| Using Ability-X Ratings III | |
| Start it simple, keep it simple... it's just a game. | |
| Let the ratings show the way and remember that the hard work is already done when you are working with Ability-X ratings. No matter how much experience you have with handicapping horse races, these ratings will replace most of the work for you. What you have in the Ability-X rating is a horses ability to run from gate to wire, expressed as a simple number. While there are some factors that impact these ratings, the rating itself carries the most weight. That is so because the rating is very accurate, and when analyzed with respect to the ratings of the other horses in any given race, it is the best true measure of ability ever applied to the sport. It makes simplicity possible at the race track, but don't let that fact cause you to think that Ability-X ratings are any less comprehensive. The Ability-X rating is also more comprehensive then any method and/or computer program that has ever been applied to this sport. It may take some time before you agree with that statement, but, the ratings will take you to that point, if you want to go that far. There is no factor, element, or criteria that is significant as an indicator of results today, that is missing from the Ability-x chart. The more you learn about horse racing, the more you will see that this is true. Another truth is that you can learn the most truth about racing through the use of Ability-X ratings. You can also learn how limited the discipline of past performance handicapping is in teaching, or bringing you to know these things. If you are a past performance handicapper, if not, congratulations... you will have a vast headstart in understanding the sport of thoroughbred horse racing. Simplicity will be the start, and that simplicity will always operate to keep you on track as you find that simplicity will again explain what complexity will not. So, I will point this Ebook at the beginner, as I explain to those with experience that you might have to be willing to start over in your beliefs, if you want to learn what makes horse racing go. Of course, I realize, experienced or beginner with the sport of horseracing, will both be beginners with Ability-X ratings, and some that are new to the sport will enjoy keeping it as an entertaining hobby. Either party will be able to take their interest as far as desired with Ability-X ratings. No matter where you wish to fit in as a fan of horseracing the ratings will always help you by keeping winning as simple as it can be. It may take a few days of working with them to have confidence in them. But, you will quickly see that they are a very accurate reflection of any horses race today. While they are constructed from past performances, you can depend on seeing a performance today that matches the rating. For the new fan, that does not want to learn about handicapping, you will find that the ratings can be all that you need to logically pick a winner at any racetrack. You will be able to wager with confidence knowing that a bet on ability is always a good bet when you know what the abilities are. Adjustments have been made for distance and surface is not a factor that has any great effect. The minor differences in surfaces will be reflected in the ratings themselves so that you do not need to make any assumptions, or take any guesses as to what effect the surface has on the outcome. All of the horses in today's race will run on today's surface. You will soon see that differing surfaces do not produce widely differing results.. This is one of the things that these ratings will teach you, if you keep it simple and recap the day with the result charts. You will soon see horse racing in a light that will make sense to you, and the results will make sense also. As they teach you to understand the ratings better as you go. Comparing how the race was run with how you expected it to go, is the fastest way to learn what is actually happening on the track and how the horses are really running. You won't need to blame anything on a mythical "bias" or throw up your hands in confusion, the results will make sense and point out any simple things that you simply overlooked. Don't worry about making mistakes, you will quickly see that every race is an opportunity for you. Stay loose and always keep it simple and basic, let the ratings do the work.
