There's something I'm missing
 

Hi All,

Like most of you I do the form and spend some considerable time analysing form for a Saturday, most of my free time Sunday to Wednesday is done analysing the results and Thursday to Saturday morning I do the form for the meeting..

This is a lot of hours and I enjoy the challenge, and before you start on me I do have a life (of sorts)..

Anyway one thing that continually amazes me is that sometimes there are some "Hot Sure Things" at the track that I somehow have missed completely..

At Randwick on Saturday, Mentality and Spark of Life were both backed heaviy on course buy some very astute punters.

No how is it so? I rated Mentality only 3/4 lth better than Mutawajid and added 2kg advantage for Darren Beadman and I rated Spark of Life only .3 length worse than Media and I declared the two races ones to stay out of because my assessments were to close to call..

Now my assessments are not entirely rubbish, as I have ample evidence to say I'm on the right track, but clearly I missed something because lots of people were on the money and were backing these two furiously...

The scary thing is that this is not the first time this has happened to me, so what is it that I'm missing???????

There's got to be something else that I just haven't grasped as yet... mind you my other top selections were Spirit of Tara (Won) , Westicaro (Duh), Pelimnium( 2nd), Murtajill (equal with Husson Lightning) , KaKaKaKatie (won), Caljou (ouch),Mentality (by a 1/2 lth or so), Media (Duh) and nothing in the last.

There has got to be another indicator I'm missing..

Kind Regards
OzPunter

It's impossible to accurately rate horses. I've seen numerous instances where Don Scott and Mark Read both claim(ed) to have "true ratings" yet differ markedly in their prices.

Maybe the missing indicator is luck or even opinion. For example, if a horse meets interference during a race then different handicappers may have a different opinion about the extent of the interference. Or even differing opinions of a horse's expected improvement. There are so many other factors that can be considered.

I agree Michaelg,

But fundamentally there is a basic way of lining them up... It's true in most things in life, if you think of all the possibilities and look at them as layers, if you peel back the layers and examine the grass roots, the "meat of sandwhich" as it were, ratings still stand up..

Based on ratings gained over time an effort, then apply the layers of the posibilities that can go wrong, and still end up with ones that are superior to the rest they should end their race that way...

Like putting a WFA performer into a maiden race at equal weights they should win by streets. While that is an extreme, it still fundamentally holds true that horses tend to perform at a given level and since weight is used as the handicap the performance is relative.. Layers of misfortunes can fog the results but the underlying truth is that ratings are the best guide.

Still I'm looking for "that extra thing", whatever it is that I've missed yesterday but others knew it was on... Why is it so?

Perhaps I'm bitter and twisted, but I do believe in the power of self confidence, I doubt if any sucessful jockeys and trainers would be where they are today if they did not have superior confidence in their own ability... This confidence flows forth in the things they do and while working with horses some of it rubs off onto the horses themselves. After all they're only human, you know.

Still looking for that one more factor....

Kind Regards
OzPunter

Oz Punter
 

Have you considered Handicap weight Carried 56 Kg +

And Weight over the LIMIT from Last start + or -

Include Apptc allowance.

Cheers.
darky

The handicap weight over the limit is representative of the official handicappers opinion of the horses demonstrated performance. So the weight over the minimum from one race to another would show the variation in the class of the race, where that class is set down in a rule book... Your first line has me puzzeled a little, I start my cut off at 58kg.. Not saying that good horses can't perform with 58kg, but few regular horses can finish off a race when they have carried 58kg+ over 1200 mtrs or more...

One way of picking a good performer for the future is one that battles on or closes carrying 58+ in a 1200 - 1600 m race, when they get a lower weight they have a real advantage.

Apprentice allowances? I think they are justified to represent the lack of experience of the younger set, but I think its definately and advantage for riders like Tye Angland, Josh Parr etc.

Thanks Darky, I'll add this into my study..

Still searching... How did those punters know that the two runners were going to do so well? I've missed something, I think.

