Footnotes on a Bounce

[DeoVolente]

I think that it is too easy for us to excuse a poor performance by suggesting that a horse bounced. I don't believe big in bounces. If there's such a thing as a bounce, then how do you explain win streaks of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and more races? Has a horse "bounced" when it loses by a half length? A length? Or only when it finishes up the track? It's all a bunch of conjecture made up by bettors who just can't manage to admit that horses are living creatures who can have a off day, or that they were wrong and another horse was better, or whatever.

You know, it IS possible that the people who claimed Read The Footnotes bounced couldn't get the distance right. He was right there at the top of the lane and just faded away, beat 4 lengths. Sounds like a distance problem to me.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I believe with streaks or bounces, there is a good reason for it whether or not it can be detected. Horses bounce for a lot of reasons- tired, wrong something, couldn't handle the race as well as another horse for some reason. I found once a horse that bounced every 2nd race after shipping the length of California- won the race after shipping, then bounced. The bounce was because the horse loved traveling in vans! But there Was a reason!! I once had 47 show payoffs in a row at GGF, which means none was stiffed and none bounced too low!!

[kenwoodallpromos]

I believe with streaks or bounces, there is a good reason for it whether or not it can be detected. Horses bounce for a lot of reasons- tired, wrong something, couldn't handle the race as well as another horse for some reason. I found once a horse that bounced every 2nd race after shipping the length of California- won the race after shipping, then bounced. The bounce was because the horse loved traveling in vans! But there Was a reason!! I once had 47 show payoffs in a row at GGF, which means none was stiffed and none bounced too low I do not believe Personal Ensign ever bounced and Cigar did not bounce for 16 races! To assume every horse does the same thing or any race is just like another is to not recognize horses or races as individuals whose circumstances can be put with others to form detectable and fairly consistently predictable races. To assume all horses bounce at the same point or all races can be picked by using the same methods is risky!!

[keilan]

I played the horse to bounce, and I think he did.

This was a horse that ran his heart out against Second of June and improved his "top" considerably that race. Very few horses in that situation run back to that number and even fewer move forward.

I firmly believe this horse "can get the distance" he is very good but that first race back as a 3yo will take some time before he fires big again.

When horses give all they have it takes much more out of them then other type winning efforts IMO.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Thank you! Your horse did not bnounce without a good reason! / I know horses physically are built so they take time to recover depending on energy depleted and individual physical characteristics. The trainer needs to prepare the horse properly to match the next race and find a race that the horse will be ready for. I think determining as a handicapper if a horse is physically ready for and suited to the current race is a tough thing to do but really makes a big difference in them ROI! / Call me chicken, but part of the reason I do not bet straight maidens or stakes to place or show is because for me it is still too hard to determine if those entrants are physically ready!

[Marc At DRF]

"I think that it is too easy for us to excuse a poor performance by suggesting that a horse bounced."

I'm generally a believer in bounce theory, but I wholeheartedly agree that more simplistic horseplayers who ascribe to this theory will throw around this word far too liberally. Sometimes, horses bounce. Sometimes, there are other reasons they run poorly that have either little or nothing to do with the strenuousness of a previous effort. That said, I'm mystified by those who use selective examples of the latter situation as "proof" that bounce theory is bunk.



"If there's such a thing as a bounce, then how do you explain win streaks of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and more races?"

DeoVolente, if you don't believe in bounces, how do you explain the utter rarity of win streaks of, say, 4 or more races?

"Has a horse "bounced" when it loses by a half length? A length? Or only when it finishes up the track?"

Sometimes yes and sometimes no, to all three questions. I'd make an argument that if Read The Footnotes had lost the Fla Derby by a nose on Saturday, it would have been a classic bounce.

"It's all a bunch of conjecture made up by bettors who just can't manage to admit that horses are living creatures who can have a off day, or that they were wrong and another horse was better, or whatever."

I actually think there's a lot of truth to this statement, as I say above-- more simplistic horseplayers who ascribe to bounce theory will throw it around far too liberally.

