[str]

You give such good advice, Str. I used to bet on more races - now only on the races where I see a horse that stands out as one that can maybe challenge the favorite. And I wager very little, because I really don't trust myself much yet. Sometimes I would be misled by the horses fastest speed at the distance being above others, but it might have been several months earlier, when he's actually shown a decline in recent races. Or I'd look at the jockey and think, for instance Ramon Dominguez is riding him, so he'll finish on the board. It's really more about the horse than his jockey, though an experienced jockey on a horse in top form is pretty hard to beat. Also, I'm trying to look more at the surface on the track. Some horses don't seem to run as well on a firm turf or a fast track. Going back to jockeys, do you think some jockeys are better on certain surfaces than others? For example, Julien Leparoux. Do you think he might be a better jockey on the turf than on the dirt? He's had a lot of success in turf races.

Understanding the game will come soon enough for you. Sounds like you are seeing more now than you saw several months ago, and that is great news. As long as you are willing to continue to learn, whether it's horses or anything, you will become better at what you are doing, no matter the field. The points that you bring up are all valid. Keep up the good work.

Q. Going back to jockeys, do you think some jockeys are better on certain surfaces than others? For example, Julien Leparoux. Do you think he might be a better jockey on the turf than on the dirt? He's had a lot of success in turf races.

A. I just don't follow the game close enough to know this answer to Laparoux off hand but I will find out for you and let you know . My guess is that if it seems that way, it probably is. Riders absolutely can be much better riders on grass vs. dirt, or vise versa. Not sure where it is in this thread, but I have written on this several times I think. Speed riders, closing riders that do not do nearly as well on the lead as they do on a closer, turf riders, that are exceptional on grass and barely ordinary on dirt.
This goes way back but in Md. in the 70s and 80s, a jockey named Hector Pilar was so weak on the dirt, using anyone else would be a reasonable choice, but put him on the turf and he was better than all of them. His nickname at the track was "King of the Grass". Never seen a more night and day difference.
I will let you know about the jock in question.

[JakeLc]

Statistically speaking, over the last 12 months Leparoux is 18% on the grass and 21% on the dirt.

[str]

str, what is the actual thought behind claiming races? Why would you go to a race to put a horse up for sale? Aren't there other venues for that? I just want to start from scratch here and get an idea of how this started and developed. I feel that I need to understand the underlying thought process. Is it a race around horse trading, or trading around a horse race?

So far I've mainly focused on grades stakes and handicaps. But I can't get away with that if I want to play a pick 6 or something of that nature. How should I compare races such as claiming, optional claiming, maiden claiming to those more serious races in terms of intensity and preparation? You've already given pointers about this, but would it be comparable to playoffs versus regular season, or do some races take on the nature of preseason games and training exercises? I understand that trainers may use a race as a preparation for a bigger race, but I'm assuming that they wouldn't do so in claiming races (as they might lose the horse). Could one expect a greater number of underperforming horses in a claiming race?

Q. str, what is the actual thought behind claiming races? Why would you go to a race to put a horse up for sale? Aren't there other venues for that?

A. No. If you are stabled in one place, you work with what you have. If you mean, why not run a 10K claimer from Md. at C.T. and try and win an allowance race, well, some try and do this, and before slots that was logical, but with better purses, the Allow. horses there are better than that, so no options really. Also, and this is a big also, if you are stabled at a track, the track expects you to run the horse there. They keep a very close eye on the ins and outs at the stable gate for horses shipping out of state. You better have tried to enter multiple times at home before shipping out too often. They will tell you to not bring the horse back and you risk losing stalls in the future if you ship too much.

Q. Is it a race around horse trading, or trading around a horse race?

A. Trading around a horse race.

Q. How should I compare races such as claiming, optional claiming, maiden claiming to those more serious races in terms of intensity and preparation? You've already given pointers about this, but would it be comparable to playoffs versus regular season, or do some races take on the nature of preseason games and training exercises?


