Closing Argument could get a piece of this. Comes out of hot paced race and may make High Fly work hard.
Damn it. I have Closing Argument over High Fly and the other way around. What a freakin beat this is! I\'m out of here. I need a drink! @&&^%
This was a pretty good example of why it\'s tough to do the analysis the day before without seeing the odds. I figured CA to be a strong second choice, with KCB long, so I put up KCB to win, protect under HF. When they went crazy for Violette\'s horse and let CA go off long I boxed all 3 in exactas and tris, doubled up with HF on top, hit it pretty hard. No way to come up with that play the day before, at least not for me.
I think the story in the Donn is SL\'s bearing out. Good thing he drew outside. Hes done this before, may not be around long.
I think the big mistake was having St. Liam so wound up at this time of year. It\'s nice to get the early season Grade I if you think your horse really isn\'t that good. In this case however, he\'s obviously very talented and it\'s extremely rare to come out this sharp in February and still be around when the really big races are on the schedule in the fall.
I don\'t feel bad about not hitting the exacta the way it finished. I feel bad because High Fly was obviously either best or second best. I nailed the right horse to key on for value (CA) but the trip for High Fly was brutal - even down to the last few strides when it looked like I had it cold and High Fly went in and lost his momentum a bit. I\'ll have to watch the replay again because I was yelling at the TV. Maybe I\'m wrong about that. :-)
I knew CA was much better than he looked on paper. He raced fairly close to a very hot pace in his last even though he was off it. So his speed figures were misrepresenting his true ability. He was an extremely clear cut second choice in there off my figures. That\'s where all the value was - on the winner.
I really shouldn\'t be too upset. It wasn\'t a large bet. It was very small because I was only in the exacta pools. It was a last minute \"hey wait a minute these odds are wrong I have to put something through the windows bet\". I didn\'t even look at the race until after the Donn. Otherwise I would have discussed it in detail on the board this afternoon instead of writing a quick note a few minutes before postime.
It\'s just that I thought I was home at the 3/16s. That\'s why I was pissed.
By the way, I agree that it\'s very difficult to make selections the day before because you really never know how they are going to bet a race.
The one way to do it is if you have a list of situations that you know the public always screws up on.
The Holy Bull was one.
The public almost NEVER EVER EVER gets pace situations right where a horse raced OFF a very hot pace, but was actually being used very hard just by being close. Some people don\'t believe in the impact of pace or try to use it. Most of the rest don\'t have the skill to measure it properly or understand its impact. The downside is that you don\'t get tons of plays.
I have a list of situations that I am fairly confident that the public will misbet, but in the typical race I don\'t know who I might bet until a few minutes before post.
First of all, we gave CA a very good figure (4 1/2) for his last. Other thatn HF, only KCB (once) had ever run faster.
Michael-- haven\'t done the day, don\'t know the times, but that is a very interesting analysis-- exactly what I do. And exactly what I have suggested doing for horses like HF in the past-- I tried to get someone to make an offer on Harlan\'s Holiday a few years ago in Feb and told them that it was only worth doing if they did exactly that.
One point on HF, though-- that abrupt BI late in the race is not a good sign. This could be too fast, too soon.
The interesting horse that ran today is Giacamo. Boy, was he wide.
Giacomo was a terrible bet, outside post, cold barn, off the layoff, and the best reason of all, 7/5, what a overbet horse.
I\'m not debating your figure for CA.
I\'m simply saying his last out performance was a lot better than it looked on paper to virtually every speed handicapper out there because he was too close to that hot pace even though he wasn\'t on it. I don\'t know how you arrived at your figure for that race.
Post Edited (02-07-05 13:38)
My personal numbers had CA with the best last race number by a length over High Fly. I thought KCB would run good as well as the pace was so slow in his FG race that his final fig was sure to be on the low side.
It was certainly a lot closer between them than most final time figures would indicate. I don\'t try to formulize the pace figure with the final time the way some handicappers do because I learned from making them that there are way too many inaccuracies in the pace figures that can\'t be solved.
Plus, I don\'t think there\'s a one size fits all formula for how pace impacts final time.
The key is that the public doesn\'t understand it or build it into the odds.
No matter how you slice there was enough information to know that CA deserved to be the clear cut second choice.
High Fly was impressive in defeat. With a moderate trip he wins.
\" I don\'t try to formulize the pace figure with the final time the way some handicappers do because I learned from making them that there are way too many inaccuracies in the pace figures that can\'t be solved. \"
Of course there will always be inaccuracies. I won\'t go into specifics, but the key for me is to formulize the pace figure with the speed figure in relation to a horse\'s position in the field early. It works...exact, of course not, but there is some gold in those hills. That and realizing that slow paced races will limit the final time figures of all horses can lead to nice winners at big odds. (This is already factored into TG numbers when he breaks races away, at least that is how I read it.)
I understand.
I\'ve seen lots of formulas that try to combine pace and speed figures. I tinkered with a few for a couple of years but don\'t bother anymore. Some average the pace and speed figure. Others have some other type of adjustment. I could never get anything to work right because I think the horses are very individual.
I don\'t try to count the pennies anymore.
If my figures look like this:
A. 92P - 80F Par 80
B. 80P - 80F Par 80
I know that in most cases \"A\" ran the better race. However, I don\'t bother converting his race to an 86 or something like that.