"You know, it IS possible that the people who claimed Read The Footnotes bounced couldn't get the distance right."

Sure seemed to get the distance fine in the Remsen last fall...

[JackS]

I wouldn't discount any sprinter trying a route, even the first time, and especially 3yo's. When you consider a horse who has been running "all out" in sprints then suddenly catches himself in front with an easy 47-48 versus the usual 44-45, a possible win can be easily prediced. Like everything in racing, nothings automatic except the publics misconcepton that horses should not be bet the first time they try anything.

[delayjf]

He was right there at the top of the lane and just faded away, beat 4 lengths. Sounds like a distance problem to me.

According to Quinn, the final fraction is where the bounce will affect the horse.

[Tom]

Why can't a horse bounce and still win? His bounce may the best fig in the race.

Why can't a horse finish 5th and still have new top? Maybe his top is the 5th best fig in the race,

When I look for a bounce, I look at the pace figs and the final time figs (although I will start looking at 3rd fractions a little closer siince it was brought up here).

On my HTR "sheets" screen, I pay no attention at all to the horse's running posititions - only the figs.

[BIG RED]

The only time I consider a bounce is after a layoff. If the horse runs a big fig for himself in the class he belongs, then I'll consider that he may bounce. Of course he may have already proven in the past that he won't. If he hasn't, I'll usually put him aside.

[raybo]

For those of us who have not read all the articles or books available, maybe it would help more readers of this thread if someone defined what a classic "bounce" is. I think I know what you guys are referring to but I have never heard of the term "bounce" in racing. Have I been so preoccupied with my own handicapping theory that I"ve missed a racing "household word"? Heaven forbid!

[GameTheory]

Bounce means running a crappy race after running a particularly good one last time. The theory being that the horse may need some time to recover from his big effort last time and won't duplicate it today. People generally look for a horse to bounce after he hits a new lifetime best speed figure, after running a really good race off a layoff, etc.

I believe Ragozin coined the term. Since his figures are lower = faster, a higher figure is worse than a lower one. Hence "bouncing" back up (worse) after earning a nice low figure last race...

[karlskorner]

His thoughs on "bounce theory"

In recent years something commonly referred to as the "bounce theory" has received a lot of attention. Broadly put, the theory states that any horse that runs the best race of its career very likely will not match that outstanding performance in it's next start. Also, a horse that runs two career-best races in a row, the latest being the better of the two, similarly is unlikely to run well immediately thereafter.

His thoughts lean towards what he calls the The Thud Theory. TTT holds that any horse that runs the worst race of its career, which falls to a new low for happlessness, is said to go "thud" when it hits bottom. More significantly, once the "thud" occurs, the hore is unlikely to run an equally bad race in its next start. As a matter of fact, adherents of this theory can predict with great confidence that a "thudder" is likely to improve next time out. What is more, after the improvemement the hourse will "thud" once again in a future start.

[Valuist]

Great thread. I believe bounces exist but they are way, way overblown by the media, bettors and trainers. As a bettor, who would you rather bet on? A horse coming off a impressive win after battling a hard pace, or a horse coming off a 6th place finish beaten 10 lengths and facing the same horses again? I know I'll take the sharp form horse. As for stats on repeaters, I think they are skewed due to all the Mdn Claiming races that are run in North America. Yes, Mdn Claiming winners WILL have a hard time repeating not so much due to any bounce but due to the tougher competition. Going from a field where NOBODY has won to facing one where every horse has won is a big jump.

I find that horses are most suspectible to bounces in July and August, when its the hottest. I don't have data to back it up, other than the fact that historically, those are always my worst 2 months to bet.

But worst of all, is the bounce theory has given trainers another excuse to legitimize a poor effort.

[delayjf]

If your at the track you can get some great insights by observing how a horse came out of his race. If I see a horse head up, still on his toes leaving the winners circle, I'm inclined to think his next race will be a good effort. On the other hand, if I observe the same horse blowing hard, head down and walking back to the barn looking tired, I know that race took something out of him. Tie his appearance with his form cycle and you'll be able to predict if and when he will bounce.