A. Charles Town W. VA. is a perfect example of using races as training races. Having the money for payroll , and stall space to train a horse correctly up to a race is the difference between the guy that can have them ready 1st out in 6 months, and the guy that will race them fit and the play is usually the 3rd race back no matter how awful the 1st two are ( rule of thumb).( Want to find a long shot at C.T.? Try this .) This is on display there all the time. This does not go on at major racetracks very often. Those guys have the payroll and the expertise in most cases. All this will reflect in the 1st off time lines in the form. ( Before those lines existed, it was a HUGE edge in information to know who was who in this.)
I think it is important not to over think the claiming game. It exists to keep the chance of winning somewhat open for all, or most. Without it, a few would dominate the masses. It polices itself with the claiming factor.
The need to generate purse money drives the trainer and owner to place the horse where it can be competitive. There is no 1st Saturday in may to shoot for. It is, what have you done for me lately, in most cases. Guys that wheel and deal and do not concern themselves with losing the horse will win much more than guys that try and protect their horse from being claimed. What you should concern yourself with is the ability of those horses and as stated many times, why a horse ran as well or as poorly as it did in it's last race or races. Remember, it costs just as much to train a claimer as it does an allowance horse, so earning money, drives the bus in most cases.

Q. I understand that trainers may use a race as a preparation for a bigger race, but I'm assuming that they wouldn't do so in claiming races (as they might lose the horse).

A. Other than what I said about training a horse at lesser tracks and cost, your assumption is correct.


Q. Could one expect a greater number of underperforming horses in a claiming race?

A. Some trainers have no choice but to hang on to what they have and keep trying but the spirit of claiming and what you see at the major tracks mostly is, perform or drop down to be able to perform. If they can't do it at the bottom, sell them or ship to a lesser track.

[str]

Statistically speaking, over the last 12 months Leparoux is 18% on the grass and 21% on the dirt.

Thanks Jake !

[Dark Horse]

Much appreciated as always, str.

[JakeLc]

I know how much of a fan you are of the owner of this horse

[str]

I know how much of a fan you are of the owner of this horse

Too funny Jake !





The guy is really making a fool of himself at this point.

His horse had the outside position with a clearly inferior horse inside. No outside pressure whatsoever. Right eye was well clear .

The surface was plenty fast time wise all day.

His 24.33, 47.33, 1:11.23, 1:36.75, 1:49.98 fractions were plenty slow enough. Tapizar ran 4-6 lengths faster at every call and was inside, got hooked, and came again and drew off to win easily. And while Tapizar's race was 1m 70/yards, he could have gone around again.

The horse is starting to come unglued mentally in the relax department.

That happens sometimes. What is bothersome is that the owner and his lack of understanding has had as much or more to do with this than anything else. It could have been different but horses cannot choose there owners. Just ask Seattle Slew.

[JerseyLove]

You're thoughts on Monmouth race track and the meadowlands?

[str]

You're thoughts on Monmouth race track and the meadowlands?

I have many fond memories of Monmouth Park from back in the day. Seeing Ruffian was one on a short list of reasons that I became a trainer. I spoke about her previously in this thread I think. Never seen anything like her. Max's on the ocean and the RBI just outside the gate ( both probably long gone) , I will never forget. But you don't want to know about that so let me help what little I can. I do not follow the Jersey circuit but... Monmouth being near the ocean breeze I suppose, has always favored speed on dirt when all things are equal. I say all things equal because for years and I would guess still, the dirt races would hold a pattern from week to week ( for the most part) depending on the day. Monmouth would be sure and have the dirt perfect for weekend racing. That showed a lean towards speed. Not necessarily inside or outside speed, just speed in general. It was tough to close. But on weekdays, closers had a much fairer chance to close . Routines on track maintenance do not change very often especially at a summertime venue, so I would check the charts and see if this holds up. You could find horses that close that ran on a weekend and the speed carried running back on a weekday when it did not carry as much and find very solid value doing so. It's not hard to do at all. Same will hold true for tiring speed coming from a weekday to a weekend but the real value is in the closers because speed is almost always over bet and many people chase speed at Monmouth just because it's Monmouth. Following the charts will give you all the info you need.
The turf was seemingly fair most of the time, so I would check out the dirt results weekday vs. weekend and see if a pattern shows up.

