Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=107007		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Where are all the three year olds that there are only six horses in the field with McCracken for the Matt Winn?

The Stephen Foster looks to be the better race with Ole Gun Runner.
Image

JORR, are there any metrics that you look at when handicapping? It strikes me that an equation like an ROI, calculated as (Career Winnings/Purchase Price)/No. of Races could be a good indicator. It might not help you with a $1 million dollar horse like Tapwrit, but perhaps with a Gunnevera that went for $15,000 only.

When I think back to the Belmont, I ask myself what I could have done differently to win. I think it make sense to calculate the average of the last three or four speed figures and standard deviation. You might have a Multplier with an average 90 speed figure, but low standard deviation, but a Tapwrit with an average 92 and a standard deviation of 10. You want the horse with the highest average and standard deviation for the upside. If I had used such a methodology in the Belmont, I might have come up with Tapwrit and Irish War Cry, despite their inconsistencies.

You guys lead the discussions from now on.
Author:  Rod [ Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Dignified Rube wrote:
JORR, are there any metrics that you look at when handicapping?


I'm not a figures guy. I like to look at the likely race "shape". Also, winning percentage at the distance/surface is important to me. Of course, that doesn't mean much on the Triple Crown trail as they are progressing through the distances.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
I crunched the numbers, adding the standard deviations to the average of last four races, and this is what I came up with for the Stephen Foster.

Gun Runner
Stanford
Honorable Duty
Breaking Lucky

Gun Runner and Stanford were clearly 1 & 2. After that there are only two points separating Honorable Duty, Breaking Lucky, Hawaakon and Bird Song. Any of these four horses could come in third.

If the line holds at 6-1 for Stanford, a place bet would seem to offer good value.

Next thing to try is a simulation with some random number generation to see what percentage of the time each horse wins relative to one another. And then you can compare these figures to the odds.
Author:  Hockey Gay [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
JORR, can you please explain what you mean by looking at the likely race "shape".

I try to soak in everything you, Rube and Walt say.
Author:  Hockey Gay [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Also, what sites or apps do you guys use to find all this info on. When I bet on TVG it's frustrating sometimes that there isn't more info. I'd love to check things like win percentages in certain distances and surfaces for both horses and jockeys and alot of other stuff too.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
So I was able to set up the simulation and ran the speed figures 100 times (for 100 races) x 10, based only on arithmetic mean of last four races and standard deviations.

When I averaged the 10 results, I got the following winning percentages by horse against one another compared to morning line odds.

Gun Runner: 35.2% v. 4/5
Stanford: 17.6% v. 6/1
Honorable Duty: 13.3% v. 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 10.1% v. 15/1
Hawaakom: 9.6% v. 20/1
Bird Song: 7.2% v. 9/2
Texas Chrome: 7% v. 20/1
Mo Tom: 0% v. 15/1

I realize this is not a perfect method, but there isn't one.

Based on these calculations, Breaking Lucky and Hawaakon offer the most value, though with slim chances. Mo Tom and Bird Song are clearly the ones to avoid.
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Dignified Rube wrote:
So I was able to set up the simulation and ran the speed figures 100 times (for 100 races) x 10, based only on arithmetic mean of last four races and standard deviation.

When I averaged the 10 results, I got the following winning percentages by horse against one another compared to morning line odds.

Gun Runner: 35.2% v. 4/5
Stanford: 17.6% v. 6/1
Honorable Duty: 13.3% v. 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 10.1% v. 15/1
Hawaakom: 9.6% v/ 20/1
Bird Song: 7.2% v. 9/2
Texas Chrome: 7% v. 20/1
Mo Tom: 0% v. 15/1

I realize this is not a perfect method, but there isn't one.

Based on these calculations, Breaking Lucky and Hawaakon offer the most value. Mo Tom and Bird Song are ones to avoid.



Assuming you think that's accurate, do you know how to turn it into an odds line?
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Dignified Rube wrote:
So I was able to set up the simulation and ran the speed figures 100 times (for 100 races) x 10, based only on arithmetic mean of last four races and standard deviation.

When I averaged the 10 results, I got the following winning percentages by horse against one another compared to morning line odds.

Gun Runner: 35.2% v. 4/5
Stanford: 17.6% v. 6/1
Honorable Duty: 13.3% v. 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 10.1% v. 15/1
Hawaakom: 9.6% v/ 20/1
Bird Song: 7.2% v. 9/2
Texas Chrome: 7% v. 20/1
Mo Tom: 0% v. 15/1

I realize this is not a perfect method, but there isn't one.

Based on these calculations, Breaking Lucky and Hawaakon offer the most value. Mo Tom and Bird Song are ones to avoid.



Assuming you think that's accurate, do you know how to turn it into an odds line?


Yes.
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Hockey Gay wrote:
JORR, can you please explain what you mean by looking at the likely race "shape".

