How would you define a good race? — Steven

Standard definition is from Dr. William Quirin (found in Percentages & Probabilities.)

If these stats are already included in "Percentages and probabilities " please advise, I'll order a copy. — Zayonce William

Good races and some other stuff are in PAST 10 and a bunch of items in LAST 90 DAYS are included.
There are HUNDREDS of factors.

There are also those SAME HUNDREDS of factors (data tables) spread across 25 different kinds of races. Over 1,300 extra pages!

Buy it here.

• Allowances Sprints & Routes
• Claiming Sprints & Routes (including N2L)
• Graded Sprints, Routes, Turf
• Maidens, etc.
• Young Horses
• Marathons

@Conley
The best way to do this in the future is for you and I to create an event here (still linked to your live session), but you post the link instead of doing it via messaging.

This way, you really get it to be ALIVE as well as live.

How many attendees did you get?

Highest QES points percentage (of field total) might be interesting. — Zayonce William

Surprisingly, that is a very disappointing factor.
Check out the Early Speed series, if you haven't already.

How much of an advantage ( in percentage) is needed to produce a profitable play. — Zayonce William

You have to see it from an "out-perform the tote board" point of view.
If you've not read this book, Percentages & Probabilities, there is a lot in it like that.

Spring of 73 belonged to Secretariat and I was hooked for life! — Zayonce William

I came in later but was he not the greatest horse ever?

Your post describes a different purpose than what I use it for.

I am using it as a METRIC so that I don't have to BUILD A STORY.

That's why I can completely handicap a race in 3 minutes, giving me time to enjoy the watching of the race.

So many people see each race as a PUZZLE to be figured out.

I see RACING as the PUZZLE!

Did you use Reynolds numbers back in the old Thorobrain days? I felt that product was outstanding! At least I was getting good results. lol — Tony Kofalt

No. I discovered it around 2001 or so.

Next question "is 120 days a good half life or is there a better one, 90 days, 75 days?????". I'll get around to answering my own question when I get to sit down in front of the computer for another couple of hours. — Steven

That is the standard Benter approach.
I've tried some others a decade ago and it seemed to be better.
Might have shifted out a little further but not by much.

Is that a good thing or bad thing? — Conley

As I said, I learned a lot from him.

But I suppose the proper answer would be, "That depends upon whether or not it is working for you."

Based upon the picks you've posted it would seem that it is.
(Allowing for small sample, of course.)

Seems like your outlook is a lot like "Jimmy's" who I mentioned above.

My question for EPS/APV would be, what dat do you use?
Lifetime, this year, this surface, this track?
My own project of finding out what is winning shows that at FL and BEL the BRIS ACL (class) is hitting at 70%+ for the top 3 on dirt, but on turf, it drops to ~55%. — Tom

My answer for using the earnings box:
This year if 6 or more starts.
Otherwise, last 2 years.

Logically, anything top 3 will be weaker on turf unless the stat is ONLY turf.
That is always a problem.

I didn't take it that way at all.

Besides, you bet for a living and I don't. :clap:

18 Months ago I would have said that I didn't believe artful handicapping could lead to very many winning players. But now we face a situation where the MOST SUCCESSFUL PLAYERS IN THE WORLD are all purely systematic.

I'm of the opinion now that it might actually be EASIER for an ARTFUL player to win. At least they are not battling the best players on their turf.

I'm a firm believer in form cycles. In fact when I project a figure for a horse I almost always project improvement or regression from the last effort. Past races, some fairly old, are the basis for my projections. I often give more credit for a race from 4-6 months than I might the last 2-3 races. That's why I'm having trouble agreeing to time decay when it comes to speed and pace ratings. — Tony Kofalt

Tony, I agree on time decay. Many of today's trainers have solid intent first off a long layoff, as evidenced by their high win percentages. And, I, too, am willing to go well back into the running lines to find a race that might correspond to today's race. For instance, turf route lines tell me little about what will happen in today's dirt sprint. In fact, I've come to consider selecting a "pace line" as one of the most important aspects of handicapping. And that certainly is contrary to time decay. — RanchWest

I am saying that STATISTICALLY (i.e. as a metric) time decay produces FAR better results than something like (say) BEST-OF-LAST-2.

If one is choosing a PACELINE - especially a single running line, that is a different solution to a different problem.

In that scenario, picking the race that the horse will run today will either be good or bad - based upon the skill of the picker.

One approach is for a SYSTEMATIC approach, the other ARTFUL.

I do not see how the two can be compared.

Do you guys?

2.8 Speed - Relative to Today's Par

I assume, then, that you missed the 1,300 pages of data tables (race type specific) in the sub folders.

