Rating Horses on their Past Results

[Brendon]

I do all the elimination processes for a race. No secrets. I look at the highest rated peak in the current campaign. I look at the horse's distance rating, the jockey's strike rate in better class races, win percentage, etc ... and finally the latest form that points to the horse peaking for the upcoming race.

And I end up with a pick. Hey! But sometimes I get down to 2, or 3 horses horses and it is a struggle from ther. Now sometimes that is an argument to stay out of that race. And sometimes it isn't. In some races my elimination method gets down to one race, but really, that race sucks. Although my method easily ends up with one horse, I know the race sucks and really any bar the worst two is a chance.

So I'm stuck with 3 better class races each with two or three picks. I want to trim each one down to one horse. If possible. I know there are qunellas etc, but I'm an exacta kind of a person. LOL

So I'm asking what method or way of looking at a horse's history would be handy as a final decider. I have tried looking at the amount of times it has been favorite and how it has performed then. But I'm not sure I'm reading that right. I have tried to see if there has been any benefit just flat betting: 10 dollars on each race from the past two campaigns and rating them according to that. But if a horse has won once at $21 in the past couple of months, it throws that off. Anther better horse may have won three times as a favorite in the same time, but the return is less. I remember reading about a formula for that somewhere. Once again, I don't know if I'm reading that right.

I have had some success looking back at its previous campaign and trying to second guess the trainer. But so often a trainer tries different things.

Anything I haven't thought of?

[crash]

"PACE"

Well it sounds like your doing all the right things Brendon, but there are other factors involved, including second guessing trainers as you have already mentioned! How often do we see winners come out of left field and that going by exposed form should not have won? Or our own selection, looking on paper as it should be all over the race but does nothing?

Nowadays we have a huge amount of form info. available but the success rate of favorites hasn't improved from pre-computer days when form info. was fairly minimal by comparison. Why is this so? Better and quicker race assessment should be improving our SR and the success rate of SP favorites but it's not. Maybe too much info. rather than the right kind of info. is our problem. Maybe there is something to be said for the KISS method!

If we do not know the pace of a race and the pace of every horse in it, we can form study it to death but in the end we are betting blind or if a win is scored, it is often just luck that the race pace suited our selection. Systems aside, most punters who use extensive handicapping bet this way. If they do look at pace it is only on Sat., where that sort of info. is available in some form guides. Even then, understanding and using to advantage what is being looking at is not well understood. Ditto it's importance.

Most races today are not truly run [beyond 1100m] and knowing a horse's pace and what the race pace is likely to be, creates a huge advantage for the punter. Handicapping should start from there as it affects most other important considerations of selection.

This is only a generalized example because exceptions happen and is only a small thing of barrier position, being only one of many other handicapping considerations: An outside barrier or an inside barrier might both suit a backmarker in a truly run race [less than 2 leader in the race means it won't be] as the jockey can easily and safely slide back in the field. A mid-field barrier is generally not a good starting gate for a BM because safely sliding back in the field is not so easy.
A leader can take advantage of an inside barrier but can be trapped back in the field from an outside barrier unless quick enough to safely head the field [using up petrol]. A mid-pacer from those barriers is going to get boxed in [inside barrier] or end up at the tail of the field from an outside barrier! So we are handicapping and then betting blind most of the time without pace info. With that info., it is very hard to end up with 2 or 3 selections we can't chose between.

Non-Sat. meetings [mostly] have some juicy winners just waiting for any punters with good pace info. and know how to benefit by it.

Cheers.

[Brendon]

Hi Crash.

I was thinking along the lines of studying a horse's past performance relative to odds, maybe. Just to see if it is reliable when expected to win. Or something like that.

On pace I don't just go for the positioning as you say. If my horse is not highly favored, but has a good jockey on board I care a little less about the barrier and its position. But if my horse is is amongst the favorites, I'm thinking that if they are in a bad barrier for their pace (as you outlined) then that is a big disadvantage. Any jockey/s on another horse/s in the position of doing so tend to go out of their way to make life difficult for the favorite. The favorite finally getting free in the last 100 from a boxed position and lunging at the line to come fourth is cliche.

I haven't viewed the race, but I'm guessing from barrier one life was not made easy for the favorite Memorize (rated a mid fielder) yesterday at Flemington in the last.

Zupacool, who won at $11 but was at a much shorter price earlier, is mid paced but had barrier 17. Vella's only ride? But Payne, Yendall, and McDonald only had the one ride that meeting too.

The Steward's Report: Trainer A notified the Stewards this morning that Palace Prince will be riden on pace today and not in its usual nid paced position.

I hate when that happens and I miss it!