Kind Regards
OzPunter

have you considered the corrupt jockeys..rigging of races angle
It continues year after year and we all wonder where our betting strategies went wrong......there are some true champion horses out there whose trainers want them to win like miss andretti,miss finland etc but then there are those races where the same horses line up week after week and then take it in turns
cheers

Maybe the form of those two horses provided no clue and therefore the punter/handicapper could not possibly factor the reason into his/her calculations.

Maybe only the trainer/stable was aware of the reason - maybe each horse had responded well to a change of training technique, had been primed for this specific race. In fact, there could be one or several specific reasons that the punter could not possibly be privy to?

If Mark Read, Sportingbet, successful handicappers, etc, had an opening price similar to yours or even rated them softer than you did, then "that indicator you are missing" might also be a factor missing to even the experts and everyone not "in the know"?

Dear Mr Rabitz,

I know the stories and I've had my suspicions too... I'm sure you're right about some country or provincial racing but the big city stuff, I doubt if these people would survive very long...

Mind you if you can show a serious case on paper or with other evidence and are willing to take it to the authorities I'll back you all the way, otherwise we just have to accept that it does happen but it's rare.. I doubt if a trainer turning over $millions a year would bother with messing about with rigging races...

Sit down with a spreadsheet and figure out how much a top trainer or jockey makes a year? Of course you can't know the actual figures but it's a lot more that what they can make by rigging a few races and risking being banned.

Mind you Rabitz, if you have the proof speak up, but I doubt it would hold up under close examination.

P.S... I was at the races (I rarely go) the other day and there was this guy heckling one of the jockeys after winning today when he failed on the same horse a week before... I looked at both races and decided that the result was the likely outcome in both cases... Losing money affects peoples judgement and they look for others to blame...

Poor jockey having to go to work and put up with that sh.. How would you like it if someone who knows little about what you do comes into your workplace and bags you?

Not Criticizing you personally Rabitz, but I don't agree that there's a scheme afoot, sorry.

Kind Regards
OzPunter

Here's an idea literally straight off the wall... Lets take a stable of horses and day to day they endure training, workouts and exercise... Also they have to sleep !!! Now last week we've had lots of rain and several thunderstorms with lightning, now if anything is going to freek a horse out it's lightning while they need to sleep... Think what lack of sleep does to you next day... Can the horse really put their full effort in? I think not...

I've long held the belief that wet weather affects the training as much or more than the actual track condition on the day... Do you like to go to work on a day when it's cold and pouring down with rain? wouldn't you prefer to stay in your stall? It's two days to raceday and you need a good hit out...

Lack of exercise means your off your feed and lack of high energy feed just before raceday means you cant perform at your best...

So what if we did a study where there is a good or dead track on the day and rain and storms leading up to the day... (like Saturday) I'd be willing to bet that more favourites fail on those days than when the weather has been fine for two weeks or more.

Told you it was off the wall... But it makes sence..

Still, I don't know why so many big punters knew that those two runners were "on"

Regards
OzPunter

Hi Oz

If you're consistently making a profit, then maybe you're not missing anything. No-one who does ratings or handicaps races can be 100% right, 100% of the time. For what it's worth I place great importance on a horses win rate. And just using a few of your examples, it's great every time that a horse like Media goes around and is in the market. I automatically give it little or no hope of winning. Not so good when something like Spirit of Tara wins, as I place it in the same category.

As for suspicious goings on, I don't believe things are as bad as some make out. However, have a look at Prince Arthur in the first yesterday. Examine the betting, then watch the ride. Nobody will convince me that it was given every conceivable chance of winning.

Hi Oz ,,not completely off the wall ...you'd have to know the trainers facilities though,,most still work in the rain and alot have all weather training tracks..but i like your thinking..

in regards Mentality and Sparky i think you're being to hard on yourself ,,,Mentality was always going to backed late,, smart punters would have been hoping the Media tip Murty would be short enough to give them better odds...I wasnt there but heard Mentality looked impressive in the yard.. Sparky the same ,,apparently he looked better than he ever has and there was good money (some of it mine) around for the unreliable Written Tycoon..

Very true, I'd prefer to stay in my stall but the trainer may not give me that option so there might not necessarily be a lack of exercise.

