Thanks, Tony!

Good points and thank you.

But I figure that just because the vet thinks the horse should be able to finish the race alive, I still don't know whether the horse is just a victim of paperwork or might be below normal. Or, if paperwork, maybe above normal.

Yes, excellent point.

When I see a horse with a voided claim, it tempts me to pass the race since I have no idea what the real status of that horse is.

I can see where this is overall good for horse racing, but the problem for handicappers is that I don't find there to be adequate transparency as to why the void was processed. So, I end up downgrading the chances of any horse I note to have had a voided claim.

Thanks, Tom.

Good one, Tony.

Now #8 is scratched in R8.

#1: 2.1
#2: scratch
#3 2.1
#4: 6.5
#5: 11.5
#6: 5.7
#7: 5.8
#8 scratch

With the scratch of Eternal Glory, East Coast Girl figures to get the lead, with an early challenge from Helicopter Money, but HM may not hang in there.

My pace numbers show Tunnel Vision and East Coast Girl as nearly equal.

For what it's worth, here's my line:

#1: 2.4
#2: scratch
#3 2.4
#4: 7.0
#5: 14.5
#6: 6.5
#7: 6.8
#8 7.5

I didn't get into it here because Tony indicated he is not into pace. but I can cover it however much interests everyone.

My interest is in % Median, a Sartin principle. It is based on the percentage of early pace versus late, early energy if you will.

So, I look at three factors: positional early (Quirin speed points), speed early (Sartin early pace, more or less early feet per second or else a comparison to early fractional par) and %Median (early energy).

The concept is that when a field of horses have a combined low %Median ( I actually take the combined median of each horse's median of its % Medians of all its shown races, obviously a computerized task) , then some of those horses are going to find themselves on the lead despite low early energy and are likely to exert more early energy than they are accustomed to and thus more than they can handle. This makes the situation ripe for a pace meltdown and a chaos race. Generally, my experience suggests that this is not a good way to bet against odds-on horses that don't seem to be bet against, though i have no data to back this up. In other words, I don't find this method to be stand-alone bet against on odd-on horses. Many of those are simply good enough to overcome the adversity.

People were very skeptical when I introduced this concept, but the next day I predicted a big longshot win. My memory suggests that it paid something like $47 to win, not sure. Granted, that was just one race, but I was 1 for 1 and I did it under the pressure of possibly looking like an idiot. :)

I am still studying this method. It doesn't work on turf because many of those horses have low % Medians -- their big run is late. The same is also likely for all-weather (Tapeta, etc), though I have little experience with all-weather. I am also studying the extent to which the energy requirement changes per distance or whether that is very relevant.

As most of you probably know, chaos races often have huge payouts, sometimes 20/1 and more. These races that fall into the range for my method are scarce. My GUESS is that you would be unlikely to find more than 1 per week per track, but there is nothing to say that it would be impossible to find a lot in one week or none in a week.

Another gotcha here is that the % Medians all need to be recalculated based on scratches. So, I am working on a new program that will provide for scratch changes much faster than my prior program, which wrote out HTML files for entire cards.

And, one last known caveat is that chaos seldom ensues in fields of less than 6 or 7 horses. So, 8 or more entrants are preferable. Sheesh, in today's racing, that alone narrows the opportunities.

I also know people who model %Median by track and distance and severely downgrade the chances of horses that fall outside the range of their model.

Also, I don’t put too much faith in the published running style.

Something that should fit well with what you are doing is the Giles race speed points that Dave discussed on this board a few months ago. It looks at the horses with high Quirin points and you are already calculating those.

.that is the "chance" effect — William Zayonce

Always remember what Johnny Oates said...Luck is when preparation and opportunity meet. We just have to be prepared.

Although winning methods can exist , which counter balance the effects of "random chance ", the "Holy Grail" cannot exist unless "chance" is completely eliminated. — William Zayonce

As we discussed recently, a good strategy will counter chance. While perfection will never exist, a reasonable profit is possible. I think sometimes we can be greatly rewarded for finding strange stuff.

Maybe an owner has a much better win percentage on Tuesday. Maybe that's because the owner is only able to go to the track on Tuesday. We don't have to know that the owner goes to the track on Tuesday and tells the trainer to give the horse its best shot on Tuesday, just that the owner wins on Tuesday. I know this is an extreme example, but my point is that good data usage can really pay off.

Interesting, Dave. This is a topic I don't usually discuss. I don't discuss it because I don't really get jazzed about being called a liar when I am telling the truth. lol

Back around the turn of the century (sounding like an old codger here), I was having incredible success with the horses...from a win percentage and ROI perspective. I had a decent job, so I considered what I was doing to be long-term research (it would last forever, right?). So, I was not betting much money... very little. This was back when my state still allowed ADW's. This success went on for a few years, maybe 3 or so. I won't tell the level I was at because nobody would believe me. I will say that I was making at least 60 wagers per month, minimum, so it wasn't like I was just lucky on a few wagers.

Eventually my win percentage dropped about 25% from where it was and my ROI went from unbelievable to a small loss. So, I changed my approach without thinking it through and tanked. Instead of looking for tweaks or even significant tweaks, I leaped into vertical wagers and was not successful.

I believe I have learned a lot. Horse racing is very complex. Millions of factors and that's before cheating or manipulations are considered. I now believe it is good to look at enough factors to be able to ebb and flow, but not more factors than are manageable. But, as you suggest, I have also learned that the Holy Grail is migratory.

Happy birthday, Dave! I hope you and Beth shared a special day.

. I think the good and bad breaks even out over time. — Tony Kofalt

For sure.

Poor break on East Coast Girl... was a good pick.

I projected a lot of progress for #5, East Coast Girl. — Tony Kofalt

That one looks good. The one that would concern me would be #8.

Thanks a lot, Tony! You are really doing your homework!

If I might ask, what gave you enough confidence in Basic Truth to single that one? Was it just the early strength with the class drop or were there other factors? I was not surprised he won, but I thought others might be worth including. Turned out I was wrong.