As for true run races, you know I have found something funny as I was looking through statistics (Note: there are many exceptions to this to make it no easy tool of betting): Horses that win at 1400m do well fresh at 1000m, and horses that do well at 1600M do well fresh at 1200M. Sectional times seem to be a more important factor in 1200s and 1600s. But not so with 1000s and 1400s. I'm sure the stats will call me a liar in the next 12 months. But that is what I have found in the past 18 months. Some horses never get beyond 1000M, but when they do its usually 1400 where they succeed. There are plenty of horses that have wins records like 1000(3) 1400(2). And nothing much else except a 1200M win in a maiden at Stony Creek. Wonder what that is about?

[crash]

'Zupacool, who won at $11'.

Usualy my wife and I have a quin if we pick a horse each in a race. I bet on Zupacool to win and my wife bet on the 2nd place getter, Macedonlan to win [about 30/1] because she likes Gauci and longshots. I didn't put the quin on and we missed the $180 quin for a lousy $1 bet. We where spewing!

[Brendon]

'Zupacool, who won at $11'.

Usualy my wife and I have a quin if we pick a horse each in a race. I bet on Zupacool to win and my wife bet on the 2nd place getter, Macedonlan to win [about 30/1] because she likes Gauci and longshots. I didn't put the quin on and we missed the $180 quin for a lousy $1 bet. We where spewing!Ouch!! But be happy you got on the winner. I looked at it closely as well as a few other nags, then couldn't make up my mind and kept my wallet in my pocket. Sarem, from my POV had a lot of potential and I got a little paranoid and wondered why Williams jumped on it. He certainly didn't get the pick of the litter this meeting up until then. Definitely should have spent more time looking at the horse.

Straight after Might Power won the Caulfield Cup the argument started between my brother and I. He was firmly in the Doremius camp, and I was sticking with Might and Power. The arguments got heated. Oh yeah, I won and I plunged on it. But we were both kicking ourselves because the quinella paid well over $30. Even when you win you lose. LOL

Any how, I think I have solved the prob a bit with looking at whether the horse wins when it is supposed to win. Basically, does it win enough times when its under say $6. I backed both Ladies in Luck and Grand Destiny yesterday $10 ech to win. But now that I look at Grand Destiny's winning pattern I think I wasted $10. Most of the time it wins when its not supposed to and loses when everyone thinks its a chance.

As for pace, do you check what is inside a front runner that has an outside barrier? Does that make a difference? Say for instance a favoured frontrunner has barrier 11, but to offset that the next four or five horses inside it are slow or mid paced off the mark. Is that something that makes a difference? I don't really know that many angles when it comes to pace and I think I get it wrong sometimes. I don't know what influence pace hace in races with under 10 runners - things like that. I use Everyrace stats, generally.

[crash]

As for pace, do you check what is inside a front runner that has an outside barrier? Does that make a difference? Say for instance a favored frontrunner has barrier 11, but to offset that the next four or five horses inside it are slow or mid paced off the mark. Is that something that makes a difference? I don't really know that many angles when it comes to pace and I think I get it wrong sometimes. I don't know what influence pace hace in races with under 10 runners - things like that. I use Everyrace stats, generally.

Generally I don't like races with less than 10 runners as they are often just too sneaky. As I only bet on 1 to 4 races at any meeting [mostly Vic. and Brissy on Sat. and Vic. only the rest of the time], I usually ignore small fields.

"As for pace, do you check what is inside a front runner that has an outside barrier"?

Yes, I do check that sort of thing and it can make a big difference. Also, when I get a selection wrong I take a look at the winner and try to see why it won. Sometimes there is no rhyme nor reason to the win, but there usually is. Doing that from a pace perspective is a good way to understand pace more fully and how to benefit from it.
I also check times from the last start. Zupacool was the only horse in that race that ran time last start and that was the final clincher for me. Macedonlan [almost won] was a bit of a smokey with practically no exposed form and Guaci has a habit of getting up on some decent longshots he just 'happens' to be on. Just missed out with Macedonlan on Sat., but would have been a great place bet.

I think the main problem of checking pace and times in a horse's formline is the lack of easily available data and formline alone doesn't really say a lot. Very few punters pay for a good form service [there is a few out there] where all the needed data is on one site. Times, adjusted times for current distance, a horses pace, a steward report last start if there was an incident involving any runner etc, etc. I can see all the info I need [including the last 10 starts] for any race at any meeting 7 days a week and on the one page. For any half decent form student, these services not only pay for themselves but can also provide a winning edge.

[Michal]

Crash,


where does one go for such comprehensive form ?

Michal

[crash]

I use PastthePost Michal and the time-form section with the last 10 starts [there are several types of form guides], times and adjusted times is the one I mostly use there. The little stars alert to recent good times. 3 stars is very good :-)

[thorns]

Hey crash,

Looks like a pretty comprehensive form service there. By any chance have you taken any notice as to how accurate there running position details are? And could you use i confidently for creating speed maps?

[crash]

Hey crash,

Looks like a pretty comprehensive form service there. By any chance have you taken any notice as to how accurate there running position details are? And could you use i confidently for creating speed maps?

