Chief wrote:

"A 8th placing may have been a better run than a win."

Really? But 8th is 8th and 1st is 1st. It must mean something if a horse wins. 4th isn't 3rd, either. It must surely mean something if a horse can get in the money. Isn't a miss as good as a mile? And aren't there horses that don't know how to win, so to speak? They run well, look nice but more often than not run a 2nd. Conversely, people tell me some horses have a good understanding of what a race is about and know what winning is. If I'm given the choice between a winner and an unlucky 8th, I'd prefer the winner. And what does "unlucky" mean here?

Are you suggesting Chief that I stop giving too much validity to finishing places, and start looking at how the horses ran, not just where they finished? But the name of the game is winners (or placegetters at least). If I look at how a horse ran last few starts, rather than its capacity to put together enough to win (or place), mightn't I select horses that run well but don't necessarily win? What factors should I consider? Speed in last 600? Lengths from the winner? Again, when is a horse "unlucky"?