Makes sense. I'm happy you've asked actually as I've never really given it much thought.
For me, I've come to genuinely expect nothing
from any individual runner (and the chart they produce), no matter what their connections are, who the jockey is, time of day, and so on.
Whilst I'm sure there are definitely patterns to be found and exploited there, this helps in making sound decisions which aren't skewed by any biases such as, say, expecting a horse to have a higher chance of being backed in late given its connections or something like that.
So when I see a chart -- no I don't have any urge to know what got it to that point. In fact the way I see it is as follows in my amazing drawing that shows 3 differing outcomes where the start is the same, and at the point of the blue line any of these outcomes (and more) are possible:
and whilst all the possible outcomes are not going to be equally likely, it makes sense to me to treat them that way and to just deal with what's in front of you in each specific instance, as you are not dealing with solely that runner and its connections etc, but there are other variables which will affect it as well (conditions, who is gambling that day, trainers intentions, all the other runners in that race and all the variables that come with them, etc.)
If somebody posted either of these 3 charts, I genuinely see the one single instance
as just a [nearly] random outcome -- one where there is wayyyy too many variables at play to look for a pattern which you can justify having an affect your decision-making in the long-term. So for me, evaluating chart #1 is really not so different from evaluating chart #2 or #3, and as such, any chart posted up on this thread could easily have been different which might lead you to different conclusions.
Further to that, if you're looking to evaluate a chart someone posts, what's the point unless you are going to be looking at all of the data, all of the variables? Any patterns you find might just in fact be spurious correlations, for example if you are not even considering the other selections from that race there are simply too many possibilities as to why that single specific outcome
has occurred. That's really the key here, one chart is just one instance of what could have happened, and without some large and carefully documented dataset I just think the effort taken to evaluate the charts is wasted if you can't quantify exactly
why it is, and how likely it is, that these moves occur.
e.g. Let's say you feel like you've identified some patterns from looking at charts of runners and their connections and maybe some other variables etc. and that you have started to alter your trading (decision-making) because of these patterns and are enjoying some further profitability because of this. If/when that pattern disappears temporarily and you can't quantify all the details of the pattern, or a new pattern appears that contradicts your existing pattern, then how can you move forward with any confidence? You'll likely just get in your own head and end up confused and mentally you could be back at square 1.
...And if you did have a large dataset to back up your change in decisions, then, well... all power to you.
But in that scenario, the question now becomes whether the time and effort spent on quantifying everything justify the additional profit that it brings (and maybe it does).
I think there is definitely value in knowing what tracks/meetings are more likely to produce which kinds of graphs, just don't expect
anything from the individual runners.
No right/wrong way here of course but that's how I see it.
Congrats if you read all that ...
What do you think? Am I talking sh*te for the sake of it? Or is that making some sense?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.