|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
12-14-2012, 09:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Those two I should be able to fool around with.
Beaten lengths can be greatly exaggerated on wet tracks and some horses will become rank or just want to stop once they get slop in their face ... so I think it's possible that is a situation that can produce a lot of form reversals in their next race. How much value there is from a generic sense ... I wouldn't be able to guess. Dominguez has been a pet jockey of mine since the late 90's. I've broken him down every which way. His true strength is with turf routes, and any variation of odds I expect will show that. 
|
|
#2
12-14-2012, 09:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
speed n fade in debut, along with a drop in class or surface switch to breeding ie turf horse.,first lasix and premier jock on. the perfect storm of angles imo
|
|
#3
12-14-2012, 10:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Lets say the speed and fade came in a slow paced race and they're dropping in class but entered in a race with more early speed? I know that's usually not the case, but if it was, the more determental pace scenario would undermine this badly. A lot of the big form reversals with class dropping speed and fade maidens are because they're usually dropping from much faster paced races into spots where they can secure a clear early lead without being sent and dueling under pressure. I am a big fan of horses who switch from breeding weakness to breeding strength for the first time ... but something like that is subjective. First lasix usually helps...but I'm not sure how much value it has. The jockey switch to a higher percentage rider is something I doubt would have value in a generic sense.
|
|
#5
12-14-2012, 10:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For instance, Scott Lake was always a fantastic bet against with routers and stretch-outs. Simply, his training methods obviously didn't suit them. When Lake took speed and fade sprinters from below avg trainers, he was a true magician. But that angle only had great value for so long.
|
|
#6
12-14-2012, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Take graded stakes out of the equation, but when a jock shows up at a track for only one mount. (for example if a Parx jockey came to Monmouth to ride one race with an allowance/higher claimer horse he won with last out at Parx)
There wouldn't be numbers to back somethig like this up. Besides I think it only works at smaller tracks.
__________________
Felix Unger talking to Oscar Madison: "Your horse could finish third by 20 lengths and they still pay you? And you have been losing money for all these years?!"
|
|
#7
12-14-2012, 04:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A second time starter who was bet first out and ran poorly.
|
|
#8
12-14-2012, 10:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
your right that was a bit unfair.the problem is the data is at the bottom of the drf pps..or tgs for all to see.trainer intention really is the ultimate angle.some of them do the same thing over and over with alot of success.imo
|
|
#9
12-14-2012, 10:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would think that having a strong handle on any previous track biases (pro and con), would yield a very generous edge next time out. Obviously there would be no numbers to back this up.
__________________
Felix Unger talking to Oscar Madison: "Your horse could finish third by 20 lengths and they still pay you? And you have been losing money for all these years?!"
|
|
#10
12-14-2012, 10:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Especially if your careful and conservative when it comes to your standards of labeling a bias.
|
Hybrid Mode
