Final 1/4 Times

[scoot rizut]

In Your TG Numbers how important is the way a horse finishes his last quarter of a mile? Do You Adjust Your Numbers if the pace was Legitimate and the final quarter time was under 25?

[TGJB]

The short answer to that is no. Thoro-Graph figures represent horses performances for the entire distance. The long answer involves exceptional situations (\"s.pace\" races), but the figure is still not based on how fast they ran just one part of the race.

[dannyboy135]

For what it is worth.  I think a horses last quarter fraction would be more useful than the race shapes which attempt to give us some idea about how the race will set up.  
Don\'t get me wrong I appreciate tg\'s attempt to evaluate pace but it just doesn\'t seem to work as well as it should.
I do think final quarter times would be more useful

[wipitoga]

The Race shape points out the real early speed more often than not. In discussions before races my friends with DRF pick early pace horses and I give  them the \"real\" ones. While nothing works 100% this tool is much more accurate. Many races start as the race shape so it helps in envisionng how a full race will play out from start to finish.

[Edgorman]

Just wondering.  The board has been very quiet.  And yes the racing has been great at GP.  Are any of you feeling beat up??  Like there is always one horse winning or placing that makes no sense on the sheets???  I admit to being bruised and battered and yet I feel I made great selections throughout the meet. Perhaps we should be looking for computer program to incorporate this \"randomness\"??

[P-Dub]

Edgorman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering.  The board has been very quiet.
> And yes the racing has been great at GP.  Are any
> of you feeling beat up??  Like there is always one
> horse winning or placing that makes no sense on
> the sheets???  I admit to being bruised and
> battered and yet I feel I made great selections
> throughout the meet. Perhaps we should be looking
> for computer program to incorporate this
> \"randomness\"??

Randomness is inherent in any form of gambling. The way to combat that is by making sure you are getting the best of the odds. Its tough to beat this game with a steady diet of $8 horses, yet I see people do backflips after hitting one. \"Wow, what a gift\" they say. What they don\'t tell you is the many \"gifts\" that weren\'t.

What some may see as randomness, others may see as opportunity. I\'ve hit long shots that my friends just shake their heads at. I was lucky, how on earth could you play THAT horse, etc... I\'ve hit horses that looked hopeless on TG sheets. TG users will hit a horse that others will say....how did you get that one???

With the abundance of handicapping material, its important for each person to use what they are most comfortable with. Some can\'t bet a race unless they have TG, others need to have some type of PPs. I use a product that incorporates different ratings, as well as various trainer angles. Your randomness is my solid overlay. Its all relative. Poker players don\'t change the way they play because they lost on the river to a 2 outer. Neither should horse players.

I don\'t think a computer program is the answer to combat randomness.  For me, the way to deal with randomness is to make sure that I get paid when I am right. It may be something altogether different for others. If you continue to make solid wagers, continue to bet overlays and not bet horses at any price just because you like them, the randomness should work itself out over the long run.

[fjmb]

I agree, GP can be difficult. I\'ve learned a few lessons from this meet:  1. The Woodbine jockeys suck, how Patrick Husbands is 22% on the turf amazes me and Luis Contreras blows. 2. Don\'t bet Luis Saez on the turf, he\'s a great dirt rider.  3. Bet Joe Rocco, Jr. on the turf.  Good Luck!!

[miff]

Hi Paul,

Glad to hear you are holding your own, that is a great accomplishment,especially for a pure long shot player.After studying most of the \"math\" ways of trying to beat the game, it is obvious that a \"pure\" longshot methodology, filtered or not, is the least likely to produce profits over the long term. The reason for that is simply because long-shots underperform against their mathematical probability at a much lower strike rate than shorter priced horses perform against theirs.

Onerous takeout and the ubiquitous racing X factor are the 800 pound gorillas which cause most players to come up on the minus side over the long term.

As for Gulfstream, lots of claiming turf races featuring large fields(with rails placed all over the course) is very challenging to say the least.Seems
Woodbine horses, trainers,jockeys underperform vs their norm whenever they ship to the US.