|
|
| Handicapping, the road to confusion | |
| Probably the biggest trap at any horsetrack, is the idea that a little more handicapping or complexity will get the job done. Just that one last secret that you have to uncover, one more missing calculation. Try to resist. Keep in mind that every other handicapper is in the ditch alongside this road at some point. The reason for this, again is quite simple. The thing that you go into the past performances for is a measurement of ability. For all that can be found in past performances, this one vital thing is still missing. Sure, you will get speed ratings, pace ratings, and various performance ratings. All of these have one shortcoming. They do not reflect a horse's actual ability to run, and they actually measure "good" past performances as good, better, and best. They can not measure "bad" past performances at all, so the "bad" past performance is dismissed. With no measurement of the ability contained. A horse can not run around the track without revealing its basic ability. The past performance handicapper is trained to prefer better past performances over any others, and often will be hypnotized by what is recognized as a "good" last race, while being unable to recognize anything "good" in a "bad" last race. Beyond that, the discipline of handicapping teaches the bettor an exclusive perspective that does not recognize that there are likely several horses starting in today's race that have the ability to win. If the handicapper were aware of the abilities, he/she would be on more solid ground for determining wagering probabilities and possibilities. The basic concept behind the art or science of handicapping is that there is one "best" horse in the race, and past performance analysis will reveal it more often then not. The 32% win rate for the favorite is testament to the slippery standing of this idea. The final reason for not getting too involved in handicapping is that the favorite is usually the one horse with the "best" past performances, and further study is unlikely to reveal ability in any way that you can actually use. The object of past performance handicapping is to give you an edge and enable you to bet with confidence. Since everyone is doing it pretty much the same way, it is unlikely that you will get any edge, if ability is still an unknown. If ability is an unknown, you can not bet with confidence. You go in for ability, you come out stuck with a very positive image in mind for a horse whose best performance is past. If that sentence does not strike a chord with you now, highlight it, so that you can come back and go over it after you have a little experience. It is too easy to get lost in the variables, and you simply do not get sound measurements of anything in the form. Many factors that handicappers hang their hats and bet their money on are actually insignificant to the results. Past performances are past performances, they are good for indications, when you work within those limits, the picture of the race today can become more clear. Instead of muddled and confusing. The age old question of handicapping is whether the horse that won last out is actually better then the one that was third last out. Then, is winning at $50,000 claiming, better then third at $60,000 claiming? Without some accurate measurement of each performance, one can only wonder, and perhaps take a shot while waiting for the results. Whether you are a beginner, a casual race fan, or a veritable fixture at the local track, Ability-X ratings will save you the time and confusion of trying to pry ability from past performances. Leaving your mind fresh and clear to consider all of the other-sub factors involved in predicting a solid performance today. You will find that ability is the only thing that you need, when the intention is to consider only those factors that will impact results today.
|
|
| Replacing Confusion With a Number | |
| It has long been a dream of many, and while it seems impossible, those that have walked off from the task may have left a little too soon. Ability-X is simply a number that accurately reflects a horses ability to run the distance. Nothing more, nothing less. With this rating you are replacing all of the inaccurate measurements like class, time, speed, and pace. While all of these might be given consideration along with Ability-X ratings, you need not attempt to measure them. Just consider them in light of ability. The one that will fall apart most frequently, is class. Class is a notion of ability, Ability-X is the ability. After a few weeks of using the ratings, you will see that "class" is ability. When one of the better horses wins dependably, you will know that it was because of ability, not some mystery of hidden or un-measurable class. With that in mind, let's take a look at a couple of races to see if the notion of class really enters into it so much. Because if it doesn't, that is one less thing you've got playing with your head while you are trying to pick a winner. The sixth race at Churchill Downs on Saturday November 10, 2007 was a 5.5fD event for $25,000 claimers. It was a full field, and a competitive race. From the class level perspective, it would be tricky to measure ability here, since the distance is very short, and it is a 2YO event. Most of the entrants are not really established at any class level. But they have run around the track a few times so we do have Ability to look at, and that is always the initial question to answer. The answer to that question can provide answers to many more. Considering ability is the best way to simply cut-to-the-chase in horseracing. Many other factors just don't make enough difference. The number on the left is the Ability-X rating, the next number left to right is post position, then early speed, morning line (ML) odds, and a composite number that does have its uses. I like to highlight the first 4 lowest ML, because this group is already rated by handicapping criteria, and they will consistently win 70% of all races. Considering their abilities for this race can be a big help in developing an accurate picture of how this race will go generally. Any beginner can easily do this, and doing so will enable anyone to see the handicappers perspective expressed in the resulting ML without knowing a thing about handicapping. You get the benefit of gaining the handicapper's perspective, without risking any of the pitfalls of analyzing past performances. 6th - 5.5fD #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 361 11