This was the major strength of Joe Takach's SoCal report.

[mountainman]

I once got my hands on a do's and don'ts guide for DRF handicappers, authored(i think) by Ira Kaplun, that cautioned to employ the term "bounce" only in connection with a lackluster effort that follows a strenuous race run off the sidelines.

kaplun's guidelines notwithstanding, the word was allready evolving to much broader usage, and even purists began using it to describe any regression on the heels of peak effort . Even peak efforts posted in apparently easy fashion.

These days,in my humble opinion,"bounce" is overused, as a quick fix explanation anytime a fit horse fails to perform to public expectations. Pace, position, class, prevailing trainer trends, track bias and even post position and racing luck are often ignored in the rush to shoehorn performance into easily understood and familiar form-cycles.

In my opinion, this approach precludes real analysis of performance, and can leave the handicapper largely in the dark about a horse's limitations and true tendencies. Even worse, when a relatively fresh horse fails to repeat an encouraging effort, the reason may involve infirmity, not recent exertion, and excusing the subpar effort in the name of the allmighty bounce can cost the handicapper lots and lots of money.

[raybo]

Ok, I had a feeling that "bounce" was a term used in reference to falling from or returning to form. I agree that it is easy to classify high or low performances in such a way. For a long time I was of the opinion that if a horse, other than high classed horses, just ran his best performance, he will likely not run back to that level without a rest period longer than what is normal between races for him. And in many cases this is true, especially for cheaper and older horses. Since I wager on horses running for $20,000 purses or less almost exclusively, this theory has worked out pretty well when trying to determine the likely performance level for these horses. However, to my dismay, I have seen too many times when a horse I have dismissed as having just run his best turn right around and run another "best". It has been my observation that these animals tend to be younger and are still improving their racing skills and further maturing their bodies. Thus, we see young claiming horses set a new "best" almost every race. I still tend to think that older more "expensive" animals can perform at their peak for longer periods of time and may indeed run back to back "bests", however these are only fractionally their best. What I look for are horses that have exceeded everyone's expectations dramatically. This horse will NOT get my money! For one thing he will be an underlay and I don't play underlays even in superfectas, where profit can still be made on lower priced winners.
I, like Valuist, would rather wager on a horse with a good last race than one with a poor one, but there is a dividing line I will not cross. I've been called a class handicapper, but I'm really a condition or form handicapper. It's easy to see what a horse is capable of, but it is much more difficult to see if he is capable of it today.

Great thread!

[Cratos]

To Marc at DRF

The correct phrase is "FORM CYCLE” and it has been around long before A. Beyer and his cronies started this nonsense of "bounce."

Pittsburgh Phil, Phil Bull, Tom Ainslie, and many other have spoke of "form cycle" one time or another in their writings.

The word "bounce" rate up there with the "Beyer Speed Figures" which are no more than CLASS PARS.

Every horse has a form cycle and some have longer cycles than others. The ability of a horse to hold its form over an extended time period and against tough competition is an essential ingredient of CLASS.

[mountainman]

good posting cratos. you sound very knowledgeable .actually, though, i don't work for drf. i do the tv analysis from mountaineer. and i think it was the sheet guys(ragozin and offspring)not beyer, who coined the term bounce. and my main point certainly wasn't to dispute the validity of form-cycle analysis, but simply to opine that a thorough examination of performance is needed before concluding that the REAL level of a horses performance(quite apart from contextual factors such as trainer trends, bias, class of competition and pace)declined or improved.

and a pet point of mine was that underlying unsoundness and soreness can play havoc with form-cycles , and sometimes this can be distinguished from the ebb and flow of conventional form patterns.

[Marc At DRF]

To Cratos

"The correct phrase is "FORM CYCLE” and it has been around long before A. Beyer and his cronies started this nonsense of 'bounce.'"

