What really matters?

[carlous21]

Thanks gentlemen

[Bill V.]

I edited your post, I do not think your opening comment was helpful
We all are here to help each other , If your agenda is to be negative
toward other members then you are in the wrong place.

I see now you did say

"Long Layoffs are a good thing! It shows that the connections think enough of the animal to turn him out at the farm or otherwise pay feed, board and vet bills to get the horse sound again. Generally, the 3rd race off a 200+ day layoff is the money run."

You confused at least 3 of us, and we all speak and read English perfectly.

Anyway I respect your theory enough to do a little research

This is only 1 card , I will do cards going forward It does appear that
in this small sample, Horses 3rd race back after 200 days or even greater than 90 days layoff do run respectively , Often running in the money "Plus races " but today looking at every line for every horse in 11 races it only produced 1 winner. and it went 0/3 in races today


Also your quote

The only time you will see a horse win off a long layoff is at long odds. Believe it or not, these trainers and owners bet their horses and when better to get a big price but off a long layoff.

This is not supported in races I have actually handicapped .
As Jeeps mentioned when getting bit the horse off a long layoff only paid 5/2

Unless you consider about 4.5/1 long odds it has not happen often or paid very well.
In the box below the resuts are what the horse did in the third race after a "long layoff"

[Lt1]

The area of layoffs falls into the area of situational handicapping. Does the layoff appear to been for r&r or is of the length of time that indicates an injury. As has been pointed out certain trainers are very good at bringing horses and certain horses do well after a rest. It's up to us to know the tracks ,trainers, and horses we play. If one decides a play on a layoff horses is justified I would demand a price to compensate for the risk. Two horse bettors have a edge in this area since they have another chance to win the race should the layoff horse fail.
Tim

[Lt1]

Fair question FTL. Yes if I thought the horse in question was a threat to wire the field I would have to re evaluate my choices if indeed this horse was not one of my plays. I ask Bill that question since I didn't have the pps and didn't know if it would face any early opposition for the lead and therefore expend to much energy early and might not finish.
TIM

[Lt1]

Hi Bill. Thanks for your well thought out response. I myself would have made the horse a ntl by the 2nd call based on its 2 wins. As both you and FTL point out you would make it an early horse but reserve giving it ntl status based on its small racing record. I can see that point of view. I was talking with Mitch yesterday and was telling him that one other concern I had with line 1 was the ease with which the horse went wtw. I'm always leery of such wins especially with mdns. Anyway this has been a great thread with a lot of divergent ideas and thoughts being posted. Nice to see that you are able handicap and play the horses. I wish you continued improving health and good skill.
Tim

[shoeless]

Bill

That's great about you being able to handicap the races and look
out at the ocean.

Take care my friend and get well soon.

Jeff

[Mitch44]

Here's an interesting observation and dilemma for most. Under Bradshaw's matchup concept a NTL horse must have the lead at the 1st call and fights to get it. I agree with that and I expand that further in that it'll fight to keep it at any point in the race. This is why I look at its reaction when challenged regardless of where that challenge takes place. While normally it takes place in the 1st Fr it can occur at any point in the race if the horse is able to hold the lead. Some horses can hold the lead to deep stretch until confronted and challenged.


And then we have the two different types of ESP being the Visual and the computer driven % Median. % Med was an improvement over the old % Early because it considered all 3 Fr's. Sartin said; " any program that only considers two FR's ( Phase 1) can not be considered pace handicapping. "


With % Med track profiles became more accurate and all its forms of usage were more accurate. Examples such as parameters for stretch outs, parameters for first time turf starters and for the designation of a much more accurate accurate ESP.


The visual ESP is fine to employ the matchup principles but don't count on its accuracy for track profiles etc. There is and this has been proven that there is a distinct difference between the two. An a common one is that a horse can go wire to wire and visually look and appear to be an E type horse but its & Med can say otherwise to include even being sustain runner.


How can this be you ask? It goes back to our earlier discussion in that horses only do what they have to do in order to win. A hose will loaf on the lead and when finally challenged in the later part of the race uses that reserve energy.


Now back to our original discussion if you look at Bill V.'s screen shot in post # 40 of this thread you can observe the two different types of ESP displayed on the screen. The RS or visual says the # 3 horse is a E type which is consistent with a NTL and Bradshaw's definition of a visual NTL which is perfect for the matchup. And the %Med designation of P for presser.


I myself always use the % Med if I use it at all. I say that because I play many tracks and don't keep track profiles etc. But I do use for various things such as discounting horses with a % Med of or over 70%. In this case if you're doubtful of a horses true running style use the % Med for better decisions.


Hope this is helpful.


Mitch44
Sorry I can't post screen shots with my version. Bill has solved that problem but its just too complicated with my version and my small brain. Have it written down but a terrible waste of my time. But I do greatly appreciate Bil's help on it. Love cut and paste.

[Lt1]

Nicely done Mitch. I myself keep a track model for every dist and surface for each track I play and one of my key elements is %med. By keeping a accurate range of winning % meds one is well ahead of the crowd. Also helps id when track surface is changing after things like heavy rains, snow,thawing out etc. Additionally I use it as a gauge to judge horses stretching out in dist especially sprinters when there is no data available in the horses' pps.
Tim

[kpmats10]

Re: Layoff horses

Since Oct 1st, there have been 36,843 starters in the US.

There have been 3,783 starters who have not raced for 91+ days. 353 have won for a winning percentage of 9.3%

For the third quarter this year (July 1 - Sep 30), there were 94,393 starters in the US.

10,075 horses raced coming off a layoff of 91+ days, 1,066 won, for a win percentage of 10.58%. The only lower winning percentage was 10.06% for horses coming off an 81-86 day layoff.

[Mitch44]

Nice stats kpmats10, thanks for posting.


I don't believe in giving up layoff horses going into a race. While stats are good the better priced horses are exactly the ones we're looking for. Many of these exception's to the rule are very getable with the public making mistakes.


While the winner of the race posted here wasn't a layoff horse the public sure made a mistake here letting it pay $15.00 and being second on BLBL.


We can't just throw darts at them and be successful but a sound consistent approach has its rewards. Stats can be very deceiving if taken as a whole or accepted blindly. Incompetent trainers make the greatest contribution to many racing stats. How the horse and trainer performed in this situation before is much more important as they all have their specialties.


In the military leaders are taught to employ their men within their capabilities and limitations. That same leadership principle applies to horse racing.


A trainer may have an overall winning rate of 23% but only be 3% for turf . Situational stats are more important This is exactly why Sartin expressed so much when it came to picking pace line to use a comparable surface and distance. The distance and surface are situational to todays race and conditions.


Mitch44