Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > General Discussion
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

General Discussion General Horse Racing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2018, 07:44 PM   #1
rdiam
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 606
Macro Outlook

I would like to start a discussion about what I will refer to as a race's Macro Outlook: many of the posts on this board are concerned with the "micro" of a horse race -- picking a pace line, picking contenders, tossing non-contenders, etc. I think it is important to first look at the bigger (macro) picture.

Let's define a race's Macro Outlook as a determination of how contentious the race is likely to run. On a broad level, a race will either be predictable and orderly, or unpredictable. On the unpredictable side, the races can either be open, with many (i.e. 5-7 contenders), or it can be chaos. Each macro outlook will have a prescribed betting approach.

Predictable, orderly races will generally have 1-3 standout contenders. One suggested (but crude) method of defining predictable races is when the ML odds on the favorite are 2-1 or less. This is a race where the favorite is often legitimate, one of the top 2-3 favorites is likely to win and/or place in the exacta. When betting horizontal exotics, this type of race will often produce a single, should be used on the back end of rolling doubles or in any case, a race not to go too deep.

Open, contentious races usually will require the ability to find a vulnerable favorite or second favorite, as well as a horse with an extreme pace advantage in terms of running style or superior pace figures early and/or late. It needs deep coverage in both vertical and horizontal exotics.

Chaos races exist when there are enough unknowns to make it difficult to handicap the race using running style, pace, and energy tools. This would include races with too many FTS, but it would also include races where all of the horses would qualify for what Pizzolla used to call "pigs" or the sheets guys would (politically incorrectly) call "cripples". There are usually vulnerable favorites and second favorites in chaos races, and techniques other than traditional Sartin handicapping must be utilized if the race is to be played at all.

I believe that this type of macro analysis is the starting point for any race -- first to decide if it is playable or unplayable, and second to decide which handicapping tools are best suited to create a betting strategy. Thanks.

Richard

Thoughts?
rdiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2018, 07:55 PM   #2
Jeebs
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 909
Excellent post, Richard. I would like to see more posts and information on the "game theory" aspect of horse racing handicapping and betting. The macro outlook you just described goes beyond the zeroth and first levels of thinking. In terms of poker, theorist David Sklansky wrote a chapter in one of his books about the multiple levels of poker table thinking. Those were:

Level 0: No thinking.
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What do they have?
Level 3: What do they think I have?
Level 4: What do they think I think they have?
Level 5: What do they think I think they think I have?

Now obviously, were not playing cards when we are reading the Racing Form or plugging in our lines into RDSS/pick your favorite program. However, "different thinking" (going outside the box) can net you both monetary rewards at the windows/ADWs and intellectual rewards in life.
Jeebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2018, 06:16 AM   #3
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Richard: You bring up some valid points.


While some races can be determined if playable or not I find that most can not. MSW with several first time starters are easy. So is a lot of FTS on the turf. However what I find is that most can't be determined playable or not till the horses have been accessed. By that time you're well into the race.


This is where you pick up the unknown factors. After that a better decision can be made on whether to play or pass and to develop a wagering plan to capitalize on your assessment of both the contenders and the race itself.


I automatically include any horse that won its last race as a contender. The average repeater only win about 17% so the odds are about 83% against. I evaluate the horse itself by how difficult the win was and how much it steps up in class etc. etc. As with horses off 90 days or ML odds of 20-1 their not all created equal.

Good decisions on situational handicapping are what bring in the $$$$. A macro outlook is beneficial.
Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 03-22-2018 at 06:18 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 01:50 PM   #4
1retired
Grade 3
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 64
Maco Theory by RDiam

Richard

I think that Randy Giles wrote about this subject in his book "Extreme Pace
Handicapping. I'am in the process of obtaining additionaal information on thatt
book from another person on this website. That person has said that Partsnut and an additional person from this website. I think that he relies quite a bit on the Running Style of the hoorses in the race to make his determination as to the playability of the race. I think he alwso uses this idea yuou have of favorites being 2-1 or less as being one of the cutoffs to writing off the race asunplayable unless you have some way of writing off the favorites.

I like your thinking. It would be advantageous for me to do exactly as you say. First and foremost, find out if the face is playable or not. I'm so new at this that I don't have anywhere near the skills needed to make that decision.

Daveo
1retired is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 04:21 PM   #5
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Its a fact that the lower the odds on favorites the more likely it is to win. Hence the 2-1 or less as legitimate. This is a rough guide but but other criteria is much better to predict a false favorite, such as distance and surface etc. Dig a little deeper than just 2-1 for a false favorite.

Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 08:14 PM   #6
1retired
Grade 3
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 64
Macro OUtlook

I'm treading on thin ice because I'm a newbie and also because my handicapping skills, compared to a lot of you, is much less limited, no, I emean much more linmited than a lot of you.

I am realllyu impressed with the work that has gone into determinging the usefulness of VFC (VDC), CSR, BPP, PL, and BL/BL in determining who are the legitimate competitors for the win in races. Many of you are highly skilled in making those determinations and I applaud you. Us lesser types are riding on your coattails, to use Tim Y's phrase. In the arena of races in which the winners odds are from even money to say 10-1, you have a considerable warchest of weapons to find the winner and to reason it out, such as using the eit.tiered approach with Bl/BL,and similar approaches with the other factors I have mentioned.

So. to followup on Rdiam's macro idea, I first should agree we need to define as diefinitely as possible what is a chaos or unplayable race. The idea is to keep us from thorow away money betting unplayable races and concentrate our handicapping time on races we can win in a reasonable manner. If you play such races, at least you know that you are playing in a low-[profitablel arena.