I try to soak in everything you, Rube and Walt say.


Whether the pace is going to be hot or soft and who figures to be where. The first thing I do when handicapping a race is try to determine who will be on the lead.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Assuming you think that's accurate, do you know how to turn it into an odds line?


One caveat I would make is that I'm equating highest speed figures with winning. It does not take into account the pace of the race, distance, jockey or any other variables. I'm also assuming the average speed of the last four races is their baseline speed. Since these are older horses, I think this methodology works better than if these horses were two or three year olds, when they are still growing and progressing.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Here's how the lines would go, JORR. This is pretty close.

Gun Runner: 2/1
Stanford: 5/1
Honorable Duty: 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 9/1
Hawaakom: 9/1
Bird Song: 12/1
Texas Chrome: 12/1
Mo Tom: nil
Author:  Hockey Gay [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Can you get free PP's online anywhere?
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Dignified Rube wrote:
Here's how the lines would go, JORR. This is pretty close.

Gun Runner: 2/1
Stanford: 5/1
Honorable Duty: 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 9/1
Hawaakom: 9/1
Bird Song: 12/1
Texas Chrome: 12/1
Mo Tom: nil


Yeah, that's fine. Off the top of my head I think Gun Runner is about $1.90/1 and Stanford would be closer to 9/2, but good enough. Now, the way I'd bet, assuming that was my line, would be to look for the horse that was at least 1.5 times higher than those odds.

I know it's hard for guys like Walt to get their heads around actually betting against the horse you "like" the most. But I've trained myself not to "like" horses. If Gun Runner is 4/5, Stanford is 4/1, and Honorable Duty is 10/1, according to your line, Honorable Duty is the bet.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Dignified Rube wrote:
Here's how the lines would go, JORR. This is pretty close.

Gun Runner: 2/1
Stanford: 5/1
Honorable Duty: 6/1
Breaking Lucky: 9/1
Hawaakom: 9/1
Bird Song: 12/1
Texas Chrome: 12/1
Mo Tom: nil


Yeah, that's fine. Off the top of my head I think Gun Runner is about $1.90/1 and Stanford would be closer to 9/2, but good enough. Now, the way I'd bet, assuming that was my line, would be to look for the horse that was at least 1.5 times higher than those odds.

I know it's hard for guys like Walt to get their heads around actually betting against the horse you "like" the most. But I've trained myself not to "like" horses. If Gun Runner is 4/5, Stanford is 4/1, and Honorable Duty is 10/1, according to your line, Honorable Duty is the bet.


Breaking Lucky looks cheap. Notwithstanding my simulation results, he's had two place finishes at 1 1/8 mi. in a G1 and G2 since last November. In the G1 Clark Handicap, he came in second to Gun Runner, while beating Shaman Ghost. He came up just a little short to Honorable Duty in the New Orleans Handicap. This will be the third race for him off the lay-off, which should work in his favor. He's the one horse I would be inclined to take a shot on with those juicy odds, for sure, to place and show. Got that, Leash? :)

I like Honorable Duty, too, but much shorter price on him.

How good is Luis Contreras?
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Hockey Gay wrote:
Can you get free PP's online anywhere?


Usually the day before the race you can find them.

Here's a good website for you, Hockey Gay.

http://www.racereplays.com/paulickrepor ... sraces.cfm

It has all the stakes races archived. But it doesn't have allowance races.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
The Zipse odds on Breaking Lucky of 15-1 appear wrong.

In their preview of the race, DRF gives the odds for him at 8-1.

That seems right. They're slightly shorter than the simulation odds of 9-1, but fair enough.

Matt Bernier at DRF said of Breaking Lucky, "He can get a big piece of this".

We'll keep an eye on him when the live odds go up.
Author:  Hockey Gay [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Thanks, Rube
Author:  spmack [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Really rooting for Texas Chrome to pull this out as the horse has switched trainers and gone back to the young black jockey CJ McMahon. You don't often see too many brothers as jockeys anymore especially in G1s.
Author:  Walt Williams Neck [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
I'll give you my guys take tomorrow
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
For the heck of it, I ran the numbers for the G3 Regret Stakes at Churchill, Race 8.

Here's what I came up with. The first column is winning percentage. Second are the simulator odds and third the M/L odds. I'm not too far off.

Again, these results were tabulated from simulated 1000 races.

Proctor's Ledge.....26.6%.....3-1.....7-2
Chubby Star.........23.8%.....7-2.....5-1
Star Bear.............14.8%.....8-1......8-1
Summer Luck........9.8%......9-1......10-1
Sweeping Paddy.....8.0%......10-1.....4-1
Fizzy Friday...........5.0%......19-1.....10-1
Sameeha...............4.8%......19-1......8-1
Savannah Belle.......4.2%......20-1......12-1
Like A Hurricane......2.5%......40-1......12-1
Blame the Law........0.4%......200-1.....15-1
Anothertequilashot...0.1%......1000-1.....30-1
La Mantra Gris.........0.0%......nil...........15-1

Exacta might be a good play in this one. You got the two favorites, and then a big drop-off in winning percentage after that.

