As always, thank you for your support.

V6 Research: In Love with the 90s?

In the last issue (surely still in your possession; after all, it is a collector’s item!), we introduced the LifeLiner-based scheme affectionately known as the “Triple Threat”. One of the takeaways of that screed was that the V6 and its output could be interpreted and put to good use on a straight-up selection-oriented basis — no need to juggle multiple contenders and compare their actual tote odds to their respective Fair Odds on the Betting Line.

As well, the Triple Threat could be seen to counter the potential negative consequences stemming from the selection of an inappropriate or anomalous single paceline, since the LifeLiner, as its name suggests, considers the entire record, providing more gestalt than snapshot.

As well, the idea of “sweetspots” lurking in the actual odds of these Triple Threat horseys allowed for some component of comparatively mild decision-making to complement the selection. (Or, depending on your outlook, a little more selectivity with the selection!)

Finally, one of the benefits of the Triple Threat process was a boost in hit-rate, not an insignificant consideration during the potentially long spells between overlayed longshots that win.

This time, we revisit an idea from the classical handicapping literature: the idea of the Lone Frontrunner. And in the process, we end up uncovering a bit more support for the idea of the pari-mutuel sweetspot.

For the purposes of our latter-day study of the Lone Frontrunner, we again turn to the LifeLiner. Specifically, we shoot for marks of 90 or higher in each of the Early and Pace columns. More important, we demand that no other horsey in the field scores 90 or better in both those columns. What did we find?

The idea of this Lone 90-90 Frontrunner was not wildly predictive of the actual frontrunner. They led at the first call in a measly 31 percent of the races; they led at the second call only 40 percent of the time. Ugh.

Now we hit on an excuse: maybe it’s the margin that’s more important. After all, a 90-90 would qualify as the Lone Frontrunner, so-called, over an 99-89 or an 89-99, even though that 90-90 horsey looks outgunned at the first call and second call to both these runners — if all three are entered in the same race, that 90-90 frontrunner might be no better than third at both calls! Blame the study’s methodology!

Still, if these now-disparaged 90-90 Lone Frontrunners did indeed make the first-call lead, they won often enough (31 percent) and threw a profit. If only you could wager after the first two furlongs in sprints; the first four furlongs in routes!

And when these lone 90-90 guys were leading at the second call, the results were even better. More winners, bigger profit.

So the idea of identifying the probable leader at the first call or second call or both retains its validity. We still side with Quirin. Back to the drawing board, find those frontrunners! Find them with some kind of regularity, and the profits are likely to follow.

Now, what of the idea of the mutuel sweetspot for these guys? Did that improve the issue? After all, it did for the Triple Threat horseys? Did it for the 90-90 Lone Frontrunner.

Yea, verily. Recall that the Triple Threat was an even stronger threat to be positive when the odds were from 3-1 to 5-1, inclusive, on the tote board. So it also was for the 90-90 Lone Frontrunner. Not much of a profit, but a profit nonetheless.

Practical upshot: It seems as though isolating a method that can pick or select a single horsey with decent frequency of winning (Lone F, Triple Threat, etc.), can throw positive financial results when the public remains mildly (but not entirely) skeptical, hence the range from 3-1 to 5-1.

OK. So then the research progressed from the idea of the 90-90 Lone Frontrunner to its logical continuation: the 90+ Lone Final-Time runner.

Sorry, no automatical profits. However, the indiscriminate hit-rate, regardless of actual odds, was reasonably good, nearing 27 percent.

As for the sweetspot, yes, it existed with these 90+ Lone Final-Time: even-money or lower on the tote: 64 percent win-rate, small profit. And that seemingly magical range from 3-1 to 5-1, inclusive? Lower win-rate, obviously, but twice the profit.

Lots of leads to chase, many loose ends to try to tie up. As always, more questions pop up after the initial questions get answered. But the opportunity for study and research never goes away. For some, that’s a curse. For the determined and the faithful, the process can be a blessing. The road, not the inn. Amen. Shantih, shantih, shantih.

Don’t Forget the Blog

What other Web log out there can glide glibly from a discussion of Paleo Diets to The Gong Show to New Orleans to U.S. Network television? And that’s all within the course of just one eventful week! How is it possible‽

Even more amazingly, how can all this random commentary, sometimes thoughtful, always zany, heavy on the vinegar but light on the irony, come attached to oracle-like pronouncements on track biases, evening selections and the live (read: contentious) races of your day-to-day North American Thoroughbred experience? Versatility and humour, yea, verily! Insufferably serious pronouncements and determinism, nevah! Ya gotta have a little savant in ya. Ya gotta do it with style!