Then, we have the "normal" playable races which generally have win odds of from even money to somehwere around 6 to 10-1. Sometimes you get lucky and the VDC, CSR, PL and BPP factors give you a long odds horse but that is relatively rare.

So, I say that we should continue to play these races but we should start spenidng more time finding and fleshing out new angles that win at higher odds


My own experience with trying to develop my E/L difference angle is that quite a few people are trying to talk me out of it to use the tried and true factors used for even money to abouiyt 10-1 horses. My idea and the idea of the originator of the E/L Difference angle is that the tried and true facgtors will not point you to the winner of this type of race. You have to use what works. And

he found, that what worked for him was the E/L difference factgor.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that this website does not have an arsenal of spot play group of angles that win within specific situations and areas. The type of angles that win the other 10% of the races not covered by VDC;, CSR, BPP, PL and BL/BL.

We should be makign our usual bets in the "normal" type of race that gets us mostly low odds (2 or 3-1 up to 8-10-1 winners. We should be making our "Prinme" bets in the area where we have proPROVEN spont play angles that routinely give us 8-20 or 30-1 when we win.

Other examples of high profit spot play angles are betting the pressers and closers when the race is loaded with early speed type horses, especially "fighters", i.e. when the Quirin Speed points total more than 21 in a race. We will not win all or even most of these races. But, when we do, the payoff may make it well worth the effort. Sanme thing with Lone Early Speed in a prace.
Randly Giles has a book out since about 2009 entitled, Extreme Pace Handicapping. We may want to investigate if if any of those pace angles in his book have applicablity to RDSS that we can make work.

William Scott wrote several books and in one he listed a considerable number of positive form factors. ONe is betting a router coming back from a layoff, if he runs two sprint races and then enters a route frace. We bet thata race. Another is a horse that never shows early speed and then all of a sudden in his next race he leads at the first two calls of a sprint race before folding in the stretch. WE bet him in the next race. I remember see ing a shipper from Delta Downs go to the Fiargrounds and do examplct. exactly that and pay 24-1. Nobody paid attention to this form factor of unexplained early speed. There are plenty of others. I think SCott's form facgtors are a pariticularly good way of looking at new ways to win races at higher odds.

We have the perfect environment for it. We can play races on paper to see if they win and show a profit for a particularl angle and then when it is proven to be worthwhile we use it. That's what rRmath did with his 4 factors, bless him.
He spent a heck of a lot of time developing it. LT (Tim) has done the same thing with legnths behind at the 1st and 2nd call.

I'm getting off my soap box now. Thanks for letting me speak. Let me know what you think.

Dave




>. m
a i. 4 [. 4

develop
s
1retired is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2021, 11:53 PM   #7
ranchwest
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,489
Dave,

I think you are confusing Scott's form factors with Quirin's spot plays. Scott's form factors are recency, running line and stretch performance.
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2021, 10:53 AM   #8
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
There are hundreds of angles, if not a thousand. Their like beauty in that the belief in them is in the mind of the player. Win a race with a decent payoff of say above $15 and they fall in love with the angle.

In a forum like RDSS your going to be exposed to numerous angles, procedures, methods, ideas and so forth. Its very easy to get information overload.

Statically the better the price of a horse the fewer there are of them. Many of them are just overlays that the public made a mistake on. All longshots are not created equal nor are all angles created equal. One just can not play every angle horse of any angle, that's a trip to the poorhouse. Some races may contain 3 or 4 horses with the same angle.

Angles require serious research. BLBL, V/DC and several others took years for the Factor to become profitable and reach its maturity. This E & L difference was an early embryo of deceleration. Still effective but rather crude as compared to V/DC. One reason of the big attraction to it for many is its simplicity, much like TPR is a simplistic form of Pace. If you think the E & L graph is the bomb, wait till you discover DCL. However both can get you in trouble if not employed in concept or as a lone Factor.

The Match Up supersedes these earlier developments and is incorporated into the better Factors within the program. The differences of E & L are within the Match Up, Beaten Lengths at the Second Call and all calls are factored in and considered.

With that said, some of the earlier stuff can be used for analysis or a jumping off point to better understand the rankings of Factors or degree of difference. I have never understood the difference between a tier and a rank. A tier may sound more sophisticated however its nothing more than the next level as is a ranking. Perhaps some one can enlighten me.

Bottom line is that many angles are not going to out perform the Program, and what some consider angles are incorporated into the Program.

Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 09-29-2021 at 11:05 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2021, 11:34 AM   #9
ranchwest
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,489
Mitch,

Good post. From what I am seeing, pace is something you have to learn to trust. It is important to grasp, as you have pointed out, that horses win in proportion to their odds, though nowadays skewed toward favorites. A few days ago, I had a 40/1 as one of my 4 contenders and it won. But I don't expect that to happen more than 1 in 40 times, if that much. That's all of the opportunity that is there. So, when pace tells us over and over that a favorite is likely to win, the favorite IS GOING TO WIN nearly 40% of the time these days. It just is. If we want the 40/1 horse, we have to wait for it. A restaurant owner I once knew would tell impatient customers... if you want fast, go across the street to McDonald's. If you want a good hamburger, you're going to wait for it! If you want to lose at horse racing, take the "fast food" route.

As for tier and rank, rank has equally spaced positions. Tier could have multiple horses at one level. I think of running style, EPS, as tiers. Whereas, we usually look at Prime Power as a rank. That's my take anyway.
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ky Dby Postmortem = Preakness Outlook omar General Discussion 2 05-20-2017 04:21 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.