What am I missing? — RanchWest

I guess Multi-Caps Collective Speed is not the same as MY Collective Speed.

You guys have misunderstood Collective speed.
Sounds like you are thinking that you are adding them up. Nope.

If you have 10 horses, each with 10 pacelines...

Those 100 pacelines are SORTED BY SPEED RATINGS (highest to lowest) --- INDIVIDUALLY.

What you will find is that 94% of all winners will OWN one of the top 13 speed ratings. (This has no value because there is no such thing as a low-odds horse who doesn't qualify. LOL)

You will also find (as I said in another thread) that a LONGSHOT (really 10/1 and up; used to be 8/1) who has a speed rating in the top 6 can be bet to place.

You are awesome, dude! :up: :up:

So they have wager value? — Biniak

The videos show that those point to factors that SHOULD do well when low odds horses that are ranked 1st don't win.

Kind of difficult to recall precisely which are which - but 1.15 or so is pretty high.

That's probably, in part, because the average payout is, I think, around 9/2. That's average. The median is lower, somewhere around 5/2. Dave can tell us more precisely. The average gets skewed way up by the infrequent 50/1 and such horses. — RanchWest

I'd say that you're pretty close. Probably a little higher; used to be way higher. (Like $12.80.)

Except the ones that are very well-intended.

Is that 8/1 on the tote board? — RanchWest

Yes.

Thus, you'll occasionally get burned by a horse at 8/1 at gate time who goes down. Truth is that it's the double-digit horses that perform the best.

Here's an idea that has stood the test of time for over 2 decades.

1. Build COLLECTIVE SPEED
Take every speed rating for every horse and put them into an array.
i.e. 10 horses, with 10 pacelines each = 100 speed ratings.

2. Sort Speed Ratings from Best-to-Worst

3. Any horse above 8/1 that has a rating in the top 6...
... is a bet to run exactly 2nd.
Thus...

• bet to place
• key in 2nd position in exactas, trifectas, supers

4. Special Note: They RARELY WIN!

@Biniak & @RanchWest - Make sure that you really understand what's on the videos. It contains a completely different way of looking at IV Tables.

You guys are firing on all cylinders!

Not like Dave where things change pending on which way the wind blows — HorseSense

Clearly you and I are on different pages.
I doubt that you will offer much of anything to anyone.

Hope you change that soon.

No argument from me.

Yes, they were.

If only you hadn't followed the script of a movie. LOL
I had to take it down so I didn't get beaten up by some lawyers.

When I eventually watched the movie - Seven Days in Utopia - I realized how brilliantly you had turned the lessons in the movie into horse racing lessons.

@Rich Val

Just so you guys know, a few years ago I was struggling to win. Rich valentine came out of the woodwork and offered to coach me. We did 7 sessions over a couple of weeks that put me back on track.

Remember that, Rich?

You guys gotta know that winning players never share their secrets.....

I just gave you the most important piece of the game....

Head it and go forward — HorseSense

My experience is that winning players - and especially professional players - absolutely do share what they do.

After all, if WINNING PLAYERS really are that smart (and we are), how would anyone know if information wasn't shared?

Ping @Tony Kofalt @Rich Val

In my opinion, I would want at least 80% potential winners in any contender methodology and I am skeptical that Dave’s approach would accomplish this goal; however, using a “gap” approach has given me several ideas to pursue…. — Jack Price

I would contend (small pun coming) that the issue is not the win% on the top contenders.
The issue is figuring out which low odds horses to remove BEFORE selecting those contenders.

As you can imagine, the low odds horses will ALWAYS be at the top of the PSR list. If they aren't, then toss them as well.

Of course the low odds horses are the favorites I'm mentioning......
Does HSH have any proprietary factors to combat this? — HorseSense

Not so much proprietary , but of course.
We build OBJECTS - which are from 1 to 6 factors weighted together.

That was from Fraser Rawlinson.

Actually, you've described the basis of my handicapping - although for me it all begins with the low odds horses.