That's true. But horses dropping to their lowest claiming price and horses first time in for a tag have increased chances of winning, as a group. Of course, extreme claiming price drops can raise suspicion. So, I do think claiming prices are generally one means of measuring class. — RanchWest

I think they're better for determining trainer intent, but point taken.

I can't recite the numbers, but studies I have seen suggest that 3 yo's progress through their 3 yo campaign and continue to progress, on average, into their 4 yo and somewhat into their 5 yo years. So, my assertion, or at least my hypothesis, is that a 3 yo who beats older horses has completed an accomplishment that suggests class.

Another class indicator that comes to my mind is stretch duel wins... the horses that want it more.

My goal in this thread has not been to establish the class level of a race, but rather to establish the class level of a horse. — RanchWest

I completely missed this EXCELLENT response!

ABSOLUTELY!

Did you read my book from 2012, Percentages & Probabilities?

In that book, I did a whole chapter on building STRENGTH RATINGS. They are far better than par times.

Since working for the Australians for a couple of years, I have refined it even further. Alas, the next step takes CODE.

The value of your post just reminded me of a low-end professional player I knew from years ago who said that he never read the conditions of the race - beyond track-surface-distance.

"Low End" means that he supported himself 100% from his horse racing but did not make a very good living.

(As an aside, the last time I spoke with "Jimmy" he was in a full-care dementia facility in Las Vegas. As we spoke on the phone he insisted that, looking out his window, he could see "the crashing waves at Delmar.")

(Jimmy taught me a lot about trainer handicapping - which was the backbone of his winning. He also gave me my Workout Speed Rating Chart, which, to this day, I have not been able to improve upon, despite the fact that some of it flies in the face of logic.)

Back on Topic
He said that he didn't want to bias his thinking process about what the race really was.

Now, this was not a guy whose handicapping approach would resonate with mine because, where I am purely 100% systematic, he was was probably 80% seat-of-the-pants.

He was what I like to call a Story Handicapper.
Jimmy would look at every horse's past races, starting back at race 10 and weave it into a story.

As he was weaving this story, he would give each horse a Speed Rating Range; something like "This horse is good for 85-89 today."

After he had done this for all the horses, ONLY THEN would he give the race a "class level," and it was always based upon these speed ratings alone. He would often find a race that (to use my previous example) LOOKS LIKE a $16,000 claimer, but is really a $12,500 claimer in disguise.

Then he would look at the horses that were actually capable of running with real $20k claimers. If he had one of those, he was ready to play. Now, this was "the good old days," but I was shocked at how often he'd pluck out these solid $16 winners.

BTW, he also did a lot of homework. Well, not really at home, but he'd keep a lot of records; lots of models - and would correct his mistakes. IOW, when he said that a horse was capable of 85 to 91 and the horse won while running a 94, he'd put a diamond around the number to indicate that the horse had run bigger than he expected.
(that was generally his style - plus/minus 3 points)


Come to think of it, Jimmy actually gave me quite a bit more than I've ever given him credit for.
I will do a show about him.
He was quite the character.

That's true. But horses dropping to their lowest claiming price and horses first time in for a tag have increased chances of winning, as a group. Of course, extreme claiming price drops can raise suspicion. So, I do think claiming prices are generally one means of measuring class. — RanchWest

Of course!

But even this is independent of the LABEL of the race - i.e. $16k claimer - because ultimately, it comes back to WHO is actually in the race.

Also in all of this we have to consider the races that are a mixed bag. A state-bred filly 10,000 claimer for non-winners of a race in a year is not the same as an open 10,000 claimer. — RanchWest

Yet it is conceivably possible that a particular NW 1y race MIGHT BE of a higher class than an Open Claimer.at the same $$ level.

(Not likely, but POSSIBLE.)

IMHO, it always comes down to the MAKE UP OF THE RACE and (literally) NEVER ABOUT THE WRITTEN CONDITIONS.

Remember how easily Easy Goer won against 3 yo after beating older two weeks prior? — RanchWest

No, I actually don't.
Of course, I recall Easy Goer.
But anecdotal handicapping examples - when not backed up by data - just rarely get ingrained in my thinking.

IOW, I am interested in the actual process of making meaningful decisions.

Thus, a "metaphorical lesson in handicapping" only has value to me when it can be turned into a TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS.

Further, I must ACTUALLY TEST that hypothesis, and it must PROVE to be true.- to some USEFUL DEGREE.


Don't get me wrong. I DO have my own examples that I use to ILLUSTRATE my own beliefs, but they are just anecdotal illustrations and are worthless without having PROVEN their validity.

YOUR POINTS ARE VALID - There are many ways to JUSTIFY why races are different class levels. I just think - and have proven - that it is the actual MIX OF HORSES in a given race that creates the class level.