Tony, I haven't been handicapping AQU, but I was wondering... are you maintaining any profiles? Are the winners contra to your profile data?

I would contend that they are directly related. — Dave Schwartz

I would contend that that is because there are near 40% winning favorites. The problem is that if you are using a line as a selection, you won't get many longshots.

An odds line is an odds predictor, not a performance forecast.

if you want to predict performance, maintain records on the effectiveness of your factors. I am currently profiling 19 factors by route/sprint and surface and track.

It gets deeper. In their data files, they have pace at 2 4 6 8 10 furlongs and late and then there's speed. Seems to me that the individual pace figures should give some correlation to the speed figure. But I don't see that it does. I don't feel like I have harmed myself comparing, say, the 4f pace figures among horses. But I don't see it lining up with the speed figure. Thanks for posing this question. Maybe someone has more insight.

Thanks

Is there anything you can share about your bet/not bet decision process?

Lewis: 1 2 4 3

Chalk. — RanchWest

1-3-4

Gotta wonder when a firster or 2TS runs in a stakes race. Could it be a Baffert exacta?

Lewis: 1 2 4 3

Chalk.

SFT

Nice sweep in the Holy Bull RanchWest! — Conley

Thanks, Conley!

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.