Mike

[P-Dub]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Paul,
>
> Glad to hear you are holding your own, that is a
> great accomplishment,especially for a pure long
> shot player.After studying most of the \"math\" ways
> of trying to beat the game, it is obvious that a
> \"pure\" longshot methodology, filtered or not, is
> the least likely to produce profits over the long
> term. The reason for that is simply because
> long-shots underperform against their mathematical
> probability at a much lower strike rate than
> shorter priced horses perform against theirs.
>
> Onerous takeout and the ubiquitous racing X factor
> are the 800 pound gorillas which cause most
> players to come up on the minus side over the long
> term.
>
> As for Gulfstream, lots of claiming turf races
> featuring large fields(with rails placed all over
> the course) is very challenging to say the
> least.Seems
> Woodbine horses, trainers,jockeys underperform vs
> their norm whenever they ship to the US.
>
>
> Mike

How ya doing Mike??

When I say long shots, I\'m not betting on hopeless 25-1 shots. I will play 4,5/1 shots, but my minimum is around 7/1. On average, I agree that they underperform. The key is filtering those long shots, which makes a subset of those long shots profitable. You say \"filtering or not\". Can\'t you say the same thing about lower priced horses?? There can only be 1 winner per race, which means plenty of lower priced horses lose too.

As for lower priced horses, while they win more often, unless you are able to consistently identify those horses that win at these shorter prices then you have the same problem.

It is because of this \"X\" factor that makes taking short priced horses a tough proposition. Hitting bigger win mutuels helps keep my bankroll in play. My main source of profits come from tri/supers and serial bets, where hitting price horses exponentially increases their value in these bets. I\'ve hit more than a few large dime supers, at a cost of $2.40, that have paid 4 figures. I can\'t get those prices keying a 3/1 shot.

I\'m not disputing your findings, you are much more experienced and accomplished than I am. I guess each person has their own way of being successful. This has always been nothing more than a hobby, and losing a certain amount every year was the cost of my hobby. However, its more fun to win and I had to change my paradigm in order to do this. For me, it was being more selective and taking a shot with longer priced horses.  Yes, they hit less often but overall they have changed my bottom line.

We are flying to Kauai tomorrow morning, and my wife like flying First Class. I offered to upgrade one year, and I created a monster. She\'s not a fan of gambling until I pay for something....like plane tickets...out of winnings.  Reminds me of Jay Trotter...\"after all these years its not my gambling you hate, its the Losing!\".  I am missing the Big Cap next weekend for the first time in 20 years. The things you do for your wife, huh??  I have to take her to Kauai.

Have a great weekend, best of luck to all.

[miff]

\"I\'m not disputing your findings\"

Hey Paul,

I did not compile the data, just studied it.The most recent data shows a very peculiar change over the last 7 years or so. There are less monster type long shots, odds wise, running currently than years back. Seems any slug with 4 legs takes some money these days.

Aloha!

Mike

[P-Dub]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"I\'m not disputing your findings\"
>
> Hey Paul,
>
> I did not compile the data, just studied it.The
> most recent data shows a very peculiar change over
> the last 7 years or so. There are less monster
> type long shots, odds wise, running currently than
> years back. Seems any slug with 4 legs takes some
> money these days.
>
> Aloha!
>
> Mike


More information, more accessible information?? I think the internet has helped horse players, as well as sports handicappers, gain access to more information making for more informed players.

[Boscar Obarra]

All true, but in a parimutuel game, it\'s proprietary information that\'s valuable, not just information.

 Unless you think you now have information that you personally can interpret better than the masses (very possible),  in many ways  it\'s a wash.

[P-Dub]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All true, but in a parimutuel game, it\'s
> proprietary information that\'s valuable, not just
> information.
>
>  Unless you think you now have information that
> you personally can interpret better than the
> masses (very possible),  in many ways  it\'s a
> wash.

I think thats key in any sport you wager on, interpreting data in a more efficient way than others.

What type of information would you categorize as proprietary??

[Boscar Obarra]

> What type of information would you categorize as
> proprietary??


 Anything the guy next to you doesn\'t know and isn\'t published.

[P-Dub]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > What type of information would you categorize
> as
> > proprietary??
>
>
>  Anything the guy next to you doesn\'t know and
> isn\'t published.

I\'m sure there are instances where people know \"stuff\".

Interpreting data better than others is also an important part of pari mutuel wagering. I only worry about things I can control, and proprietary info is something I can\'t. Interpreting data is something I can.