The Meadowlands I would know less about but others in the forum can help. I hope they do. For me, I would be very reluctant to run horses there much before the first frost. So November and December was my area when I would run there. Never really found anything in particular that stood out there. I guess I did not look that hard. By then, Laurel was in full swing so I never paid that much attention.

Not sure how much help that will be but hopefully some. Do check out the Monmouth surface change. It has been around for a long time. I can't think it has vanished. If others have anything, feel free to add.

Thanks for the question . Best of Luck.

[Dark Horse]

Do you know the winning percentage for horses entering the stretch first? For all tracks; as a measuring stick for individual tracks.

I'm trying to get a better grip on Polytrack. Del Mar's all weather surface. I think it contains some sort of wax. With high temperatures and the sun out, speeds seem to get stuck in the wax. During the heatwave the past weekend, with temperatures reaching 91, the horses entering the stretch first won 8 out of 19 times (three days, not counting turf races). I don't know how much this is off the average (therefore the question), but it did result in a huge carryover for the next Wednesday's pick 5 and 6. That Wednesday the clouds covered the sun, the temperatures stayed much lower, and the horses entering the stretch (polytrack) first went 5-0. I watch these races, but I don't know if and when they water the track down, so in that sense there could be a big advantage to being present in person.

[sandyw123]

Thanks Jake !

Thanks from me too! I had seen Leparoux win a number of races on the grass and thought maybe he was a better turf rider. Evidently not.

[sandyw123]

I have another question, Str, regarding Tahoe Lake in the Sword Dancer stakes Saturday. I'm trying to figure out why he would be one of the longer shots in the race. He's finished in the top 3 and 4, close behind the favorites in this race at the distance. He's posted right beside one of the heavy favorites he's raced well against before. The odds against him in several of his races have been over 20-1, and he's finished 2nd or 3rd. He may not have a high percentage jockey aboard, M. Pedroza, but we've seen that not be a factor many times. I really want to consider him, maybe not to win, but to finsh well, but I wonder if I've overlooked something in the form.

[str]

Do you know the winning percentage for horses entering the stretch first? For all tracks; as a measuring stick for individual tracks.

I'm trying to get a better grip on Polytrack. Del Mar's all weather surface. I think it contains some sort of wax. With high temperatures and the sun out, speeds seem to get stuck in the wax. During the heatwave the past weekend, with temperatures reaching 91, the horses entering the stretch first won 8 out of 19 times (three days, not counting turf races). I don't know how much this is off the average (therefore the question), but it did result in a huge carryover for the next Wednesday's pick 5 and 6. That Wednesday the clouds covered the sun, the temperatures stayed much lower, and the horses entering the stretch (polytrack) first went 5-0. I watch these races, but I don't know if and when they water the track down, so in that sense there could be a big advantage to being present in person.

Q. Do you know the winning percentage for horses entering the stretch first? For all tracks; as a measuring stick for individual tracks.

A. No I do not. I would bet that someone in this forum would have some stats on that though. Let's hope so.

I am not at all familiar with poly surfaces. They did not exist when I trained and I don't pay much attention to the tracks that have it. Again, let's hope someone has some answers as to the watering . The heat wave angle sounds very legit to me. Take those 11 losers and follow them next out. An angle very few will follow.

[JakeLc]

I can only pull stats for leaders at the first call not the 2nd call.
It's generally considered,at least from what I've read and heard, that when the artificial surface heats up speed tends to be affected.But there are different types of artificial surfaces etc.
From what I've witnessed when Arlington gets wet it gets speedy.

[str]

I can only pull stats for leaders at the first call not the 2nd call.
It's generally considered,at least from what I've read and heard, that when the artificial surface heats up speed tends to be affected.But there are different types of artificial surfaces etc.
From what I've witnessed when Arlington gets wet it gets speedy.

Thanks Jake !

[str]

I have another question, Str, regarding Tahoe Lake in the Sword Dancer stakes Saturday. I'm trying to figure out why he would be one of the longer shots in the race. He's finished in the top 3 and 4, close behind the favorites in this race at the distance. He's posted right beside one of the heavy favorites he's raced well against before. The odds against him in several of his races have been over 20-1, and he's finished 2nd or 3rd. He may not have a high percentage jockey aboard, M. Pedroza, but we've seen that not be a factor many times. I really want to consider him, maybe not to win, but to finsh well, but I wonder if I've overlooked something in the form.