98 3 459 An example of how this works in practice would be to consider the fact that the (ML) favorite consistently wins 32% of the races, and will come in second another 18% of the time. In considering the handicapper perspective this way, you put to use the accuracy and consistency of handicapping while you are able to expand its limits, without getting caught up in it. Let's consider what the ability rating can tell us about the ML 3-1 favorite for this race, #11. 361 11 98 3 459 We know that this is the favorite because it is the lowest ML odds horse. We can see that this horse will be fairly far outside in a short distance, 5.5f race, but the rating actually tells us very little until we compare it with the other horses in this race. Which we will do. But first, we want to bring into mind everything that the handicapper's perspective can tell us about this horse. First, that perspective, and those criteria have made this horse the favorite by comparing past performances for this horse to all of the others. The person that did this, is quite good. We know that because that person is correct in this assessment 32% of the time and we are dealing with horse races. That is about as good as it gets. It is the best we can get, and it is a great help, because by using this expert input, we can avoid the influence of past performances ourselves. By doing this we are now able to recognize this horse as the "best" horse by past performance criteria, while we can remain open-minded to compare the ability of this horse as a benchmark of ability for this race. An expert has crunched the information, and decided that this horse is the one to beat here. Now, this information basically allows us to pull up even with all of the handicapping competition, what we will now do is use an accurate measure of ability to gain a better picture of the race for betting purposes, so that we may be able to pull out ahead of that competition at the windows. The road is now wide open for us to compare on the basis of ability, and make a logical and intelligent bet here. If this horse shows us that it has the best ability, we may bet it confidently, or we may find that another horse has more or better ability for this race, and intelligently decide to bet that horse instead. Let's do some comparing. 6th - 5.5fD #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 361 11
98 3 459 As we begin to compare the horses on the basis of ability, the first comparison should always be to compare the ML favorite's rating to the average winner's par for this distance. That will tell us a little more about the favorite here. Par for 5.5f is 330/97. You will find the complete list of these pars at the back of this Ebook. By comparing the ML favorite, to the average winner's par for this distance, we can get a feel for what kind of ability will be needed to win this race in general, how the favorite stacks up to that (weak or strong). And, we can also get a reasonable idea of the class level of this race and the level of competition for today. All of that, can be done by simple comparison with a touch of common sense analysis, based on what we do know to this point. The ML favorite, #11 has an ability rating of 361, and that was produced with an Early Speed rating of 98, so, for the horse to beat, we have 361/98. So far, just some numbers, comparing to the average winner's par starts to give meaning. That par, is 330/97. At this point, you need a general understanding of what the numbers mean, so that you can work that into specifics for today's race.
With all of this in mind, as background, I'll now talk about what the pars can begin to tell you about a particular distance, as you compare the favorites to them, and then the other horses in a particular race to those favorites. It may sound complex now, but as you learn to let the ratings tell you the story, all of the above will make more sense to you. You will also see that all of this background information will run through your head in the time it takes to glance at the ratings and mentally compare them. As you work from generalities to specifics, a better feel for the race will soak in over time, as you practice by going over results charts to see what you missed before post time, you will learn to catch more and more before post time. As you do that remember that the "run" number does actually reflect the horses run, there is a fluid quality to it. Par says, what? The Par itself, tells you generally, what kind of run usually wins this distance. Here, par for 5.5f is 330/97. We would be looking for a horse with this type of rating coming into this race. The ES of 97 is not record breaking, it is on the high side of average. The same for 6f 320/97, but as you can see, the 5.5f par is a bit higher on the run side. The reason for this is because at the shorter distance, the horse needs to last less, and run more through the stretch. In general. A horse that can do that well, would have an edge. You would use this same par for 5.5f races throughout the class range, and you will be able to tell the class level of the race by comparison of the entrants to this par. You might see very high class horses display numbers at this distance more like 310/101. Run/ES sets like that for several horses will tell you that you are looking at a high class level, the horses run well, at higher speeds. With comparison of the favorite, #11 at, 361/98 to the 5.5f par, at 