A bounce, on those occasions that it actually happens, is a component of a form cycle, sure. Is there something I said that indicated I believe otherwise?

Was there something I said that indicated that I thought Andy Beyer started or popularized this term? My impression is that Beyer is far more skeptical of it than many players, in fact.

[Cratos]

“I'm generally a believer in bounce theory, but I wholeheartedly agree that more simplistic horseplayers who ascribe to this theory will throw around this word far too liberally. Sometimes, horses bounce. Sometimes, there are other reasons they run poorly that have either little or nothing to do with the strenuousness of a previous effort. That said, I'm mystified by those who use selective examples of the latter situation as "proof" that bounce theory is bunk.”

Marc,

I don’t believe in cyber-confrontations because they don’t serve any useful purpose. However I do believe in replying directly to a post or question and you have presented both in your post to me.

In your initial post you admittedly stated that you believe in “bounce theory.” The problem that I have with your belief is that you have not presented a body of work or a reference to a body of work that defines the so-called “bounce theory”

What you have is jargon that is currently an in word at the racetrack that allows people who don’t understand handicapping to give a one word answer on why a horse didn’t perform as expected.

Earlier in this thread, a poster gave a good analysis of why he thought Read the Footnotes didn’t do well in the Florida Derby and his conclusion was that it doesn’t seem that the horse can get the distance.

Therefore that conclusion might be true or it might be false, but it was done with analysis and that what “bounce’ doesn’t do.

[JackS]

I've been aware of the theory for many years but pay little attenton to it. There is a situation that someone here has already mentioned and that is an older horse that has just run his/hers biggest race shown in the pp's and can be assumed he will not be able to duplicate that same effort today. Maybe the "perfect trip" accounted this race. The other situation would be just the oppisite. A horse who for unexplained reasons, has just run a race that was so poor , maybe the poorest race shown and is returning today without a lay-off or drop in class, so that the last poor race must be dismissed. "Bounce, perfect trips, form factors" I'm sure they all exist and most of us realise these factors intuitivly without specifically looking for them.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by raybo
Ok, I had a feeling that "bounce" was a term used in reference to falling from or returning to form. I agree that it is easy to classify high or low performances in such a way. For a long time I was of the opinion that if a horse, other than high classed horses, just ran his best performance, he will likely not run back to that level without a rest period longer than what is normal between races for him. And in many cases this is true, especially for cheaper and older horses. Since I wager on horses running for $20,000 purses or less almost exclusively, this theory has worked out pretty well when trying to determine the likely performance level for these horses. However, to my dismay, I have seen too many times when a horse I have dismissed as having just run his best turn right around and run another "best". It has been my observation that these animals tend to be younger and are still improving their racing skills and further maturing their bodies. Thus, we see young claiming horses set a new "best" almost every race. I still tend to think that older more "expensive" animals can perform at their peak for longer periods of time and may indeed run back to back "bests", however these are only fractionally their best. What I look for are horses that have exceeded everyone's expectations dramatically. This horse will NOT get my money! For one thing he will be an underlay and I don't play underlays even in superfectas, where profit can still be made on lower priced winners.
I, like Valuist, would rather wager on a horse with a good last race than one with a poor one, but there is a dividing line I will not cross. I've been called a class handicapper, but I'm really a condition or form handicapper. It's easy to see what a horse is capable of, but it is much more difficult to see if he is capable of it today.

Great thread!

Raybo, It seems that we wager on the same class of races---agree with most of what you say---however I would rather wager on a horse with a bad last race than a good last race ( if I can find a reason for it or a trainer angle)

As a far as bounce goes---I am always wary of the older claiming horse that just ran a great race after coming off an extended layoff. It's been my experience that they don't do too well next out.