I would need to see the PPs to fully comment ( if you can attach them, I will be glad to) but in general, those types that usually lose but run 3,4,5 often against the same bunch will go off at inflated odds to win, but they probably should. What you need to check for is comparative prices with horse A on top and Tahoe Lake and the rest of the field 2nd. When comparing those prices, often times Tahoe Lake will be let's just say, the 6th choice on the board to win, but the 3rd or 4th choice on the board underneath the favorite in the exacta pool. You can't see the triple odds, but rest assured that if the exacta scenario is showing up, everybody is using Tahoe Lake in the 3rd spot as well, all thinking the same way. They are trying to get a 15-1 shot 3rd on the ticket, but in that type case, he really isn't a true 15-1 shot on that ticket. Everyone figures him for 3rd. I am not saying don't use him, I am saying don't be disappointed when a 15-1 3rd on the triple ticket only multiplies the exacta price by 4 or 5 times it's value instead of 10 or more times the value.
Hope that makes sense .

[RPP]

He's long shot because he has only won 2 times from 17 starts and one of those wins was via DQ. He's a pack running plodder.

[sandyw123]

bw_pdf_viewer.pdf

I hope this will work. I tried to attach the form for the Sword Dancer stakes here.

[str]

That is exactly what I was talking about. The horse merits being a long shot to win. But the 11 out of 17 in the 2 and 3 spots will catch players eyes as a long shot that has a chance to hit the board underneath in exotics.
Would I play him to win because of his high odds. Probably not, as he shows that he can't beat these types in most races. But would I use him underneath in an exacta or triple? Yes, unless I was sold on others strongly. If I chose to use 3 different horses 2nd or 3rd to a certain horse on top, I would want to see the exacta price with him 2nd , but if it was one of the highest exacta payouts compared to others, I would strongly consider it based on his propensity to finish 2nd . My guess is he will not be as long a shot underneath in exotics as you would normally see with a typical long shot, again, because he has done it several times before and people usually think alike in cases like this.
Check the prices and make sure that the payoff is adequate to the risk.
Best of luck.

And come on Grace Hall !!!

[dirtcapper]

I was wondering in this race is there something else than the jockey switch to look for in identifying the 2nd place horse (nr 4) for exacta? Something like past pace figures or fractions or post maybe. Comments seems to suggests trouble in last race but it doesn't look that good before either, going by speed figures. (And there were also other comparable jockeys in this race.) What I'm looking is some way to predict the most likely trip scenario I guess.

[str]

I was wondering in this race is there something else than the jockey switch to look for in identifying the 2nd place horse (nr 4) for exacta? Something like past pace figures or fractions or post maybe. Comments seems to suggests trouble in last race but it doesn't look that good before either, going by speed figures. (And there were also other comparable jockeys in this race.) What I'm looking is some way to predict the most likely trip scenario I guess.