330/97, similarity can be seen, to bring #11 down to the same ES of 97, the run rating would also go down to 341, which is just above the par. Close enough that it could be taken as showing "run" in the stretch as opposed to tiring. Or, even if it were taken as some tiring, it may be from a 6f last. This could also be considered in order to make a determination. I prefer to do more comparisons before looking at anything else such as any PP information. For now, I would determine that this favorite is at least sound for today's race and now the question would be whether there is stiff competition for the win.There is one more element that we will consider in comparisons with other contenders. That would be whether or not the favorite is likely to have maxed out in ability on the last race. Now as you review the whole list with all of this background in mind, you can quickly and easily see that there are 8 horses in this race that have ratings lower then the favorite. That is competitive, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ML choices are also lower then the Fav., #11. This level of competition will probably be bad news for #11, along with the far outside post. As we work down the list we can see a virtual grab bag of contenders down the #10. #3 is the lowest rating, but also the lowest ES, and likely the flatest run in the stretch from a position no better then midpack. 361 11
98 3 459 By working our way up the ratings starting at #10, by adding 20 points to the rating for each point higher ES to compare as we go, #10 would become 354 by stepping up to 93 ES, that gives it to #6, who is 2 points lower. Then #5, at 93 ES is 10 points lower in "run" at 342. Which we would bring up to 362 to compare with #2 at 94 ES. #2 wins out at 345/94, with #4 virtually tied at 346/94. #9 then joins that group with 344/98. All three of these would cause the favorite to look fairly weak. We can also re-consider the rating for the favorite, and perhaps conclude that while it does reflect the higher degree of "run" that we would want to see at this distance, in comparison to #2, #4, and #9, we can conclude that it also reflects a higher degree of tiring. By coupling that conclusion with the fact that #11 is the favorite, we might also safely conclude that this last race was a maximum effort for this horse. Being the favorite, it would be a given that its PP's would be very positive. Those kind of PP's come from maximum efforts. So we have #2, #4, and #9 as contenders on ability with only 1 point in "run" rating between them. This is an accurate look at the typical race, and you might start to get the idea after awhile, that which one you might bet to win, will usually be a matter of how you see horse racing. Or, what kind of horse you like to bet. I'll expand on this with later examples, but for now I just wanted to point out that Ability-X ratings will show you exactly how competitive a given race will be. When you understand this, you can see that it will help you to make wagering decisions that you can live with. Because you know the risk you are taking. Three solid contenders, and you want to bet one to win. That will always be up to you, and can be a problem because you want to make the right choice consistently. For myself, I would usually always take the medium odds for #4. you might like the speed of #9, and the 15 - 1 odds. Or you might take the #2, because some of the handicappers also like that one. One big reason that I would land on #4, is that the 8-1 ML odds tell me that by past performance criteria, most handicappers believe that this horse is not ready to win yet, although the basic ability is recognized. If we analyze the handicapper's point of view through the ML odds, it might look like this: Considering the ML for the 4 horses that we see as having the ability to win, you can see that the handicappers generally see the #11 as the likely winner with the ML at 3-1. The #2 is seen as fourth most likely at 5-1 ML. The #4 is seen as the sixth most likely winner with the ML at 8-1. And, lastly, the #9 is seen by the handicapper as the eighth, most likely to win horse, in a 12 horse field. With the #4, I feel that I am recognizing more fully, what the handicapper only has an inkling of. Since I am able to see an accurate picture of the abilities. I am able to see that 4 horses have a relatively equal chance of winning here. This is a much different perspective then that with which the past performance handicapper is looking through. For the most part, the past performance handicapper is looking for the "best" horse with the criteria that is used being past performances. From the differing perspective of ability, I simple want to know which horses can win. From that, I am able to make a choice that I am comfortable with, and feel that I am always making a good bet. The past performance handicapper may be limited in vision by the narrow perspective of "best" horse. Where my perspective can include his, and be properly broadened by an accurate measure of ability. Where he may be limited in selection possibilities between the #11 and the #2, I can "see" the same reasoning within my perspective, and that broadened perspective can both allow, and motivate me to make a selection that is outside of his scope. In the #4, or #9, or both, or all. This is the additional latitude that you gain by having an accurate measure of ability. The easiest way to apply this latitude to this particular race would be to bet #4 to win because #4 is the the spot where the perspective of ability and the perspective of "best" horse intersect well. The ability is there, and the past performances are likely to be neutral, as indicated by the 8-1 ML. The #9 might also qualify for a bet, within the same scope, but, not a win bet. Place, or Show might make more sense because while the ability is there also for #9, the 15-1 ML tells you that there is something negative in the PP's for #9. While the past performance handicapper is rarely specifically correct, he is quite accurate in general. What is missing from the discipline of handicapping is the accurate measure of ability that you have in Ability-X ratings. Using it to fill in the gaps of handicapping should direct you to a best bet within your own developing perspective. There really isn't a right answer, as is suggested by most forms of past performance handicapping. Many might climb into the jungle of the past performances to look for one, but they all could be called good bets, since they have an equal chance to win, and most bettors will be betting the favorite. You might bet 2 of them to place, remember that it all comes down to your style. If you don't have one yet, it will soon develop as you gain experience, because with Ability-X ratings, you are starting with an edge. # Horse
