Thank you.
I actually have this program.
It works quite well.

I'd love to see what you've done.

So why not just use raw times? — Biniak

Because they are not as good as ratings produced from pars.

Pars WORK!
AVERAGE Daily variants do not.

What if the allocation was based on an odds line instead of the tote board?

And, how do you know when the odds don't support what you need to make? — RanchWest

That's precisely what I do now: Create an aML (artificial morning line) and bet into it, but only considering my contenders. It is the contender process that makes it work.

Dave: what is the thinking behind making the horse'stime slower for a gate work? Also, are the additions and subtractions for breezing, gate and muddy full seconds or fifths of seconds? Most work out charts I have seen start with 100 points = 46 seconds for 4 furlongs whereas Jimmy's is 46.4. It also goes up to 120 points. And the scoring is different. thank you for posting. — Jim Michalak

1/5s of a second.
Remember this was built a long time ago. Back then everything was done in 1/5s.

Slower for gate work
Jimmy always said that a horse who needed to work from the gate had a problem with the gate.

I first researched this about 1998 or so. Tried a bunch of different numbers - ranging from +8 to -8 and could not find anything better than -5. (i.e. same as Jimmy.)

In the recesses of my mind is something about breezing and handily being different in different regions, east vs. west. This had to have been from at least 15 years ago and maybe much more. Have you ever heard anything like that? I don't know whether it was true back then or whether it would still be true today. — RanchWest

I did that test as well. The results were that Breezing vs Handily, while inconsistent at some tracks, still enhanced the results.

Building Track Workout Pars
I also tried building track pars for workouts.
Every effort I made with that was a complete failure.

While it seems obvious (to me) that works from AQU should be on a different scale from (say) WYO, I just could find no basis for any adjustment.

It's like daily variants... Sure, I create them in my HorseStree Pars. But I NEVER actually use them.

Every study I have ever done indicates that no variant outperforms any variant.

Not saying that figures made on a race-by-race basis are not an improvement.
A craftsman can work numbers with figs. Or they can be completely inconsistent. Depends on the craftsman.

But even the best numbers are not going to make THAT MUCH difference.
Before you jump all over me for that one... It is the PROPER INTERPRETATION of those numbers that make it work.

Dave: are you willing to share what makes Jimmy's work out chart different than the standard work out chart where there is a point scale for the various times at the various distances. Thanks! — Jim Michalak

HorseStreet Workout Chart

Take a look at it and see if there is anything that strikes you as meriting discussion.

Dave: are you willing to share what makes Jimmy's work out chart different than the standard work out chart where there is a point scale for the various times at the various distances. Thanks! — Jim Michalak

Sure.

Do you have the workout chart?

Let me see if I can find a link.

My $0.02 worth.

MY APPROACH TO DUTCHING
My goal is to spread the money between my plays in a logical fashion.

Let's say I am betting $30 (which is my base bet in a session).

$30

Since the tote moves so much, the theory of Dutching to work is just not likely to work as planned.

Nice job!

Does anyone have experience with dutching and have any suggestions? So far, i haven't been very effective with it. — RanchWest

Yes, it is the very core of my wagering approach.

Thanks, good interview. Very interesting. — RanchWest

If you like that one, try this one.

Using Monty Hall to Handicap (Ray Wallin)

Welcome, Ray!

Glad you're able to find time to get away from your job and all the coaching of kids.

Apologize for the scratch?
No need for that.

All that trainer analysis is too much work for me, but the tools are their.

Of course I could simply turn those columns into factors and use the factors in objects.

So, the FTS won!

BTW, with the scratch, can't have CHAOS in a 6-horse field.

It was chaos, but with a solid horse in place to take advantage. — RanchWest

Who won?

#5 Price Discipline - Trainer Stats


I could easily see this horse winning.

I could go on like that forever, but the truth is that all of that is just too much work for me.

So, I'll just use my objects.

aML 1st Tier
(Who SHOULD be the Low-Odds Horses?)
Just #6 - Two for Charging.
He figures to be very well-bet.

Does he Have Early Speed?

He does not.
BTW, my system for using this object tells me that the ultimate winner will likely challenge for the lead at the 2nd call.

Along with my other conditions for determining how to handle this horse, I have decided that:
6 Two for Charging is BALO - Bet Against Low Odds.

Because I have a BALO who projects to be VERY LOW ODDS and the field is 7 or more, the race is CHAOTIC.