It looks like the jockey switch was a late switch . The named rider took off the mount. To me, that is a non issue other than the ability of the named rider being a negative if indeed it was.
Set the race up looking at where the horses will probably be after a 1/4 of a mile( the 1st call). If you are not sure on a horse or two the 2nd time through, come back to them after you have gone through it once to get a general overview, and a 2nd time to start to identify where horses will likely be sitting based on probable speed and pace. You can't say a horse is going to lay 3rd just because it shows that it has, until you see if there is any speed at all , or maybe 5 speed balls . That horse that wants to lay 3rd might find itself on the lead or 6th early because the race has drawn an abnormal amount of pure speeds or no speed. Going through the race of this size each time should not take more than 5 minutes, if that, at least initially. One other thing that I used to do was after I had gone through the race multiple times and felt comfortable with a selection, read through the race from the outside post in. We all get comfortable in our conclusions when we go through the race a few times. We dismiss things that maybe we should not . Reading it from out to in and finding position gives you a different view and solidifies your argument of raises a red flag that you missed reading it from inside position to outside position. A simple way to check yourself once you have reached your conclusion. Only takes 2 minutes .
Looking at this race, there was no breakaway speed that I could see, nor were there any closers that wanted to be 6-7 lengths back other than possibly the winner but because there were no pure speed horses , chances are the horse that has shown that it can get 6-7 lengths back, probably won't be that far back this time because of the lack of pure speed and separation in the race. So, it looked to me that the field would be fairly compressed early. As it turned out, it was. That type of race, with multiple horses that pretty much want to do the same thing, will come down to who breaks a little better or a little worse. Or a little bumped or whatever. Trying to feel good about a trip scenario in this type race is more guess work than a race that has a real divide in running styles IMO.
The odds on winner, figured . Was it easy to find the 4 horse to run 2nd? Well, after the race sure. But beforehand? You could have looked at it's 12 career 2nds and gone with that, or you could have eliminated others because of there poor form and been left with the 4 and maybe one or two more. I have always used the career 2nds angle when needing to use a horse under a dominate favorite that had no value as a win bet or any priced horse that I had decided to play on top only . I have always been a sucker for that. But that's me. Does it always work? No. But does anything always work. I doubt it. I am comfortable with it because while I trained, I had my share of horses that ran 2nd way to often. I even claimed some of them figuring, " I can make that horse win". And while I did get some of them to win sometimes, I found out that if a horse has seconditis, it is rarely a coincidence. They stop extending themselves at or near the lead. So I guess for me it was the theory of , if you can't beat em, join em. If they are going to hang, put them in that spot on the ticket and let em hang.
While this horse was not the classic hanging horse, it did run 2nd twelve times. Throwing it's last race out ( when they rear at the start more times than not, they are totally done), was a very legit thing to do.
Would I have used it 2nd to the winner? It would be unfair to assume that . I absolutely would have considered it based on the 12 seconds, but I just don't know what I ultimately would have done. Because of an odds on favorite and a scramble underneath for pace, and trip, passing the race all together would have had to cross my mind as well. There are to many races out there that can be more clearly defined IMO. When I stick to those types that I can get a solid handle on, I feel more comfortable in being able to map out a probable scenario that I am willing to invest in.
Great question. I hope I was of some help to you.

[dirtcapper]

Thanks I missed that 2nd place statistic. Also a good point about skipping the race if there is no clear speed, it seems in that case it becomes more like a quarterhorse race (with the break and bumps etc. deciding it). Maybe this horse is also one of those that like to place more than win. It seems to be an older horse that has raced a lot more than the others, maybe it's no longer as excited about winning.

[str]

Thanks I missed that 2nd place statistic. Also a good point about skipping the race if there is no clear speed, it seems in that case it becomes more like a quarterhorse race (with the break and bumps etc. deciding it). Maybe this horse is also one of those that like to place more than win. It seems to be an older horse that has raced a lot more than the others, maybe it's no longer as excited about winning.

Just to be clear,it's not about skipping the race because there is no clear speed. Sometimes that is fine. But in this case, the others were of equal speed and they were not very good. Sometimes no real clear speed can allow one horse to control the speed , rate and win easily. None of these seemed likely to do that. There was very little separation as to speed on paper IMO.
Older horses usually do not become hangers because of age. A horse that hangs badly usually picks that habit up fairly early on and never gets over it. There are a few things a trainer can try but more times than not, they won't change unless the distance changes the horses style drastically.

[sandyw123]

That is exactly what I was talking about. The horse merits being a long shot to win. But the 11 out of 17 in the 2 and 3 spots will catch players eyes as a long shot that has a chance to hit the board underneath in exotics.
Would I play him to win because of his high odds. Probably not, as he shows that he can't beat these types in most races. But would I use him underneath in an exacta or triple? Yes, unless I was sold on others strongly. If I chose to use 3 different horses 2nd or 3rd to a certain horse on top, I would want to see the exacta price with him 2nd , but if it was one of the highest exacta payouts compared to others, I would strongly consider it based on his propensity to finish 2nd . My guess is he will not be as long a shot underneath in exotics as you would normally see with a typical long shot, again, because he has done it several times before and people usually think alike in cases like this.
Check the prices and make sure that the payoff is adequate to the risk.
Best of luck.

And come on Grace Hall !!!

