Threads · negative · H-220ad315

Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the win

Hypotheses: 10 (1 alive)
Depth: 3
Best rung: Shadow
Open questions: 8
Last activity: 17 Oct, 01:05

Where it stands: No. Quick-returning winners whose last win came at 7/1+ scored 0.94 on 228, near par and much shallower than the 0.62 parent, so the shortfall is not concentrated in surprise winners.

The tree

KILLEDA/E 0.84 · 1561Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the winscoutnegativereached discovery
- KILLEDA/E 0.82 · 144Rival: unraised last-time handicap winners at 9/1+ are over-bet too (winner-tag money, not the mark)rival-explanationredreached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.88 · 2634Generalise: last-time winners of any race type running in a handicap at 9/1+ are over-bet (winner-tag money)generalisenegativereached discovery
    - KILLEDA/E 1.03 · 15550Rival: handicap runners at 9/1–14/1 that did not win last time are equally over-bet (band effect, not winner tag)rival-explanationredreached discovery
- KILLEDA/E 0.65 · 424Quick-returning last-time winners of any race running in a handicap at 9/1+ are over-betgeneralisenegativereached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.46 · 106Replicate: quick-returning last-time winners at 9/1+ in non-handicaps are over-betreplicateredreached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.99 · 7481

Still open

Is the deficit stronger after bigger rises (rating_change >= 3) and does it hold beyond 14 days, as the mark mechanism requires? open
Is the 9/1–14/1 deficit (0.78 on 966) a flat or a jumps effect, given that the later, flat-heavy period scored 0.79 and the earlier, winter-jumps period 0.93? open
Is the long-price winner deficit concentrated where the market has turned against the horse: short last time (last_sp_decimal <= 5) and now 9/1+? open
Is the location of the deficit by price band stable at all, given that it sat at 9/1–14/1 for raised winners but at 16/1+ for unraised ones? open
Do quick-returning last-time winners at 9/1+ fall short in non-handicaps too, where the winner tag is equally visible but no mark rise applies? testing
Is the 0.62 deficit spread evenly across Flat, Hurdle and Chase, or does it sit in one code? open
Is the deficit concentrated in quick returners stepping up in class, or in those at the same or a lower level? open
Is the gap between discovery (0.62 on 530) and the vault (0.97 on 2,759) for quick-returning long-priced winners explained by a difference in code or region mix between the samples, or is it plain regression to par? open

The notebook

In order: what the lab saw, what it asked, what it proposed and why, what the tests said, and what an investigator concluded. Numbers are aggregates on the discovery data unless a step says otherwise.

Hypothesised16 Oct, 16:45
Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the win KILLED negative
To answer: Is the near-miss negative on long-priced raised handicap winners (0.57 on 255, killed only on count and p 0.065) a real feature of raised winners the market lets drift, and not something tied to a 14-day turnout?
because A handicap winner raised for the win has to run off a higher mark. When the price has still drifted to 9/1+ despite a last-time win, the horse usually won a weak or messy race and the rise has found it out. The win was a one-off on the day, not a step forward. The 14-day limit in H-21f9e6e7 was there only because of the story; the physical cause (a higher mark on a horse that is not improving) does not depend on the gap.
and the market misses it because The form figure '1' and the 'last-time winner' tag still pull in money from the public and from tipsters' systems, so even a drifting winner is backed shorter than its true chance. The rival result (big-rise class-risers at 1.16) shows the market does over-fade the obvious class-up case. That leaves this quieter, long-price case under-faded.
predicting negative, A/E 0.75 to 0.90 on 500+ bets
and it is wrong if

Where it started

A handicap winner raised for the win has to run off a higher mark. When the price has still drifted to 9/1+ despite a last-time win, the horse usually won a weak or messy race and the rise has found it out. The win was a one-off on the day, not a step forward. The 14-day limit in H-21f9e6e7 was there only because of the story; the physical cause (a higher mark on a horse that is not improving) does not depend on the gap.

Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the win

Hypotheses

10 (1 alive)

Depth

Best rung

Shadow

Open questions

Last activity

17 Oct, 01:05

The tree

KILLEDA/E 0.84 · 1561Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the winscoutnegativereached discovery
- KILLEDA/E 0.82 · 144Rival: unraised last-time handicap winners at 9/1+ are over-bet too (winner-tag money, not the mark)rival-explanationredreached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.88 · 2634Generalise: last-time winners of any race type running in a handicap at 9/1+ are over-bet (winner-tag money)generalisenegativereached discovery
    - KILLEDA/E 1.03 · 15550Rival: handicap runners at 9/1–14/1 that did not win last time are equally over-bet (band effect, not winner tag)rival-explanationredreached discovery
- KILLEDA/E 0.65 · 424Quick-returning last-time winners of any race running in a handicap at 9/1+ are over-betgeneralisenegativereached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.46 · 106Replicate: quick-returning last-time winners at 9/1+ in non-handicaps are over-betreplicateredreached discovery
  - KILLEDA/E 0.99 · 7481

Still open

Is the deficit stronger after bigger rises (rating_change >= 3) and does it hold beyond 14 days, as the mark mechanism requires? open
Is the 9/1–14/1 deficit (0.78 on 966) a flat or a jumps effect, given that the later, flat-heavy period scored 0.79 and the earlier, winter-jumps period 0.93? open
Is the long-price winner deficit concentrated where the market has turned against the horse: short last time (last_sp_decimal <= 5) and now 9/1+? open
Is the location of the deficit by price band stable at all, given that it sat at 9/1–14/1 for raised winners but at 16/1+ for unraised ones? open
Do quick-returning last-time winners at 9/1+ fall short in non-handicaps too, where the winner tag is equally visible but no mark rise applies? testing
Is the 0.62 deficit spread evenly across Flat, Hurdle and Chase, or does it sit in one code? open
Is the deficit concentrated in quick returners stepping up in class, or in those at the same or a lower level? open
Is the gap between discovery (0.62 on 530) and the vault (0.97 on 2,759) for quick-returning long-priced winners explained by a difference in code or region mix between the samples, or is it plain regression to par? open

The notebook

Hypothesised16 Oct, 16:45
Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the win KILLED negative
To answer: Is the near-miss negative on long-priced raised handicap winners (0.57 on 255, killed only on count and p 0.065) a real feature of raised winners the market lets drift, and not something tied to a 14-day turnout?
because A handicap winner raised for the win has to run off a higher mark. When the price has still drifted to 9/1+ despite a last-time win, the horse usually won a weak or messy race and the rise has found it out. The win was a one-off on the day, not a step forward. The 14-day limit in H-21f9e6e7 was there only because of the story; the physical cause (a higher mark on a horse that is not improving) does not depend on the gap.
and the market misses it because The form figure '1' and the 'last-time winner' tag still pull in money from the public and from tipsters' systems, so even a drifting winner is backed shorter than its true chance. The rival result (big-rise class-risers at 1.16) shows the market does over-fade the obvious class-up case. That leaves this quieter, long-price case under-faded.
predicting negative, A/E 0.75 to 0.90 on 500+ bets
and it is wrong if