Holy Bull) 8 4 2 5
Withers) 2 11 5 9 — RanchWest

Holy Bull: cold tri with a 6/1 winner
Withers: 4th selection won, 1st selection was 4th.

Holy Bull) 8 4 2 5
Withers) 2 11 5 9

Tony, thanks for that analysis. I really appreciate your input.

I did notice that Ocean Deep had the 3rd best off track speed rating, which is impressive for a long odds horse. It did suggest a mud ability.

I don't look at owners at all. I only look at trainers and jockeys for first and second time starters because we don't have much to go on with those anyway and they are often pushed to their ability to impress the owner. So, I think you are onto something there. The "for real" horses will show their ability without even considering the connections, in most cases. And, we don't need to toss a potential winner just because the connections don't impress us. Many big price horses have lousy stats for their connections.

I am in the early stages of examining 17 factors. Most are strong for favorites, but relying on them traditionally only gives me not much more than a good betting line. To get longshot winners, I need to know which combinations work and at what levels. That's what I am working on. It's a fairly big project. It will take a while to get dependable sample sizes. Tracks, surfaces, track conditions, season of the year, field size, off turf, etc. all make it a challenge to get a reliable sample size. And I am just getting set up. No data actually extracted yet.

The public sets the price so perhaps you're looking for positive handicapping factors the public values the least. — Dustin Korth

I am thinking more that there are circumstances where the public gets it nearly to completely wrong. And not necessarily what we have traditionally considered positive factors. Possibly certain combinations of factors that work.

The average of win payouts is $11+, which is down from about $12 or $13 from 20 years ago. There are value plays below 5/1, but most of those plays are "gettable". No problem. Of course, the median price is down somewhere around $6 or so.

So, if we want to average an average price, we have to hit some winners well above 5/1. These plays are not so "gettable". Many require a certain amount of a contrarian approach. The front running, high speed figure horse with a great trainer and a great jockey and is right on its form cycle just isn't going to pay over 5/1, almost never.

So, I am looking into picking some of these higher priced horses. Something other than just a WAG based solely on price. A combination of factors that has some positive indication, even if it is a level of the factor that is normally considered negative. For instance, horses with low Quirin speed points do win races. But, not usually. So, when? That's the sort of thing I am looking at.

Thanks, Dustin. Good points. He did have the third highest speed rating on an off track (dirt).

I wonder if maybe a factor is just the math of payoffs. Throw in some big odds horses when there are significant issues with the favorites.

On R6 at AQU... I can see where #6 & #8, the two favorites, were vulnerable. They were not dependable for the front and they were less dependable late.

But #5? I see that he was likely to see them all going in to the turn, which is okay if the race goes to chaos. I just have a hard time getting him home from there. The one thing I see is that he had a lot of recent activity, so maybe he built up his strength. Other than that, I am missing it. Can you help me on this one? I'm not even on him going deep.

Thanks, Dustin. I agree that form cycle is important. Horses can win on the "wrong" part of their form cycle, but I find that horses are more likely to win on the "good" part of the cycle.

I know Davidowitz liked the sort of changes you endorse. First on turf is a popular play.

And, how do we avoid math sucking us into an odds estimation instead of a winner predictor?

If we have the early horse with high speed ratings and good class factors and a good jockey and trainer, the money will almost always be drawn to that horse. Now, I know many of you can find the false favorites out of these types, but how do we get to the actual winner?

Excellent points, Tony. We certainly can't have a longshot winner and a favorite winner at the same time. So, finding a vulnerable favorite is sound.

But how do we get to the longshot? In some cases, I think we need to be somewhat of a contrarian. We know horses with high Quirin speed points will receive some support. But if early speed devolves to chaos, it's often a horse with low Quirin speed points that will get up at a high price.

Anyone have any other thoughts on how to actually get onto the high priced horse?

Thanks for sharing, Conley.

Has anyone given any thought to maybe our traditional handicapping is only geared toward low odds horses? Maybe we need to do something entirely different for longshots?

Interesting. PRX R8 is the race I didn't have in my Top 4... $47.20.

Thanks, Tony. I'd like to see what they find significant about a trip and see if I see anything of value in what they note.

I think it may possibly be helpful if fit into the time sequence. The scratch list is for 45 days. Let's say there's a vet scratch at 30 days and then no works. Or the works thereafter are shorter or slower. Could be a red flag.

My tracks right now are FG and PRX. At FG, only one horse had been a vet scratch and it vet scratched again today.

I think it would be good to model for the track being handicapped. Or, a simple approach would be to use the provided morning line. Tony has a good point about trainers impacting odds. Jockeys impact odds a lot, too. One big factor in jockeys winning is that their agent gets them good mounts. But jockeys tend to run hot and cold in the short term.

Just depends on whether you're trying to evaluate a realistic probability of the horse winning or you're trying to forecast the public wagering. I prefer the former.

Great work, Tom. I'd just point out that this could be implemented with any 5 factors. Using the Fibonacci scale, your equivalent odds line could be used. I suggest research based on modeling for anyone interested in pursuing such a direction. While you've already invented the wheel, maybe some might not want to use the BRIS Ultimate, for whatever reason.

I spend a lot time there, reading old threads. Lots of ideas to had. — Tom

Yeah, it seems like one should slow down on learning after a while, but I just keep learning and learning.

I wrote a report — Tom

Data is powerful.