Let\'s start with the second question--the figure-based trainer table. Frankly we made that page,initially, to explain what the stats were and how they were derived. And we, I , have just left it in. But if you look at the page prior to this there\'s an updated averages table which follows an explanation. I\'m going to delete the page to which you refer, it\'s redundant and outdated.
As regards your first question you ask the same questions--what figures are the horses\' running? Is the pattern positive? negative? neutral? What\'ll it take to win? How will the conditions affect the efforts? Given the figure projections and probabilities, does the morning line and prospective odds makes horse A, B, or C a bet? Or is there no bet to be had?
The questions don\'t change but one\'s ability to answer them vis-a-vis a horse\'s likely chances and betting viability changes given the amount of information you have at hand. In a race among live participants the unforseen can always occur thus there is always randomness but to the extent that you can observe a horse\'s form and pattern you can get a better, more certain fix on its talent level and how it fits in a race given the conditions.
Now, Stephen\'s Got Hope has only two data points, not much to go on. But we do know that he\'s slow relative to the others. We don\'t know if his second effort, a bounce, was the result of trouble, the initial effort, and/or short rest, all three or something else as well, maybe the change in stable. But based on what we do know he has to improve a good deal and a lot more horses run 8\'s as opposed to 4\'s. The rail helps as does the light impost. But what\'s the chance he runs say a 4 to 4-1/2, probably the figure he\'ll need to be competitive? 10%? 5%? And if he runs it what are his winning chances? Multiply the two and turn it into odds and that\'s what his chances are--say 10% and 30% that equals 3% which is roughly 33-1. Does Stephen\'s Got Hope have a chance? Absolutely. But even at 20-1 he figures to be an underlay to win and doesn\'t merit a serious win bet. Now his chances to finish two through four are greater, obviously, the return with him in there up to some point may justify a play. Remember, even in stakes races, among higher quality horses of which consistency is one major criterion that defines its quality, the horses don\'t all run their best. Frankly that hardly ever occurs. Randomness will play a greater role trying to fill out the minor positions.
You need a good reason, a sound rationale backed by a fair price to play a horse, which takes into account the degrees of randomness involved.
