Sounds like you have a comprehensive handicapping strategy with a generous portion of thoughtful flexibility to account for the exceptions. Hope it continues to yield success for you!

That was a good chuckle! Its my view that any race in which an individual can't find a play acceptable to them, is "unplayable" . I choose to pick my spots rather than playing every race but everyone has to find their own comfort level.

You've made 2 good points. First, sharing info to a small group just makes it "local" knowledge. It wouldn't become "Common" knowledge until the entire community of players became aware of it. Second, many folks are reluctant to try something different for more than a few events to give it a real test. I think that an "Artful" methodology might fall into that category .

You've captured my meaning perfectly! And explained it in a much more erudite manner.
And, yes, it must be tested, but to remain effective(if it is) it must not become common knowledge...and if its faulty then we must continue to modify the approach.

Thank-you Dave. I do not disagree ! Of course data is data whether hard or soft.
The point I was feebly attempting to convey was that we have access to soft data that can help with our final selections but often neglect its importance in identifying contenders that might be overlooked in the betting because of shortcomings in the "hard" data ranking . For me, this is the "fun" and "satisfying" part of handicapping. As to "good odds", my threshold of enthusiasm is about 9/2 but I'll gladly take as low as 2/1 in some circumstances . Generally, I'm just looking for contenders that aren't in the top 3 in the betting but ought to be but I'm not detered from betting if my pick is second or third in the betting at 3/1 or better .

Is there anything new to discover?

I think there’s still a lot as to what is prioritized and what is used together. There’s also a lot that is under-utilized.

I think that the most under utilized thing is our own minds, our imagination. We can often become lost in the data and miss opportunities that arise in the roughly 30% of races that lie "outside the numbers. "
Imagining alternative possible scenarios can be productive. Looking backward, I would guess that roughly 10% of all races would have been unhittable because the races were unplayable or the winners won only because of unpredictable events occurring during their running.That leaves 20% of winners at good odds that might have been playable given an alternative perspective to the data alone. We look at a 20% win percentage as very good for a horse,jockey or trainer so why would we want to omit this group from consideration?
One simple ,practical demonstration of what I mean is to quickly handicap a race BEFORE considering the data . Ignore the speed and pace figures and focus on the running lines and the human connections and "imagine" a scenario in which each horse could win. THEN consult the data and compare results. Often they'll be similar but sometimes you'll find a nice overlay that just doesn't "seem to fit the numbers profile". Perhaps what I'm getting at, is the need to think about the race in addition to "calculating " it. Therein may lie that "something new to discover".

Ranchwest
It sounds like you have crafted a wonderfully efficient system that works well for you. Personally, I prefer the traditional PPs. They're all I've known over the years and I find it quite easy to separate the relevant from the irrelevant information ( if anything,they provide too much info) .

What happened to "Part 2"

The screenshot matched but the replay footage was ambiguos.

The track announcer posted a screen shot of the official finish from his monitor.

The track used a novice camera person who completely missed the finish, causing quite an uproar amongst those who were playing.
You can see it in the replay from that race.

This looks like an interesting addition!

Trainer scratches seem to be more revealing of trainer intent . Vet scratches reveal little positive info.

Thank-you!

These stats are already showing some promising trends, particularly those involving EP , LP and QES ratings. Fine work
Steven!
Would you please provide a recap of your column headings? I'm not familiar with or don't remember many of them.

Conley
These stats seem to indicate a clear speed bias so far. Thanks for the update!

Outstanding Steven! Thank-you!

It looks like an intriguing and simple method of producing spot plays .

Excellent Steven! Thanks for including PDFs! It's very thoughtful of you!