Two Handicapping Questions

[jimbo66]

First question has to do with Wednesday\'s third race at Belmont, which is a very interesting race to handicap.  You have four horses that seem fast enough to win, based on T-Graph figures.  My question to Jerry or Allen (whoever handicapped the race) is how did they treat the running line of the probable 4th choice, Skip Queen.  The horse\'s last two races are both as fast as the favorite.  They were achieved in claimers, now the horse \"moves up\" to allowance conditions, which sometimes still helps get a price, even though the horse is fast enough to win.  However, the horse achieved the first figure back in October.  Then there was a long layoff and he came back in May and fired the same figure (paired up his top).  But, now another layoff since May. I know TG recommends rest between starts, but a short layoff, right after a long layoff, is a \"toss\" for many handicappers and a sign the horse has some physical problem.  But at a probable 5-1 or higher, as co-fastest in the race, it is tempting to use him.  

2nd question goes back to the 3rd race at Belmont on July 15th.  Been meaning to ask this since the 16th, but I forgot.  I handicapped the race that day and couldn\'t find a bet.  Crunch the Numbers looked much the best to me and was 3-5 or so, so I skipped the race.  The next day when I read the analysis in the redboard room, T-Graph recommended betting on Looking Best with a comment like \"he has a pattern that sometimes pops a price\".  I am paraphrasing, but the analysis definitely mentioned the pattern.  I looked at the Graph and didn\'t understand exactly what pattern the handicapper was talking about.  The horse won at 7-1 in a four horse field.  Can either Jerry or Allan expand on what \"pattern\" they were referring to, as a teaching tool (maybe post the graph so those that don\'t have it can see it).

Thanks,

Jim

[jimbo66]

I guess the redboard answer to the first question is throw him out.  

[TGAB]

Sorry for late reply. I handicapped both Belmont cards in question. As to today\'s 3rd race, I put up Skip Queen and lost to the other three that figured. As you stated and the odds reflected Skip Queen was the \"price\" of the fast four and that\'s the reason I used her. She was just as fast as the others and actually faster than Beautiful Bay. I didn\'t love her; each top she ran resulted in reactions which took a while for her to overcome. However this year she was given plenty of rest after the big return effort, a different strategy than that employed after prior top efforts, not counting the layoff after the last effort and race last year. Skip Queen came back to her top, a good sign, and the trainer aware that she had performed badly on short turnarounds in the past, gave her rest this time around. In my mind this different tack was a good sign which intent-wise was meant to elicit another good run and since on figures she was competitive and a price, she warranted selection. Beside the other fast  ones didn\'t show particularly explosive lines, common for grass runners, meaning that they if they ran they were most likely to run what they had before. The weight differentials were small, 2 pounds, and the small field made the 6-hole less of a danger. WRONG--but that was the thinking.

As the 3rd race on 7/15, Looking Best showed an 0-3-X pattern, an variation of the 0-2-X pattern discussed numerous times on this site. (Look in past ROTWs or listen to the intro seminar.) Briefly an 0-2-X pattern is three-race sequence starting with a top effort, the 0, followed by an effort slight worse, the 2, and topped off by a non-effort, the X. Looking Best\'s last three were 8, 11-1/2, turf 23-1/2. That last one, the turf effort, was an obvious non-effort. The preceding 11-1/2 came 8 days after the top, 8. And it should be noted that Looking Best actually ran  two 8-1/4s preceding the 8, the second one 6 days before the top.

Now the 0-2-X sequence has a history from the days of written sheets. A handicapper made the observation that horses seemed to move forward off this sequence and because this bounce-back effort came after a particularly bad effort, often these pattern horses went off at good prices. The non-effort afforded the horse more time to recover from prior efforts.

Present day Thoro-Pattern raises irony here. Thoro-Pattern shows the 0-2-X patterns probably produces less new tops and/or pair-ups than was originally thought--demystification.  

Nevertheless in this particular race only three of the five had run in the single digits and the top two choices, Crunch The Numbers and Apprentice, entered off 2-3/4 point new tops, fairly big. Apprentice ran back on 11 days rest and Crunch the Numbers was running his third race within 7 weeks. The latter bounced, the former paired up and the Looking Best returned to his top, 8, earning the third best figure in the race. But Looking Best was 7-1, CTN 2-5 and App 3-1. Looking Best was third choice in the morning line and was my selection with an exacta under CTN.  
   

[jimbo66]

Thanks for the explanations Allan.

I also went for what I thought was \"value\" and bet Skip Queen.  I was concerned about the \"double layoff line\", meaning another layoff after racing only once, following an extended layoff.  I understand your thinking that this could be a positive sign that the trainer recognized the horse\'s reactions to previous tops.   Do you worry that you give the trainer\'s too much credit in these situations?  How many trainers follow speed figures?  After I lost on the race and before I read your post, I felt like I made a stupid bet.  the reason is because my doubts about what I called a \"double layoff\", were offset by the odds being offered.  The \"tiebreaker\" if you will, should have been the trainer.  And in this case, it was a no-name trainer, not somebody who gives one confidence.

As for the race on July 15th, thanks for clarifying.  I have read multiple discussions here on 0-2-x, but had not read anything about 0-3-x before your comments today.  

Thanks again,

Jim