him and get rid of him. How many claimers are in these guys barns: Few if any. If he was just a horse why not geld him, he would be much more manageable. No, these older horses running in a race designed for up and coming new 4 year olds are well bred horses who with a little luck will find their way into the breeding shed not in Kentucky but maybe Minnesota or New Mexico. So in my view you can't eliminate any horse from this field without a thorough evaluation. And in the process you will find the pattern on the #4 and see the blazing 6.5f comeback race on a slightly slow surface at SA on the #6. You see that race and immediately compare it to all the other horses sprint races. Now one can come close to him. Yet he has route speed and his best races have been on the turf. So there is no fear of him just being a sprinter. And he is not head strong and can run off the pace. He also had that one dirt line that made him competitive pace-wise today. BINGO I found my horse. Well, he got beat, maybe he was a little short as he made the lead at the Stretch Call or most likely the #4 is just a better more talented animal and on his day as shown by his pps, early in his new form cycle he runs a barn burner.
In every race you have to do your best to project today's pace. You have to find the horses that have been able to compete successfully against that pace somewhere in their pps. If the line is deep, you have to make your best guess after a thorough evaluation whether it is repeatable today. Previous patterns can be helpful. Class is important. Final time to me is greatly over emphasized because it is so hard to determine the circumstances of that particular race. Finishes are more important. The Doc used to talk about horses that won in apparently slow time. He used to instruct that you should always use any horse that had over an 80 DRF speed rating. Theses horse pay good money because they are discounted by most software, but the fact of the matter is that the horse won his race. Does he meet today's race variegation?
There are no short cuts.
The first thing I do in every race is using the last line, check the number of shippers and the spread in the variants from high to low. Because I start handicapping RAW, this gives me a good idea of the fast horses when I look at the Segment screen first fraction illustration. Check the leaders out individually and determine if that 1st fraction was aberrant or real. If you have an SP as designated by the program with the first fraction lead then that is not realistic. You want to find the fastest first fraction on an Early or EP at today's distance structure. Now you have a initial projected first fraction and you can go through the horses one by one and assign them Running styles based on that highlighted first fraction on the Original screen. As I do this horses who finish up the track when facing this fraction are easily eliminated. But I am not picking pacelines yet. The first fraction is the least effected by surface speed. I have read here that Trackmaster pps are adjusted for Run-Up distance although working them RAW I kind of doubt it. But I have a solid basis to begin my work.
Then I decide if I am going to go to a 100% DTV and ITV configuration so that I have a better idea of the latter part of the race. I have confidence in the 2nd calls in TPR and final time using the 100% DTV and ITV. The first fraction is useless in this mode. It is so distorted by the application of the final time adjustment that it is unusable. So you can see which of your horses that were close in the first fraction analysis who will be there at the 2nd call. Now you can project your second call. The whole Idea here is to determine which way the race will run, Early or OTE. Once you have been able to do this, throw all the other side out. Now you are working with a projected pace, the True contenders by variegation and as long as you remember Jim Bradshaw's edict: "Bet the horse closest to the leader, factoring in the pace of the race", you should have the winner in your top two.
So goes the theory. In practice if you practice you will learn things that make the process more reliable. You can use Bradshaw's Voodoo to separate the final contenders. Good Luck!!

[Mark]

Pook,

Do you feel that you have something to contribute to the readers of this forum? I do. I have been handicapping of around 50 years more of it with just a racing form than a software program. I feel there are insights that can be added to the topics offered for discussion and therefore I write mine. No one demanded or required that I participate in contest when I signed on nearly 3 years ago and few have ever questioned my veracity.
If you do not feel like my comments have value than don't read them. I have only one person to satisfy: Myself.
It is fairly obvious that I strongly disagree with the focus on the last line, or best of the last 3 comparable and have tried to explain my thinking. While I can't argue with this approach for new subscribers to help them get going, I don't think it is practicable except for the very few.
My first exposure to Doc Sartin was in the early 90s. I attended a few Las Vegas seminars and one in Beaumont and visited with the Doc at the office in Beaumont several times. A very gracious man who treated me to lunch at a local Mexican restaurant. I got the impression that he felt guilty taking peoples' money for programs as I always left with an armload of manuals that he would give to me. But I did pay $1,500 for Thoromation back then. Still have he disc along with maybe 5 other programs of his. I think Pace Launcher was the last one I bought.
While I do not intend to offend anyone's sensibilities, I make no apologies. I have been an infrequent poster until subjects recently have struck a note in me. On these I have made my perspective very clear.