Hi Thorns,

Unless a race goes pear shaped for a selection, the horse is usually about were it should be at the turn. So yes, mostly the preferred pace of a runner is consistent. I don't take a lot of notice of the ratings though, except as a general starting point to look at. A race might not suit a high rater for any number of reasons but for some punters with a different slant on handicapping [we all have our own], I'm sure ratings can be a great help in their selection process.

I don't create speed maps [anymore] of a whole field as doing so would be time consuming and depending on what happens during a race's running and how individual horses perform, it's often a waste of time unless the race is truly run. Take the fact that so most races are not truly run [blanket finishes], what use is a speed map beyond the turn? I basically create a speed map in my head in how the pace is going to effect my final 2 or 3 selection up until the turn and make my final selection from how I expect them to go from there.

If it looks like a favorite's winning race, I ignore the race as I'm not interested in those sort of odds. I had some good winners on Sat. and none of them were favorites. That's just my approach anyway, as nailing the right favorites works for some.

[Brendon]

Crash,

Ladiesinluck, a known slow starter and comes from behind is its normal pattern. Got barrier one. 14 horses. But it jumped out quickly and was on pace. It won.

Now I would be interested in your prognosis.

The trainer said he raced the horse up front because it had barrier one and he thought it was up to racing on pace. Toss the map out the window on that one.

My feeling is that because it wasn't a favorite that helped. It didn't get away that quickly (but quick enough) and jockeys had their eyes on other threats. Had it been a $3.00 favorite some other horses would have been in there trying to bottle it up.

And in race 8 we had the slower starting favorite Memorise in barrier one and I believe it did get headed up an stuck for a run. Is that right? If so, it would be interesting.

[crash]

You have now mentioned 2 of my Sat. winners so far, so before you mention any more there was also: Flem. r4 Testaguy and Wildwind Spirit in r4 at Hawksbury. A very good day with nice odds from 4 wins in 6 bets.

Ladies in luck's race wasn't easy because there was no leaders in the race and Phaze Action [likes it wet and a ridiculous favorite after a soft win in the heavy last start] was the only on-pacer.
Ladies in luck had run very good times in 4 straight starts at Flemington last prep. All the races were 100k and 1 was 150k. and all those starts had very good times.
Looking at the turn positions of the horse in the last 10 starts shows a flexibility in running style when needed. Mostly it runs from close to the back but also can run a good race from a more forward position. Parky was on the ball at the start and was able to avoid getting boxed in as many tipsters predicted from B1. At the odds I took a punt.
None of the horses in this race had good times last start [except Elmore's last start at Sandown] and most wins were soft ones. Ladies in Luck's odds were way overs too in my opinion. So the map did not need tossing out, just looked at carefully.

[Brendon]

There is a reason I mentioned them. They were the two I could not get out of mind that I did not finally select. LOL

I can really see someone picking ladiesinluck. It was in my 3. My top pick Grand Destiny I felt was just plain unreliable. ladiesinluck has been up so long now I was frightened this race would be the one it drops its bundle.

But really, I suppose a speed map doesn't mean much with those draughthorses. The same goes for Memorize in barrier 1 in R8. It had nothing next to it smart enough that would have boxed it in. Yet it did get boxed in.... but had plenty of open road in the straight - more than enough - for a chance. It was not good enough. Could not understand why it was favorite.

I had two bets for two losers. I didn't like either of them, but I liked the others I picked even worse. Tempest Toast I got at $4. Diamondsonthe inside at $3.80. Bummer.

[crash]

I couldn't work out why Memorise started favorite either. I had a good look at it and wasn't impressed for that race. The horse had never won beyond 1600m and an ideal barrier for a mid-pacer to get boxed in from is B1, especially if they are the favorite. Personally I like mid-pacers drawn out a bit in a more flexible position. Also, Memorise has had only 1 win from 8 starts compared to Zupacool who had 3 wins from 8 starts, had been running good times and had won at the distance at it's only try too. Good enough to back at the odds I thought.

Ya gotta love false favorites!

[Brendon]

Yes well, that is on topic, isn't it?

Rating Horses on their Past Results (http://showthread.php?p=177458#post177458)

Zupacool had a much better history than Memorize. And so too Ladies In Luck as opposed to Grand Destiny, if you exclude its longshot 30-1 wins.




False Favorites?!

Now that would be a good topic: Factors to look for in identifying false favorites.

[crash]

Yes well, that is on topic, isn't it?

False Favorites?!



Track down the false favorites. One of the easier ways to assure overs.

[Brendon]

Track down the false favorites. One of the easier ways to assure overs.I'm always looking for winners and sometimes my instincts say "false favorite!"

And a few times I have been the victim of one.

I should set out a set of criteria for false favorites

[crash]

Good idea Brendon. A new thread perhaps?