I would NORMALLY do no further handicapping and bet 1,2,4,7.
(The 4 & 7 will be difficult to handicap to the top tier.)

Were I forced to pick contenders in this race, I'd have 2,3,1.


But we have a problem...
The FTS, # 5 Price Discipline.
He aMLs at odds of 2.81. (And that might be high.)

How do we compare a FTS with the others fairly?

FTS Handicap Object.

The use is really quite simple and is comprised of a single question.

"Does any FTS have a Pct within 1 point of the 2nd highest contender?"
(Contenders are marked in yellow.)

Since the 2nd-highest contender has a pct of 4, any FTS with 3 or more pct should be considered a contender. Therefore, #5 qualifies.

So, we wind up with this:


And gets bet like this:



FOR CLARITY...
My approach to this race would be to bet CHAOS.
However, because of the FTS, I have no idea how to play because I skip such races.

My gut feeling would be 2 & 5 as shown above.
Exactas would be:
2-5 (box)
(2-5) / (6) (one way)

The safe way for me to play this race is to take a stand against the favorite and #3.


Exactas would be:
(1-2-4-5-7) / 6 (one way)

PERFORMANCE RATINGS
This is how each starting RANKS in 54 different factors.
Examples are:

• ES Points
• Class of Last Race
• Avg Competitive Level
• Works in last 8,14,30,45 days.
• Speed Ratings in 13 different ways.

And way more.

(Doubt that you've ever seen a report like this from any other source.)

If you are a believer in Workouts...

... checkout his $nets.
BTW, the most important Workout Factor is Best Workout in the last 45 days.

Of course, that is across all races, for all trainers.
Trainers have their own approach.

To me the likely favorite and probable winner is the 5- Price Discipline. — Tony Kofalt

5- Price Discipline
Some Data...
Trainer Stats


zoom in...

1. His win% is not even the best in the field.
2. Only 18 wins over the past several years with horses like this one at NYRA.
3. His RTG ("Rating using 6-3-1) is a just OK but not best.
4. RATIO this means the RTG of this horse to all his starters.
1.08 is not something to get excited about.
(The excitement starts about 1.25.)

Ironically, a fav with a weaker-than-expected trainer is actually a GOOD SIGN.
After all, how does such a horse become a favorite? Certainly not because of the trainer.

His weak spot is, of course, his lack of Early Speed.


But when we look at his Trainer Stats at Early Speed Factors...


... We find his numbers are ALL good.
And his $2.86 $Net glows in the dark.

When we look at his GO SIGNS...
(i.e. Ratios of 1.50 or higher.)

... we find quite a few things.

Let's put this in perspective and compare to the rest of the field.

The important things here are:
FACTORS (Purple)
This means that #6 has 13 factors (out of 147) that have Go Signs of 1.50+.
By comparison, #1 & #2 are higher.

FX% (Green)
This is - by far - the most important trainer stat when it comes to low-odds horses.
It is nothing but the 1st 2 columns multiplied together:
Win% x Factors
19% x 13 = 2.47, rounded down = 2.

BTW, the win% uses the IVs from the horses for each trainer who have go signs.

CONTROL FACTORS are...
... things the trainer has control over.


Better to look at the field in context.

Most important here is RATIO.

Since High ratios = Go Signs, we're looking for trainers who have found a race that FITS THEIR STYLE.

Nobody in this field is more than average.

TRAINER CHARACTER
Not a comment about whether or not you should lend him money. LOL

Actually these 21 factors are about the kind of horses, races, and situations he is good with.
For example, this is very important with young horses. Some trainers are amazing with 2-year old fillies but not so good with colts at that age.


RTG & Ratio are what drive this.

Look at "Adj ML" in the 5/2 range. "47" is a good number.
But I'd prefer the 5,000-foot level.

Here's the race:



I'll continue in the next reply because there might be a limit on number of pics in a post.

When it comes to negative factors, it seems to me that Pickmaster was used in HSH to identify negative factors some years ago. I don't recall the outcome but it felt like a worthwhile venture. — Tony Kofalt

It used to work very well for negatives but that stopped about 2016 when the 1st public choice became extremely efficient in the market.

Now, it works quite differently.
One must find the BEST factors and understand the "RATIO-of-RATIOS" and "1stROR." Both of those are fully explained in Percentages & Probabilities 2022.

(It is a highly-visual explanation.)