Off Track Notes

[traynor]

Given a number of repeated statements recently that inclement weather was throwing off the selection process, it seems reasonable to ask if (and if not, why not) anyone seriously making race selections (for his or her own wagering or for other reasons) is keeping a harness equivalent of the thoroughbred bettors "mud book"?

This is not rocket science, folks. It is a simple matter of comparing apples to apples, rather than to oranges (and an occasional kiwi fruit). More technically, it is called "data layering." Horses are living, breathing creatures and they are affected by (just like you and I) changes in their environments. They respond to those changes in different ways.

I am not suggesting that the equivalent of detailed records of the temperature and wind direction and velocity on the backstretch at Aqueduct are necessary. I am suggesting that there is more to handicapping harness races (and thoroughbred races) than pushing a few numbers around, on paper or on a computer screen.

Horses perform differently in different weather conditions. Ignoring that fact is not useful if you want to make predictions about race outcomes. It doesn't take much (especially if you are only handicapping one or two tracks) to keep records of horses that seemed to perform better than expected, and horses that seemed to perform more poorly than expected, under a number of different track conditions and weather conditions.

[pandy]

I have a list of off track sires on my website, for thoroughbreds, but I do not have a similar list for harness. The thing is, harness tracks are so hard compared to the deeper thoroughbred footing.

[traynor]

I have a list of off track sires on my website, for thoroughbreds, but I do not have a similar list for harness. The thing is, harness tracks are so hard compared to the deeper thoroughbred footing.

I was thinking more along the lines of individual "mud books" than something generic like the mud marks in the DRF (if they still have them). It is tough to do in retrospect, but fairly easy current and future. Meaning, if one is analyzing races and has an idea of what a particular horse should do, it does better or worse than expected, and that difference in performance can be correlated with weather/track changes, it may just provide some really useful information for future races.

It was not that long ago that Bonnie Ledbetter was getting a healthy fee to watch horses entering the track and tell (the very serious bettors who were more than willing to pay her fees) which horses were unlikely to run their best race because they disliked the feeling of mud and slop on their hooves. Generically referred to (by Ledbetter and others, including Trillis Parker) as "the ickies." Similarly, other horses seem to enjoy kicking about in the muck, and suddenly discovered the joy of kicking it back toward those less enthusiastic about the going. It is useful to know which is which, and not that hard to track.

Whether it is worth the effort or not depends how serious one is about winning. It is one of those "confounding variables" that are useful to understand.