[raybo]

<Raybo, It seems that we wager on the same class of races---agree with most of what you say---however I would rather wager on a horse with a bad last race than a good last race ( if I can find a reason for it or a trainer angle)>

Point well taken Schweitz, I too would rather bet after a "bad" performance. However, all "bad" performances are not all bad. Classic overlays follow such performances and are the cornerstone of my program. Just because one is a form handicapper, that doesn't mean that only good form is an advantage. Perceived bad performances by the public sets the foundation for great wagering advantage, likewise perceived good performances by the public also set the stage for wagering advantage, if one knows the difference, of course.

<As far as bounce goes---I am always wary of the older claiming horse that just ran a great race after coming off an extended layoff. It's been my experience that they don't do too well next out.>

My job, as a handicapper, is to decide what level of performance each horse in each race I handicap is likely to attain. In doing so, I cannot afford to be simplistic and assume that a horse will or will not run his best after just running his best, or to perform poorly after just running a bad race. One must look at all the factors involved in thoses races, class level, pace, surface, trouble, distance, etc. etc. If one can ascertain that a horse did indeed run to the very best of his ability and is turning around in a normal fashion, for him, and if no other evidence of his ability to do better is apparent, then I think one must assume that the horse will do no better than that race and probably will not match that performance. Muscles do fatigue and strains do occur, no matter how minor, and it takes a period of time for any animal or human for that matter, to return to top physical form. Class and age are the exceptions in my opinion. As has been stated earlier, class is a horse's ability to handle the pace and carry the speed over distance against stiff competition and come back for more sooner.

[keilan]

Cratos -- I don't want put words in your mouth but are you saying that the term "bounce" and "form cycle" are synonymous. If form cycles are greater than one race what do you call an anomaly in a horses PP's immediately following a most taxing effort to date?

Lets say a developing racehorse records an final figure rating of

96 (3yo)
108 (3yo)
101 (2yo)
98
96
91 (2yo)

Note in his last race he still ran a comparable pace figure but wasn't able to finish strongly.

Question - did this horse bounce or is he going "off form"?

I realize there is more to this then simply looking at the numbers, but I would be interested in your interpretation of the above scenerio.

[JackS]

Keilan- I realise these are 3yo's and improvement is expected. The first number that I'd question is the 108. Does this number jive with the track SR/VAR? Was it earned at a common distance? Also does it appear to be reasonable when compared to other races in this horses past lines? Personally , I find many instances when the Bayer seems to be in error. I think at times, whoever is making the Bayers is either underestimating or overestimating the varient. If I couldn't justify the Bayer in my own mind, I'd disregard it. Often the track SR/VAR seems to be much more intouch with reality and when you consider the public's over use of the Bayer, the track numbers can often point to an underlay/overlay.

[Marc At DRF]

Cratos,

"I don’t believe in cyber-confrontations because they don’t serve any useful purpose."

This is good to know. Because it indicates I misinterpreted the tone of your last note that addressed me. I won't make this mistake again.

"However I do believe in replying directly to a post or question and you have presented both in your post to me."

Correct. I presented the following two questions:

1) A bounce, on those occasions that it actually happens, is a component of a form cycle, sure. Is there something I said that indicated I believe otherwise?

2) Was there something I said that indicated that I thought Andy Beyer started or popularized this term?

If you could take time to answer those questions, it would be appreciated. Further, if you could explain to me how Beyer Speed Figures, regardless of their quality, are "no more than class pars," it would be interesting to me, and maybe others, too.


"In your initial post you admittedly stated that you believe in “bounce theory.” The problem that I have with your belief is that you have not presented a body of work or a reference to a body of work that defines the so-called 'bounce theory'."


So you assumed I took it from Beyer because I work for DRF? Look, I'm happy to try (and only sometimes succeed) to answer any questions anybody has about DRF, but this thread has nothing to do with that-- I'm commenting strictly as a horseplayer. I aplogize if I didn't make this clear, and I apologize for not referencing a body of work. I'm not sure why the latter is a "problem," though. Why not simply ask me for the relevant body of work? For me it would be Ragozin & Friedman's work as detailed in "The Odds Must Be Crazy." I'm not particularly interested in whether or not they originated the concept-- but it was the first I had read of it and I found it helped my handicapping considerably. I will add that some of their work seems a bit dated in that I believe advances in training methods (illicit or not) have diminished the potency of bounces/bounce theory since the days in which this book was written. IMHO.