Wgt
PP St 1/4 3/8
Str Fin Jockey Odds Allow the results to teach you what they can, and your own individual knowledge will be shaped by reality, instead of supposed to be. Don't blow any blood vessels trying to figure out the pace. The reason that I say this, is because the pace of any race is a product of the abilities of the contestants. It works like this. A pace handicapper believes that a horse will run with a particular style, and that style will help or hinder depending on the styles of the competition. Two or three frontrunners are supposed to knock each other out, and the closer wins. One single frontrunner will go all the way because he was unchallenged, or the closer won because there was no speed up front. And, so on, and so on. What actually happens is that the horses will run with a style according to their ability and the ability of the competition to run the distance, depending on the distance and the post position of any particular horse. You will probably observe that distance will dictate the pace to a larger degree then the horses that are competing. The horses will usually run any particular distance in accordance to their individual abilities. If one horse with overwhelming early speed is in post #1 and the distance is 6f or shorter, that horse may have an easy lead, the easy lead will enable him to run well through the stretch also. If the same horse is at post #10, with two half speedy horses inside at #2, #3, he will have to use every bit of early speed just to get a good position at the head of the stretch. If the big closer is in the #1 spot, he will jog to the stretch, and pass everybody to the wire. Unless, the speedball doesn't use his early ability to get a good position and just sits back alongside the closer. Ability will dictate the style for the most part, when the effort to win is being made. Remember, the horse running 10 lengths back is running just as fast as the lead horse to stay within 10 lengths. That is the entire flaw in speed and pace handicapping. The horse in front is seen as working harder, maybe so, maybe not. If we look only at overall ability first, we can get a good idea of what we are asking of any particular horse in the race. With a decision to bet here, at this point, you will have a good and well founded idea of what you are betting on. Which is a great thing, because there is nothing better then being able to bet, or not bet, with comfort. Without any more consideration, if you decided to bet #3 in the above example, because he has the best overall rating, you know that you are betting the slowest horse in the race with the idea that a steady, measured run may catch the leaders at the wire. And, you might be onto something thinking that the #3 is closer inside then the early runners. But, this is where the actual analysis lies here. Simple, basic, but very effective when you are looking at ability, and then considering some other factors. This is why I say, don't blow a blood vessel trying to figure the likely pace. With overall ability in hand, the question of pace is much easier to deal with. If a horse can conserve on the front end, that will add to ability on the back end. Simple, basic, and very consistent with how horses actually run. The analysis can be even lighter then this when you have an accurate line on ability to start with. Very often, you will see that the horse with the better ability will run a steady even race as opposed to running early or running late. As the results re-enforce your pre-race thinking, your pre-race thinking will get in better tune with the results. As you gain experience, you will see similar ratings consistently winning at particular distances. Take this in and let it speak to you, you will find yourself seeing the winner more and more just from the ratings. You will also see how competitive the races actually are, and you will develop a feel for when and where particular abilities have a distinct advantage. The results will consistently verify that horses will run to their ability. To learn the ratings quickly, always take 5 minutes to look at the result chart. It will help you immensely, when working with Ability-X ratings, by re-enforcement of your pre-race thinking. If your pre-race thinking is off-track, this exercise will quickly help to correct it. You will find almost no mysteries in the results charts. You will also see that keeping it simple, and sticking with fundamentals works best in making betting decisions. Before I move on to other distances, I'd like to give an example of the consistency that the ratings will show over time. The example above is from the sixth race at Churchill Downs on Saturday November 10, 2007, 5.5fD. Below is an example from today, it is the fourth race at Churchill Downs on Saturday November 15, 2008, also at 5.5fD. 4th - 5.5fD #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 439 6 98
30 537 The ratings themselves are a little higher, but the race is very similar in that you have two that are 1 point lower then the favorite, and all three hit the board. This pattern continues to repeat over and over as the ratings consistently reflect a horses run.