I just couldn't go with Tahoe Lake to win. He just didn't show that he could win a race like that. The field just seemed to deep to even put him in an exotic wager, so I just did an exacta with Point of Entry and Turbo Compressor. So much for that. I took Grace Hall in her race, because she just really seemed like the horse to beat, especially at the longer distance. What do you think happenned with her in that race?

[dirtcapper]

Just to be clear,it's not about skipping the race because there is no clear speed. Sometimes that is fine. But in this case, the others were of equal speed and they were not very good. Sometimes no real clear speed can allow one horse to control the speed , rate and win easily. None of these seemed likely to do that. There was very little separation as to speed on paper IMO.
Older horses usually do not become hangers because of age. A horse that hangs badly usually picks that habit up fairly early on and never gets over it. There are a few things a trainer can try but more times than not, they won't change unless the distance changes the horses style drastically.

Ok. I guess these type of races interest me as I'm looking into to the 'promising bum' angle, that could place in an exacta. I noticed that horse had the best recent 2nd call speed rating as well (except the winner and the scratches).

[str]

I just couldn't go with Tahoe Lake to win. He just didn't show that he could win a race like that. The field just seemed to deep to even put him in an exotic wager, so I just did an exacta with Point of Entry and Turbo Compressor. So much for that. I took Grace Hall in her race, because she just really seemed like the horse to beat, especially at the longer distance. What do you think happenned with her in that race?

Grace was very out of sync from the 3/8ths pole home.

It would be pure speculation to say what the problem was or is.

Feel real bad for Tony.

[str]

Ok. I guess these type of races interest me as I'm looking into to the 'promising bum' angle, that could place in an exacta. I noticed that horse had the best recent 2nd call speed rating as well (except the winner and the scratches).

Hey, nothing wrong with playing cheaper horses at minor tracks. It is a bit different than playing at a major track but nothing at all wrong with it IMO.

[sandyw123]

I have another question regarding Atigan, in the Travers. I looked at the past performance form, and saw that his last race wasn't very good. On his trip description to the right, it said that he was held hard; waited. Does that possibly mean he was held back too much by his jockey? Leparoux actually rode him well in his previous 2 races. particularly in the Belmont.
bw_pdf_viewer.pdf

[sandyw123]

Mike Smith will be riding Atigan now instead of Leparoux, which seems kind of interesting to me.

[jetsjets1028]

horse racing to figure out than dogs

[str]

I have another question regarding Atigan, in the Travers. I looked at the past performance form, and saw that his last race wasn't very good. On his trip description to the right, it said that he was held hard; waited. Does that possibly mean he was held back too much by his jockey? Leparoux actually rode him well in his previous 2 races. particularly in the Belmont.
bw_pdf_viewer.pdf

Thought I had the replay of this race in this thread but I do not. So, without seeing it, I want to make an overall observation and then a comment on what might or probably happened.

Hard held, waited.

When we see a comment like that what do we make of it? A couple of things.

1. The horse was working against the rider therefore expending energy at a relatively high rate. Bottom line is he got nothing out of being rated and expended as much energy as he would have if he had been allowed to be close up.

2. Why did this happen? I see 2 things that the replay would probably confirm. On his chart he was off of a layoff. Typically horses that will rate 4-6 lengths off the pace will want to show more speed 1st back and will settle much better in it's 2nd effort. They are typically more rank 1st off time. The 2nd thing I see is a 1/2 mile in 49 and change. That is walking and sometimes the horse knows it but the jockey does not realize it. The horse actually doesn't know it, but they know their pace and gate and when they are in rhythm and that comfortable rhythm probably has THEM running the first 1/2 in 49 and change or 50 flat and they can feel the difference. 3/5ths of a second might not feel like much but it is huge in terms of pace timing and a good jockey will definitely feel the difference.
So did the jockey hold him back to much? Well, he tried to ride the proper race but either misjudged the pace or the horse was rank or both. If you look at Antigun's form you will see that last time he was off time he laid several lengths closer in his 1st back. The time before off time he broke out at the start so any wanting to be closer early was thrown off by the horse being sharply corrected early and thrown off stride, thus being easier to settle back.

