MTH 7/2 - Race 4

[Bill V.]

Don't worry Ted

anyway I only saw the race live
Didn't the 2 win OTE ??

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Thanks Jim. I'm sure some matcher out there is shaking their head and saying 4 E/EP types and 1 S...who is the counter-energy horse, or at least, the 'Other Than Early' ? - (the #4) .

Anyway...

Ted

Hey Ted,

No, actually, I'm going to skip over that one in favor of asking you why you used the second line back on the winner, when after being OFF for 8 months it ran 12th for the last half mile of its' return race 33 days ago?

What led you to believe that it was "ready" to run back to or anywhere near the second line back off of that return race?

[alydar_ David]

Hi Ted, my readout is somewhat similar to yours.

However, I'd set up a 100% minimum profit requirement with PTC and the return dutching #1 and #2 was too small to warrant automatic wagers.

I really like that feature. It gives you a great sense of freedom.

For this afternoon and evening I played 19 tracks and didn't even need to have the computer on. Everything was preset. As they say in Australia, "No worries, mate."

Nothing like coming home later to discover you've made a profit...and a rebate.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Hey Ted,

No, actually, I'm going to skip over that one in favor of asking you why you used the second line back on the winner, when after being OFF for 8 months it ran 12th for the last half mile of its' return race 33 days ago?

What led you to believe that it was "ready" to run back to or anywhere near the second line back off of that return race?

FTL,

I recall my decision process went something like this: significantly #1 APV and CR. Finished its 2009 campaign well. Rested. Return race was FPLR (i.e. best 2nd call POR of all horses' last recent race) against which the horse ran in the top half (6 of 12) for 2f. One could postulate the race was a workout only, since it stopped contending sometime after 2f. Short, sharp work 5 days ago, respectable 90 SR. I recall seeing those 12-12-12 running positions, beaten 20 lengths and thinking: the horse just stopped running - this wasn't a race, no worries.

At the time of my screen captures and post, it was 6-1, which I felt was some insurance against misinterpretation of the above. Also a respectable Tote Tx=2nd, so someone had some confidence in the horse. The fact of its being bet down to under 3-1 was further indication of confidence. If it was at 3-1 when I made my post, I would not have made the bet.

The horse could easily have rerun its last race, today, and the above might have appeared immature analysis. It happens...

The reciprocal of trying to find weaknesses in favourites, is trying to forgive bad last lines in horses who, save for which, otherwise would be favourites.

FWIW

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by alydar_David

Hi Ted, my readout is somewhat similar to yours.

However, I'd set up a 100% minimum profit requirement with PTC and the return dutching #1 and #2 was too small to warrant automatic wagers.

I really like that feature. It gives you a great sense of freedom.

For this afternoon and evening I played 19 tracks and didn't even need to have the computer on. Everything was preset. As they say in Australia, "No worries, mate."

Nothing like coming home later to discover you've made a profit...and a rebate.

David,

By 100% profit, I presume you mean net of EVEN odds, based on what ever dutch percent you can manage? So $10 bet must return $20 minimum? If so, then yes, the #2 and #1 would not cut it: no split of your $10 returns $20. A dutch of the #2 Win Place @ 6-1 (or even 5-1) might do the trick, but likely not at 3-1.



Sounds like you've got a good betting method workout out with PTC conditional wagering. Next I know it, I bet you're going to ask for RDSS to create PTC conditional upload files from your analysis, so you don't have to spend time keying it all in... ?

Congratulations on a profitable day!

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Don't worry Ted

anyway I only saw the race live
Didn't the 2 win OTE ??

Bill,

Yes, it did run from somewhat off the pace: 4-4-2-1. Sure wasn't what it looked like from its PPs though!

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

FTL,

I recall my decision process went something like this: significantly #1 APV and CR. Finished its 2009 campaign well. Rested. Return race was FPLR (i.e. best 2nd call POR of all horses' last recent race) against which the horse ran in the top half (6 of 12) for 2f. One could postulate the race was a workout only, since it stopped contending sometime after 2f. Short, sharp work 5 days ago, respectable 90 SR. I recall seeing those 12-12-12 running positions, beaten 20 lengths and thinking: the horse just stopped running - this wasn't a race, no worries.