|
|
| The Effect of Distance | |
| Let's take a look at some longer distances, and maybe a high class type of race too. The fourth race at Churchill Downs on Sunday November 11, 2007 was an Allowance race at 8fDirt, with a purse of $50,000. At first glance, it looks like another business as usual race for the first couple of choices. With only 7 entrants, it seems doubtful that there would be any hope for an upset winner here. Until you look at the ability for those entrants. We can start by comparing the favorite #5 to the average winner's par for the distance - 200/90. #5 seems to be the only one that is over par. 10th - 8fD #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 183 6 99
4 282 It doesn't take much study at all to see that #4 sticks out quite a bit here on ability. His early speed, is right in the middle, which is where we'd like it to be when going a longer distance. And, just one point higher then par, while the "run" rating is quite low, without being unreasonably low. While early speed is always an impact factor, high early speed has less impact as the distance gets longer. You will get the best judgement of ES by comparing it with par, but it can go up considering the class level. The par is an average. For a wagering decision here, this race can be seen from many perspectives, but #4 offers a great opportunity to employ my favorite perspective. #4 would appear to have a great advantage in ability here, and the 15-1 ML odds warrant a bet on that basis. Since none of the other choices are even close to #4 in ability, this is the type of mis-match you always hope to run across. When you do, take it. These don't come along every race, but you won't be waiting long for the next one either. Handicappers work from past performances and you are working from ability. At 15-1 you don't need a high percentage. # Horse Wgt PP St 1/4 3/8 Str Fin Jockey Odds 4 Rockdundo
120 4
3 1-1/2 2-1 2-1/2
1-1 1hd Lanerie 13.20 The results show that #4 controlled the pace, fighting off a brief challenge from #3, with the outside contenders doing as well as they could. As you check the results charts, you will find that usually the horse with the better ability will run the race in the most advantageous way for a win. The better ability horse has that latitude, don't assume that a horse will run according to a style. The safer assumption will be that a horse will run according to ability, with condition today impacting that. Here is a recent example that also shows that the low rating can be a no-brainer. The par for this distance is 100/90, and the favorite #6 is a little above that. #3 wins on the strength of just 3 points less then #4. 8th - 8.5fD Hollywood Park - 11/13/08 #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 135 8
94 6 229 As you work with Ability-X ratings, you will see that your analysis will always come back to basics, the ratings will confirm and re-enforce this. You will see that the lower numbers do reflect the greater ability. But, don't let the lower numbers hypnotize you. Quite often, you will see the low numbers lose to horses with ratings a little higher. If these ratings were earned with much faster ES, equalize the low rating up to that ES by adding 20 points to the rating for each 1 in ES. The face value higher rating may turn out very low in comparison, then compare to par to see if the faster higher rated horse is in line with that par. A horse like this can have a great deal of latitude in the running of the race, and often that does not show up well in PP's either. Here is a recent example from Keeneland 10/17/08. Par for this one is 100/85. 6th - 8fTurf #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 98 4 95 30
193 4 Cure for Sale (ARG)