"What you have is jargon that is currently an in word at the racetrack that allows people who don’t understand handicapping to give a one word answer on why a horse didn’t perform as expected."

Cratos, we certainly agree completely on this. As I wrote in my first post in this thread:
"simplistic horseplayers who ascribe to this theory will throw around this word far too liberally. Sometimes, horses bounce. Sometimes, there are other reasons they run poorly that have either little or nothing to do with the strenuousness of a previous effort."


More from you--
"Earlier in this thread, a poster gave a good analysis of why he thought Read the Footnotes didn’t do well in the Florida Derby and his conclusion was that it doesn’t seem that the horse can get the distance."

The problem here, for me, is there is evidence to the contrary. The horse was a dominant winner of a 9-furlong G2 to end his two-year-old campaign. Is this conclusive proof that the only possible reason Footnotes regressed so significantly in the Fla Derby was a bounce? Nope. Could it have been a combination of a bounce and other factors? Perhaps, yes. Like so many parts of handicapping, the bounce is impossible to prove. The theory has been helpful, profitable to me as a player. I'm merely sharing my opinion.

"Therefore that conclusion might be true or it might be false, but it was done with analysis and that what “bounce’ doesn’t do."

In the hands of more simplistic players, I agree with you. But I think players much more sophisticated than I apply bounce theory smartly, and profitably.

I think a lot of bright handicappers such as yourself are annoyed at the oversimplification of bounce theory that has become prevalent in recent years. Me too. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[delayjf]

I think a lot of bright handicappers such as yourself are annoyed at the oversimplification of bounce theory that has become prevalent in recent years. Me too. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I am not a spokesman for Beyer, but in his lastest book, he echoes the quote above. In fact he goes out of his way to show when a bad race which might be preceived as a bounce, in fact is not.

Again, if you can develop the visual skills to judge how a horse came out of his last race, you will go a long way to solving the bounce mystery. SOCALFAN, can I get a witness!!

[keilan]

JackS -- the 108 is not unreasonable for a true Derby candidates and nor are the 2yo numbers uncharacteristic.

Further I have tremendous confidence in the variants which I use because from them is calculated a energy number which I rely on heavily. Simply put without a good energy number I would be guessing whether untried horses are capable of running distances and estimated pace times they have yet to run.

I firmly believe good players can detect 'false favs" from "legit favs" at an alarming high rate. They don't confuse the term "bounce" with "false favs".

Most of us here agree that the term "Bounce" is over used. But to suggest that it doesn't exist certainly gets my interest.

For me the term "bounce" is more closely associated with young developing horses and can also be used for horses that are expected to bounce forward i.e. sitting on a good effort.

I'm enjoying this discussion :)

[Cratos]

Hi Marc,

Marc Wrote:
“A bounce, on those occasions that it actually happens, is a component of a form cycle, sure. Is there something I said that indicated I believe otherwise?”

Cratos Reply:
I will be more than happy to answer this question. “Bounce” is not a component of anything; it is a manufactured word without substance or meaning in the context that it is used. If a theory is to be valid, its application should be universal enough to substantiate its assertions. The “Bounce Theory” is far from having such validations. It is typically said that when a horse is caught in a grueling battle or puts up a supreme effort it is subject to “Bounce” in its next effort. If that is true, the Affirmed-Alydar battles in 1978 must be an exception to the rule. But let’s not stop with one example, because there many more to review such as Secretariat running the fastest KY Derby ever in 1973 only to come back and do the same in the Preakness and Belmont. Take a look at the great Forego’s race record and you will find several races where he got up to win a tough race by a head only to come back in his next outing and win going a way.

Marc, it was not what you said, but what you didn’t say and that was you didn’t give any credible evidence to support the so-call “Bounce Theory.”