If \"A\" consistently puts up final figures of 80 regardless of whether the pace figure is 100 or 80, I know he\'s probably a super quick horse that isn\'t strained by running slightly faster than usual early. It might take a pace of 110 to have a negative impact.
If my figures look like this:
A. 92P - 80F
B. 84P - 84F
I know the horses are similar. I\'m not paid to determine which one is a hair better than the other. All these figures are just ballpark. If the horses are bet similarly, there\'s probably no value. If they aren\'t I\'ll take the longer horse.
If my figures look like this:
A\'s last race: 70P - 95F
A\'s prior race: 103P - 103P
A\'s 2 prior race: 100P - 102P
I know that the really slow pace in A\'s last race probably impacted his final time negatively and he\'s really a low 100 horse.
If my figures look like this:
A\'s last race: 70P - 102F
A\'s prior race: 103P - 103P
A\'s 2 prior race: 100P - 102P
I would look at the rest of A\'s record. If he has a history of extreme late brilliance I won\'t give him extra credit for that extremely slow pace. He might be one of those rare horses that has enough late speed brilliance to overcome the slow pace and still record his normal final figure. Most horses are more even paced though and would be impacted. If the pace was a 50 and his final figure 90, then I probably would adjust upward.
So I would say that what I doing is using the pace figures in an artful way as opposed to a formulized way.
Post Edited (02-06-05 15:44)
beyerguy wrote:
> My personal numbers had CA with the best last race number by a
> length over High Fly.
I looked hard at CA but couldnt pull the trigger. I also missed the Red Board which I certainly would have pulled for Gulfstream saturday. I can\'t believe any figures for CA could have eclipsed High Fly\'s last. I thought the horse jumped up some, which he was eligible to do on maturity. He hadn\'t run in a couple months.
Those outside posts at Hallandale are interesting aren\'t they.
You gotta love these 9 mark races at Hallandale though, they are shedding a little light on things.
Post Edited (02-07-05 10:56)
\"I can\'t believe any figures for CA could have eclipsed High Fly\'s last.\"
2 CLOSING ARGUMENT 4-1 E
DeD 12/04/2004 8.5| 116 94 113 91| 101
8 HIGH FLY 8-5 P
GP 01/08/2005 8.0| 102 100 100 100| 99
The figures are race pace, race speed, horse pace, horse speed, and an overall performance rating.
beyerguy,
Eventually we are going to generate more interest in pace as a handicappng factor. Maybe we should reconsider our willingness to promote this stuff. :-)
By the way, I thought of another circumstance where I think the actual figures might not be reflective of what happened in a race.
Here\'s 2 races.
23 - 46 - 110.4 - 137.2
23.4 - 46 - 110.4 - 137.2
Most pace figures only look at the 4f and 6f fractions. They would consider these 2 races similar. However, my experience tells me that that the 2nd quarter of the second race - which went in 22.1 - was probably super heated and took a bigger toll on the horses than the first race where they ran a more even 23 - 46.
I like to supplement the numerical figures with visual impressions. If the pace \"looked\" super contested for a period in the race, that can impact the outcome even if the 4F and 6F fractions aren\'t reflective.
Ok, Beyer
I stand corrected. Not sure what you have there but they do indicate a hotter pace effort last than I was aware of. DeD is not a track I watch closely.
Congrats.
If I had your insight, I think I\'d have taken the whole race down.
Can you say what you have there?
beyer,
congrats if you had CA, but HF ran faster than the CA race before, ran about two lengths faster than CA on saturday, and will run faster than CA the next time they run. the trip from post eight was a killer for HF over that oval; they didn\'t have the jock they needed to overcome that handicap.
Sure I can say, I create an overall race rating based on the horse\'s pace and speed figure, his position at the first call in relation to the size of the field, weight carried and a maturity adjustment (that is, in May, those figures will be bigger than they are now.) I don\'t account for wide trips, which is why I like to use T-Graph numbers as well.
Michael,
No doubt I think HF ran the better race on Saturday, but from a betting standpoint, I also suspected he would lose a lot of ground and had no edge in the figures, so why bet 3-5? If they race again from similar posts at similar prices, I\'d bet CA again.
When you say a horse ran faster, I guess it depends what numbers you are looking at, but in any case, they were close enough that 3-5 was a horrible underlay.
beyer,
i\'m not talking about trip handicapping here. congrats to anyone who had CA at 4-1 against a faster horse based on the post and jocks. i did not have that, and i think anybody who cashed on the race should be congratulated for fine handicapping. HF simply ran the 9f faster though, and if they exchange post draws next time, CA will be very hard pressed to beat HF.
but beyer, i enjoy pace handicapping discussions. i believe pace plays an important role in this game. in fact, the reason why i did not try to beat HF was because i gave the race a 3.0 pace rating going in (out of 10.0). if i were correct, there would have been less speed up front, HF would have gotten a much better trip, and he would have won. i misjudged the pace and did not cash (didn\'t bet it).
michael he was 8-1 and the trip High Fly got wasn\'t unforeseeable. Its gonna be interesting. Head to Heads for the FOY?
don\'t know where i got 4-1. i passed, wasn\'t even paying attention until they loaded. i hope they pass on the FOY. HF seems like the type of horse that runs too fast for his own good. rest him up, please!!