Corollaries and the 2nd Call

[DaveEdwards]

As part of my record keeping on what is winning at a given track I obviously want to be aware of which corollaries are currently dominant.

As things currently stand if I select a paceline that subsequently points to the winner I am then able to note which corollaries were dominant, but in the horses previous race. This horse may have actually ran a slightly different race when winning where different corollaries may have been dominant, but this of course is difficult to ascertain, well for me right now at least!

On old tapes etc there are references to recording where the winner was at the second call. Would it be a reasonable assumption that if the horse ran a similar race in terms of 2nd call position (or any other comparative between the latest race and the selected paceline) that the corollaries might also be similar? Also, is the issue of 2nd call now outdated and that I ought to be perhaps just concentrating on the corollaries?

Thank you.

[For The Lead]

[QUOTE=DaveEdwards;75074

As things currently stand if I select a paceline that subsequently points to the winner I am then able to note which corollaries were dominant, but in the horses previous race. This horse may have actually ran a slightly different race when winning where different corollaries may have been dominant, but this of course is difficult to ascertain, well for me right now at least!

Thank you.[/QUOTE]

An excellent observation.

Now let me propose the opposite.

Suppose you knew with some degree of certainty that winners run their races in a certain way. The challenge now becomes, finding the horse(s) from their previous PP's that will run that way today. Again, you can't be "sure" they will run that way today. Anything can happen on the track that may cause the horse to alter its' normal style.

In Tom Brohamers book, Modern Pace Handicapping, he talks about the number of contenders you should have in a race before putting that race in your model. The reason being, if you have the race down to just 1,2 or 3 contenders, all of these horses are going to have rankings of ones, twos or threes. It really doesn't tell you much when you look at these ranking down the road. He suggests you cash your ticket on the winner and not enter the race in your models. He suggests that you have at least 5 horses as contenders before you enter the race in your models. With at least that many contenders, it is more meaningful when later on you see that a horse with an early ranking of 5 and a late ranking of 1 or 2, demonstrating that is was able to come from far back. Likewise, a horse with an early ranking of 1 and a late ranking of 5, demonstrates that it was a dominant early horse. So why this example?

Don't overly concern yourself with the difference between how the horse appears in the PP's vs how the horse actually ran in the race. Cash your ticket and move on. You did your job. You identified the winner by the information you had prior to the race. You can't be accountable for how the race unfolded on the track.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by DaveEdwards

On old tapes etc there are references to recording where the winner was at the second call. Would it be a reasonable assumption that if the horse ran a similar race in terms of 2nd call position (or any other comparative between the latest race and the selected paceline) that the corollaries might also be similar? Also, is the issue of 2nd call now outdated and that I ought to be perhaps just concentrating on the corollaries?

Thank you.

Thank YOU for the question.

I have been meaning to write a post on this subject and your question has presented me with the perfect opportunity.

The second call IS NOT DEAD.

As a reminder to those who have read this before and to those who may not be aware, I have more than 500,000 races and 4,000,000+ horses in a database. I think that is what might be considered "overkill" when it comes to accurate statistical findings, but it is what it is, conclusive information.

In each year there are more than 40,000 winners in my database for that year. I went back ten years and looked at how winners ran their races. There was no "cherry picking" here. These results are from the lowliest maidens to the best Grade I races and which were run on all surfaces. He are the results.

61.32% of all winners were 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the first call
71.11% of all winners were 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call

Some of you might be saying, yeah, but how many of those horses that were 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call were further back than 3rd at the first call? Well, I'm glad you asked.

12.76% of those horses that were 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the second call were further back than 3rd at the first call.

For all you guys that just love those late running, hard charging, come from dead last at the top of the stretch, just get up at the wire type of winners? Sorry, they win about 4% of all races, which means, they weren't even 1st, 2nd or 3rd at the stretch call!

Now, that was ten years ago. So I did the same survey for last year.
The results were, with very minimal differences, the same.
So nothing has changed.

My suggestion would be to keep the charts from the track(s) you play on a regular basis. Naturally, there will be some tracks where the second call percentage will be lower. Of course, that means there will be other tracks where that second call percentage is higher, since it all has to average out. Then choose the track(s) you want to play based on your preferential style.

[alydar_ David]

FTL, have you broken down the findings by surface? For example, dirt versus polytrack, tapeta, cushion and proride? All artifical surfaces are not the same. It would be interesting to see the difference.

And I'd be curious to see how the synthetic surfaces compare by distance.

If it's a major project, don't bother. But if you can press a couple of buttons and get the data that would be wonderful.

[Procefus]

FTL -that is great info/reminder.

I also would like to see the %'s on how the varying surfaces might effect results, and the ave win mutual for those......LOL

I know, I know.......records, records, records

In the process thanks for the history

[gl45]

FTL,
provocative to say the least, in a good way.
I'm more concerned about the Impact Value, Actual/Estimate ratio, and $Net of the mentioned percentages.
Classes and distances needs to be divided as well. Surfaces only dirt and turf.
I don't need for you to run your db for me to find out. It was just MHO

[delmarscott2004]

Corollaries and the second call.

For The lead........Great response

Today it rained in Southern California ( thank you God ), my day off , grand Children in school so it was a quick trip to Los Al , back home and a reading day . Today it was Follow up # 87 dated 07.03.01 , still in date 10 years later , thanks to Ted , Bill , Richie P. and a host of others for keeping the online Library , thank you all.

I recommend reading STEP BY STEP page 39 forward . Doc always told me to see who can stick around for the first 2 calls and who might be late . I am a 2 horse better based on early and late for win , and 3 horses in ex and boxing 4 in tri's .

This inquiry by DaveEdwards was so timely.

Scott

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by gl45

FTL,
provocative to say the least, in a good way.
I'm more concerned about the Impact Value, Actual/Estimate ratio, and $Net of the mentioned percentages.
Classes and distances needs to be divided as well. Surfaces only dirt and turf.
I don't need for you to run your db for me to find out. It was just MHO

Keep in mind, these are statistics from the "charts". This is observation "after the fact" for the purpose of showing where the winners were located on the track during the running of their winning race. It provides the handicapper with information about which type of horse they should be looking for at the track(s) they are playing. These charts are available on line and each handicapper should do some "due diligence" and gather the information at the tracks they play, broken down by the various factors mentioned throughout this thread.

[DaveEdwards]

Got far more back than I was asking for!

Reading over these posts made me go back over Howard's words about record keeping relative to ones own handicapping. As such, recording the corollary scores in relation to ones own paceline selection can be the only way to go. & to paraphrase "in the absence of any other data, you got to go with the information you have got".

FLT, good of you to post the findings from your db. You must be putting some work into maintaining a db of that size. I will obviously be recording 2nd call data now.

I was a little concerned about recording corollaries from previous races, but posting this has helped me work the ideas through in my head & reinforce the words from the Follow Up.

Thanks everyone.

[froggy]

Dave,

Modeling the TPR, early and late using Rdss is a good way to see what is happening at your track.
Horses below a certain number, for instance 85, almost never win.

Froggy