124.80 38.20 11.20 You get to looking at ratings lower then the favorite, #3, those low ratings that you would think about are #9, and maybe some consideration for the faster #7. Then #4 comes thundering in at $124 and you realize that it is under par, and much faster off of last. Blowing these will teach you to look carefully at a competitive race like this. With experience, that rating of 98/95 can jump out at you. But, to understand how this rating can be recognized as the "low" rating for this race, I will again show you how to equalize ratings to the par. This rating is just as "out of line" with the other ratings, as the payoff of $124.00 is with the average of $10.00. I believe that the problem in recognizing it, pre-race, lies in two areas. The first is face value, 50% of the races you will look at can be analyzed quite successfully at the face value of the ratings. Another 25% will shape up readily with small degree of equalization. The practice of equalization will sharpen you up to the point that you will do it in your head as you look over the Ability-X chart. This is why I suggest going over results charts and comparing those that finished well to their complete ratings including ES. You will be able to see why the winners won, and the others only hit the board through the ratings, and the equalization of the ratings. Let's do this with our first example from Churchill Downs. # Horse Wgt PP St 1/4 3/8 Str Fin Jockey Odds 4 Rockdundo
120 4
3 1-1/2 2-1 2-1/2
1-1 1hd Lanerie 13.20 Let's equalize the "run" ratings of the horses to the ES par (90) for the distance (8fD), to see how the ratings might lineup. We can do that by subtracting 20 points from the "run" rating for each point down in ES to par. Those horses below par ES, get a pass up to par with no addition to "run" rating. 10th - 8fD #/PST/ErlSpd /ML/Comp 3 6
90 By doing this equalization, we can see that in this case, the low rating, #4 is still a low rating, and the fastest ES last becomes the ultra low rating. This gives a glimpse into the effect of speed on late "run". With the quick equalization, #6 goes to an almost unrealistic "run" rating of 3 with adjustment to its "over the top" speed from the last race. Let's look at the chart above as the limit that the horses could go with just speed, at a distance mark of around halfway:
This is what is shown in the "run" ratings for both horses, the "run" for #3 is measured as 183 by virtue of its high ES - 99, at the point that ES is spent on the first half of the race, #3 likely has a nice lead, but only 3 left in "run" to get to the wire. #4 may be a bit behind at this point, but has only spent 20 points in "run" to this point, and has "run" measured at 130 to finish with. Which would you prefer to bet for finishing well? I'll take #4 for first. The other horses would likely be behind them to varying degrees. This might not be a specific calculation, it may be more of a feel that you can get for a horses "run" that is best done with the rough equalization methods that I have laid out. But, the concept is valid and consistent. Since horses do not run precisely, it may be best to do this with more of a feel for it, as opposed to a computation. The best reason I have for saying this, is that horses execute their "runs" more from the execution of the other horses, and less in accordance to a stopwatch. Your friends and relatives will be all the more amazed when the key is stowed in your head. The excercise will program your head to recognize good ratings at face value. As your experience grows, you will do the usual equalizations in your head without even realizing it. Look at it as teaching yourself to win. These are the realistic possibilities, if you are willing to see that the ratings actually do reflect "run" accurately. Saratoga - 8/9/08 5th - 9fD # POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp 90 5
99 3.5 189 Once you get a good feel for analyzing the ratings, the real work can be in remembering that the basic concept of the low rating is always valid. If it suits your style to just skip the work and keep your eyes open for opportunities, you will find that they continue to present themselves. Like Dr D.F.C. at SAR 8/9/08, a great wagering opportunity just waiting for anyone to tap. It isn't always as simple, but it is simple often enough to be able to keep it simple.