There you go. Enjoy!
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Last post for the evening, then I'll shut up until Sat.

The Matt Winn is an odd race. You have McCracken, of course, while four other horses are mostly sprinters moving up in distance. The horse in the six post, Society Beau, has some experience at the longer distances, but the simulator gives him zero odds at winning. However, he put up a 102 LP figure in his last race at 1 1/16 mi., and won an allowance race before that at 1 1/8 mi. Not that he could beat McCracken, but he might run down tiring horses to get a place or show at 50/1 odds or more. Two races back in Feb. he beat Hollywood Handsome for second, who was in the Belmont last Saturday.
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
I was just looking at Saturday's card a little. I think Ingadore has big chance at a big price in the fourth. And I honestly don't see how they beat McCraken in his race.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I was just looking at Saturday's card a little. I think Ingadore has big chance at a big price in the fourth. And I honestly don't see how they beat McCraken in his race.


McCracken has a 58% chance of winning. The M/L of 4/5 is right on.
Author:  Rod [ Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Dignified Rube wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I was just looking at Saturday's card a little. I think Ingadore has big chance at a big price in the fourth. And I honestly don't see how they beat McCraken in his race.


McCracken has a 58% chance of winning. The M/L of 4/5 is right on.



If I were making a line for that race I'd have him 2/5 at most. Maybe 1/5.
Author:  Walt Williams Neck [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
I know nothing about this mumbo jumbo making your own lines and odds :roll: I try not to look at the odds.....I like class and current form...I love Gunner
if he's under even money keep him.If I can't even double my money why even bet?I took a quick look at JOR 4th..Joe's horse Ingadore doesn't do a thing for me but looky at Race Me Home 2nd start after a layoff 1st grass and 2 back finished 5th in the Jim Dandy now this is what WWN loves :wink:
Author:  Rod [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Walt Williams Neck wrote:
I know nothing about this mumbo jumbo making your own lines and odds :roll: I try not to look at the odds.....I like class and current form...I love Gunner
if he's under even money keep him.If I can't even double my money why even bet?I took a quick look at JOR 4th..Joe's horse Ingadore doesn't do a thing for me but looky at Race Me Home 2nd start after a layoff 1st grass and 2 back finished 5th in the Jim Dandy now this is what WWN loves :wink:



Dirt is dirt and turf is turf and never the twain shall meet.
Author:  a retard [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Dirt is dirt and turf is turf and never the twain shall meet.


Except on the Santa Anita downhill :lol:

Image
Author:  Rod [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
a retard wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Dirt is dirt and turf is turf and never the twain shall meet.


Except on the Santa Anita downhill :lol:

Image


:lol: Nice.
Author:  Dignified Rube [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Walt Williams Neck wrote:
I know nothing about this mumbo jumbo making your own lines and odds :roll:


It's a fairly straight-forward concept. Making your own lines helps you establish a value comparison. You want to buy low and cash-out high. Like with the stock market, the horse racing pool isn't always efficient in pricing. One way to get an edge in beating the betting public (for single horse wagers) and the house (for exotic wagers) is through quantitative analysis, which the M/L makers no doubt use to establish their lines. I avoid saying qualitative analysis, like reading the PPs, because I don't think you can be consistent shooting from the hip over the long haul.

Of course, the goal is to pick the horse that is going to win. But if his price is too short, then you want to find other horses that will beat him. You might take two horses, whose combined probability of winning is higher than the favorite, but you only pay a fraction of the price of the favorite for a larger payout.

So many different angles in horse racing. That's the beauty of it.
Author:  Rod [ Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stephen Foster and Matt Winn at Churchill
Dignified Rube wrote:
Walt Williams Neck wrote:
I know nothing about this mumbo jumbo making your own lines and odds :roll:


It's a fairly straight-forward concept. Making your own lines helps you establish a value comparison. You want to buy low and cash-out high. Like with the stock market, the horse racing pool isn't always efficient in pricing. One way to get an edge in beating the betting public (for single horse wagers) and the house (for exotic wagers) is through quantitative analysis, which the M/L makers no doubt use to establish their lines.

Of course, the goal is to pick the horse that is going to win. But if his price is too short, then you want to find other horses that will beat him. You might take two horses, whose combined probability of winning is better than favorite, but you only pay a fraction of the price of the favorite.

So many different angles in horse racing. That's the beauty of it.



The morning line isn't a true odds line. It doesn't add up to 100%. It's just a rough guide. And some morning line oddsmakers are terrible. Some tracks now use a computerized morning line which I imagine is similar to what you're doing with the simulations.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/