So they switch riders which might point to the trainer feeling as though Laparoux erred in his pace judgement. He probably did as they ran the last 1/8th of a mile pretty much as fast as they ran the first few 1/8ths of a mile. That is very frustrating to watch if indeed it was the jocks fault.
Probably a positive and 2nd of a short layoff is usually a prime spot to move forward.

[sandyw123]

It sounds like Leparoux did make a mistake in judgement. From what it looks like, he rode Atigun extremely well a couple of times, especially in the Belmont. Maybe he couldn't quite get a handle on him this last time, because he was reacting differently from being out the 1st time after his layoff. He might have done better next time, but the trainer maybe just didn't want to take that chance. Mike Smith isn't a bad choice for a replacement. Despite the recent knocks on him, I really think he's one of the better jockeys out there.

[Dark Horse]

str, I have a value question. In horse racing the odds add up to about 120%, and the payout is not 120%, but 100%. A negative playing field of -20%. Let's say there is a 9 horse race where one has a strong opinion that two 3-1 favorites will not race well. Provided that opinion is accurate, this would take 50% off the 120% (each 3-1 horse has a 25% chance to win), and the remaining 70% would then represent 100% of the payout spread out over 7 horses; changing the playing field from a -20% disadvantage to a +30% advantage to start out from.

Something as the above, if it could quickly scan over many races each day, would allow me to handicap races with value already build in (instead of handicapping any race and hoping to find some value). I could ask this is the think tank, but 'strictly math' guys will almost certainly tell me to bet every race with a 1% advantage. That's not realistic in terms of time needed for the handicapping process. Around the track, among the real horse people, who understand the pace of the game and the effect of late tote board changes, is there a generally agreed upon idea and number of what 'advantage percentage' to aim for? My gut tells me 20-30% (in the above example, by tossing out 40-50% worth in favorites), but I'd prefer a more accurate source.

[dirtcapper]

Would it be fair to say class drop after a win is always a red flag? Might be an angle in this Beyer age. I believe one needs to beat the Beyers more than anything else to find value nowadays.

[str]

str, I have a value question. In horse racing the odds add up to about 120%, and the payout is not 120%, but 100%. A negative playing field of -20%. Let's say there is a 9 horse race where one has a strong opinion that two 3-1 favorites will not race well. Provided that opinion is accurate, this would take 50% off the 120% (each 3-1 horse has a 25% chance to win), and the remaining 70% would then represent 100% of the payout spread out over 7 horses; changing the playing field from a -20% disadvantage to a +30% advantage to start out from.

Something as the above, if it could quickly scan over many races each day, would allow me to handicap races with value already build in (instead of handicapping any race and hoping to find some value). I could ask this is the think tank, but 'strictly math' guys will almost certainly tell me to bet every race with a 1% advantage. That's not realistic in terms of time needed for the handicapping process. Around the track, among the real horse people, who understand the pace of the game and the effect of late tote board changes, is there a generally agreed upon idea and number of what 'advantage percentage' to aim for? My gut tells me 20-30% (in the above example, by tossing out 40-50% worth in favorites), but I'd prefer a more accurate source.

I was never in a position to be a math type handicapper as a trainer. I get exactly what you are speaking to but not knowing from day to day exactly what I would be doing , at least not far enough in advance to become occupied with a handicapping position like that, I just never put that type method to work. Just did not have the time. IF I found time to look at races as a handicapper they were scattered about. So many times I would look at a race and maybe try to help my owners I was sitting with to see things but not bet myself. When I did bet, it was more restricted to when I knew I could throw out 70% or more, in other words, a complete no brainer type play. Because they did not happen very often , I would pass a ton of races. Remember, it was very secondary in my day to day thought process. If I saw a certain horse that I had seen before or something like that, I saw it days in advance when the overnight came out and made time to look at the race so even if I was busy, I would already be prepared to make a play and get back to my daily routine of marking legs and watching horses warming up.
If you are there every day for every race passing 99 and slamming 1 is no problem. That is pretty much how I did it. I could go weeks and weeks and not have the time to bet.
It's a good thought process but not needing to push it, I would always look for the ridiculous situation I guess. Lol.