Arlington Park - 9/14/08 9th - 6fD # POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp 278 7 99
10 377 Going over the results will help you to stay alert for races such as above from AP. It's mostly about the low rating, it is always about the better, fuller, more complete "run". The par for 6f is 320/97, and you will see many winners under 300. But, remember that the par is also a full complete run with power in the stretch. In the race above, there are only two horses that are very close to the par, #10 - 313/98, and #12 - 322/94, they are also the only two that would figure to be live in the stretch. Saratoga - 7/26/08 10th - 9fD # POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp 5 1
103 3 108 Once you are on a different standard then the crowd, you find that it can be quite profitable betting against the crowd with a horse that has ability that they can not believe or see. It is not often that you find a horse with this much of an edge in a field as competitive as this. But, it is revealed clearly by Ability-X ratings. In the races with large purses, you can just go with the ability of the horses and take for granted that they will make the effort to win today. This makes the analysis even lighter. To illustrate, let's take a look at the 2007 Breeders Cup Classic. 1 1/4 mile for 5 million, you can figure everybody is going to try to the full extent of ability. Having the line on ability makes the analysis fairly short and simple for a big time race.
Going by the ratings, we see that Lawyer Ron has a rating just a little better then Curlin off of the same race that he lost to Curlin. But we know that Curlin runs very evenly, and this is the advantage for him. If Lawyer Ron could set back a little at the start, he might have a chance of running with Curlin in the stretch, but the post positions say that Lawyer Ron will be forced to run early to avoid being blocked in at the stretch. Hard Spun might run better then his rating, and his early speed is much
more conducive to having some punch in the stretch. Slower up front is what you want to
see when picking up distance. It would be difficult to go against Curlin here, knowing how
evenly he runs the distance. 1. Curlin [$10.80 - 5.20 - 4.20] 2. Hard Spun [$7.60 - 5.80] 3. Awesome Gem [$9.40] I'd also like to make an example of the 2008 Kentucky Derby, since it was such a large field, and it was won in such a convincing way by a horse in the far outside gate. It would seem that Big Brown would need ability far beyond the others in order to accomplish the feat.
10th - 10fD 15 2 98
15 113 20 Big
Brown 6.80 5.00 4.80 Just as with Commentator's race at Saratoga above, here we see how easy it can be to recognize when the rare horse shows the ability to carry speed for distance. It can show clearly enough in the format of Ability-X ratings, that these more rare races can easily serve as a guide for analyzing the ratings in the scope of everyday racing. It doesn't take long to realize, even if you miss 20 obvious wins, there are many more coming your way. The ratings show that horse racing is much more consistent then one might think. All of the consistencies that you can now find can be used as positive guides to winning wagers. The opportunities are unlimited when you have a sound rating of overall ability to work with. Ability-X ratings will give you a clear picture of today's race like nothing else can. From the very competitive race to the total chaos race, Ability-X ratings, will point the way to sound betting decisions. I would also like to add that in the 2 years that I have been tracking and testing Ability-X Ratings at tracks all over the country, I have never made any allowances for track surface. I have followed horses from dirt to poly and back again. I have studied both the ratings and results at many complete meetings in all areas of the country. I find that track surface has no impact on performance other then general differences. Apparently, those general differences do not impair expected performance, and if anything, Polytrack more enables a horse to perform well then to hinder or obstruct performance in any way. Another thing that I have found is that the ratings themselves can plug in from track to track with no differences or adjustments. The average winner's pars are good as indicators at any track. And, horses generally will perform within its individual limits. The average winner's pars are:
5f - 350/97 5.5f - 330/97 6f - 320/97 6.5f - 330/94 7f - 175/90 8fD - 200/90 8fT - 100/90 8.5f - 100/85 9f - 120/82 10f - 100/80 12f - 150/80 This guide is intended to help you in keeping your handicapping basic and uncomplicated to best compliment the use of Ability-X ratings. Let the ratings do most of the work, and if you go south onto some complexities, just come right back to the basics, and the world will right itself again. Feel free to email me with any questions that you may have about working with the ratings, or anything that you are having problems with. Thanks, Jon Copyright 2008 Jon D. Luman
|
|