The Value of leading at the 1st call on dirt

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I know you know this is a skewed stat to the point where it's meaningless.

skewed by what?

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

skewed by what?

Your stat is saying that it's more profitable to bet the lead horse in a race than bet every other horse. Well. . . duh.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Your stat is saying that it's more profitable to bet the lead horse in a race than bet every other horse. Well. . . duh.

I'm not debating that it's helpful showing the value of a horse on the lead, but to compare it to the stat that incorporates every other horse not on the lead is worthless.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Your stat is saying that it's more profitable to bet the lead horse in a race than bet every other horse. Well. . . duh.

The stat simply shows the great value of leading at the first call.

I think if you polled jockeys, trainers, and other bettors - they would greatly underestimate the value of leading at the first call.

20,564 horses led by 2 to 2.75 lengths - of those 34.5% won at an impossible ROI of $3.85 ... when a horse is easily capable of establishing such an advantage ... it is a mistake not to.

[hockey2315]

I'm with you 100%. . . The first thing I do now is look for pace fig edges.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I'm with you 100%. . . The first thing I do now is look for pace fig edges.

Yeah - If I'm hunting at the cheaper tracks - the first thing I always look for is need-the-lead horses who've been getting denied the lead and fried .. but have such an extreme pace figure edge - that they're sure to be loose today. It's a great angle.