Three faves won the nine races at Randwick on Saturday, maybe they were not affected by the bad weather? Still, it's food for thought.

Maverick 1993 says both horses looked good in the yard - if this was responsible for the plunge or part of it, then how could anyone possibly factor this into their earlier calculations? I too get the impression that you might just be a little too hard on yourself. Your other selections did very well.

If Mark Read, etc, had soft opening prices on the two horses it would then seem they also did not rate them too highly.

I take your point Mark, Maybe I'm just parinoid because it was a bad day for me.. But the ones I rated as best didn't include Mentality and Spark of life... Other punters knew these were "on" ad I'm trying to figure out why..

Price Arthur was one of my best so I'm disaponted also even though I rated Spirit of Tara on top.. I thought Beadman would lift him..

I can't accept the notion the Daren is currupt, but I just don't think his rides have been as good as the they promise to be since he became No 1 rider for the J Hawkes stable... I don't think there's anything underhand at foot, but perhaps the material is just not up to the task... Darrens locked in in some way so he has to ride what he's told to. I see a "cover" tactic in some races where Rod Quinn gets the second stable choice, in case the boss fails to get to the line.

Let's not dawdle on corruption and allegations, there's something else, I don't know what it is but I'm going to find it... Others knew about Mentality and Spark of life so why didn't I???

Think about it, there has to be something another clue...

Regards
OzPunter

g'day oz,

mate, i love discussing ratings & analysis methods so if you wanna drop an email to bravechief06 at y a h o o . com so we can communicate by email, feel free.

you're asking good questions. there are 2 things i think a rating method needs, you have to "project" a horses rating forward & say "i think this horse is an xx rating horse" (at sometime in the future).

but you also need to judge when a horse is suited. when a horse is suited, it gets a bonus, naturally. this may involve some profiling. a certain distance, track, pace or stage of campaign ?? & be prepared to back your judgements.

perhaps Sparky goes well first up, likes the track, trialled well etc. at first glance he certainly has an early pace adv over Written Tyccon & Media over 1000m, this could potentially equate to a "suited bonus".

as for Mentatlity, in his last 2 starts he was trading blows with Desert War & Eremein at WFA, higher rating form than Muta?? 4th up over the mile, raced over a mile last start, G1 winner over a mile as a 2yo. Muta was stepping up from the sprints, never raced over mile before. Do you think Mentality was more seasoned than Muta for this race? Looks suited, worth a bonus?

Now we're cookin, brave chief...

I'll be in touch, you're obviously on the ball.

Regards
OzPunter

G'day OzPunter,

You were wondering how did everyone else seem to know that Mentality and Spark of Life were going to win, and as such "were backing these two furiously." I think there's a simple answer. Most punters aren't regular punters or do it for a living and just bet occassionally for the excitement of it all. They don't really have a good understanding of what to look for to find a winner. And so, when it comes time to make their selections, they buy racing newspapers, believing them to be bibles and base their bets on the feature articles and the papers' opinions on who are the top-rated runners. I hate it when one of my selections gets a mention from the media, because it's a certainty that it will be pounced upon by the average Joe punter, and the price I get won't be as good as it would've been otherwise. I notice in the Sportsman, that both Mentality and Spark of Life were spouted as the top-rated runners in their races, though interestingly, they were the only Sportsman top-rated runners to win out of the 9 races at Randwick. Also in the Sportsman was an article about Mutawaajid, that has it's jockey, Hugh Bowman, heaping praise upon Mentality. And there's a mention that Spark of Life came 2nd in last year's Challenge Stakes to Snitzel. I think it's these kinds of things that catch average Joe punters' eyes, and help them determine their selections.

So, when you ask how did everyone else know to bet on Mentality and Spark of Life? My answer is because the media told them too.

I concur S&S ;)

I knew from the moment I saw the odds that Mentality was overs and Mutawajid unders. Mentality has been consistantly putting in good solid runs against top class opposion and while it is true that Mutawajid looked impressive beating Gold Edition, I always thought the form from that race was dodgy due to the muddling pace - sprint home nature of it. Judging by the stampede to get on Mentality, I obviously wasn't the only one thinking this way.