At the time of my screen captures and post, it was 6-1, which I felt was some insurance against misinterpretation of the above. Also a respectable Tote Tx=2nd, so someone had some confidence in the horse. The fact of its being bet down to under 3-1 was further indication of confidence. If it was at 3-1 when I made my post, I would not have made the bet.

The horse could easily have rerun its last race, today, and the above might have appeared immature analysis. It happens...

The reciprocal of trying to find weaknesses in favourites, is trying to forgive bad last lines in horses who, save for which, otherwise would be favourites.

FWIW

Ted

Thanks for the explanation Ted.

As it turned out, I had a long conversation with someone regarding this race and this horse in particular.

Here is the way I saw it.
Let me get this out of the way first. There is no doubt, that with a 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finish in Maiden Special Weight races with purses ranging from $34k to $38k, this horse will be the #1 APV horse by comparison to the other horses in the race which have been successful in lower purse value races.

This horse made its' first start in February of '09 in a route race and failed miserably. It's connections immediately gave it 5 months OFF. Seems strange for a horse with only 1 lifetime race to immediately get 5 months OFF, unless it injured itself.

When they brought the horse back to the races they intended to race it on the turf (perhaps something in the breeding that I am not aware of) but the race was taken off the turf. Regardless of the change, the horse ran a decent race. They immediately ran the horse back on the turf and it put in a dismal race.

Now most horses start their racing careers in sprint races, but in this case it took them three route races before going into a sprint. For this sprint race they added blinkers. The horse responded by running a good race, running 3rd beaten 3/4's of a length. Three weeks later the horse is in another sprint race, with blinkers again, and it wins impressively. This came at the end of September and the horse (in the world of racing) is on a competitive par with older horses even though it is technically 3. It is almost fully mature and definately in shape as evidenced by its' last winning race. It has only had 5 races in its' life and has been protected from the "claim box" by running it in Maiden Special Weight races only. So why did they give the horse 8 months OFF???? Again, this leads me to believe that the horse has physical problems.

So the horse is brought back to the racing wars 8 months later and entered in a sprint race. Two things caught my eye.
1 - the horse is no longer being protected from the "claim box", since it was entered in a $40,000 claiming race.
2 - the horse has front wraps as indicated by the "f" next to the "b" for blinkers.
The horse goes on to run a very dismal race. I noted the same thing you did. The horse "made an effort" (and that is giving it the benefit of the doubt) for the first 1/4 of a mile, at which point it retreated to 12th and last and remained there until the end of the race. Again, is there a physical problem involved here?
Today, the horse is dropped from a $40,000 claiming race to a $7,500 claiming race. Another "red flag".

The way I see it, the horse either breaks down or wins the race. So, one is left with the decision to either gamble and bet the horse or fear the horse and PASS the race.

One cannot complain if they bet the horse and it gets beat and one cannot complain of they bet against the horse and it beats them.

Anyway, that was my take on the this horse and this race.

[alydar_ David]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

David,

By 100% profit, I presume you mean net of EVEN odds, based on what ever dutch percent you can manage? So $10 bet must return $20 minimum? If so, then yes, the #2 and #1 would not cut it: no split of your $10 returns $20. A dutch of the #2 Win Place @ 6-1 (or even 5-1) might do the trick, but likely not at 3-1.

Sounds like you've got a good betting method workout out with PTC conditional wagering. Next I know it, I bet you're going to ask for RDSS to create PTC conditional upload files from your analysis, so you don't have to spend time keying it all in... ?

Congratulations on a profitable day!

Ted

Ted,

Yes, precisely, a 2.0 ROI was required. No dough, no go.

A PTC plug-in? Oh yeah, that'd be the cat's pajamas!

:>)