Also I apologize for indicting you as being the Beyer spokesman for the “Bounce Theory” because you made no such statement in your post.

However you did personally advocate the “Bounce Theory” and that admission you should be held accountable too.

As I said in my post the real term is “form-cycle”. But to understand the “form-cycle” you should understand “Class.” Class you might ask what is that? Class is the consistent demonstrated ability for a horse to win at a given class level. This is the most fundamental understanding in handicapping.

How is the horse’s “form-cycle” related to its “Class”? In a word consistency, the more consistent a horse is at winning at a given level, the more form-ful it is and the classier it is. A horse that is a consistent winner at the lowly claiming level is just as form-ful and classy as the horse who does the same at the Grade 1 stakes level. Also horses go off form for many reasons and some are lack of inherent ability to be consistent, illness, injury, poor training, medications, and wrong class placement.

[JackS]

Keilan- I didn't intend to give the impression that I thought the 108 Bayer was unreasonable ,only that I thought this was the number that needed to be more closly looked at. As you stated, you looked at it and concluded it was perfectly legit. I may have easily came to the same conclusion.

[Cratos]

Hi Keilan,
No, I am not saying that "bounce" and "form cycle" are synonymous. However I am saying that “bounce” is a word that has become popular in this current age of brevity to describe a horse’s form. However I believe the persons who use the word “bounce” typically don’t have any idea what they talking about.

Your illustration using speed figures (which I don’t use) proves my point although I am not accusing you of not understanding "bounce," but your example provided a good reference.

The horseplayer looks at a set of numbers and if they are arranged in a descending manner, the horseplayer affixes the word “bounce” to the horse.

No so fast, did the horse’s performance decline because of wrong class placement, illness, wrong distance, medication or any number of other things that might have had an adverse impact on the horse’s performance.

I am not sure about your involvement in this sport but I am in it full time and I follow the top 25 racetracks as ranked by the DRF’s Purse Value Indices. I subscribe to the DRF on an annual basis for past performances. I keep charts on a daily basis and I have my own computer program which I affectionately call “Merlin” and I alone developed the algorithms for the program which has taken me 19 years of research.

Not seeing the PPs of the horse in your example it would be difficult for me o give you an intelligent response. Also the Beyer Speed figures are not used by me ever.

However I always start the handicapping of a race by scrutinizing the following five factors: 1. Class, 2. Pace. 3. Distance, 4. Style, and 5. Weight. From those factors I look for angles. Angles can be virtually anything from an equipment change to a jockey change.

However the five “factors” will always appear and will be analyzed each time a horse start, but angles might occur once or they might occur several times Buit over time angles lose their importance because they become routine.

[JustMissed]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cratos
[B]
No so fast, did the horse’s performance decline because of wrong class placement, illness, wrong distance, medication or any number of other things that might have had an adverse impact on the horse’s performance.

I am not sure about your involvement in this sport but I am in it full time and I follow the top 25 racetracks as ranked by the DRF’s Purse Value Indices. I subscribe to the DRF on an annual basis for past performances. I keep charts on a daily basis and I have my own computer program which I affectionately call “Merlin” and I alone developed the algorithms for the program which has taken me 19 years of research. [END QUOTE]

WHOW-YOU FOLLOW 25 RACETRACKS. AT 10 HORSES A RACE WITH 10 RACES A CARD, THAT 2,500 HORSES A DAY- FIVE DAYS A WEEK IS 12,500 HORSES A WEEK. WHOW-YOUR ONE BUSY DUDE. GOOD THING YOU GOT A COMPUTER.

HEY, HOW DO YOU FIND OUT THE THOSE 12,500 HORSES ARE ILL OR NOT? DO YOU CALL THE TRAINER OR DO YOU TAKE THE HORSES TEMPERATURE? WHOW THAT MUST TAKE A LONG TIME. AND WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THOSE RUBBER GLOVES?

WHOW, YOU BUY 12,500 RUBBER GLOVES EACH WEEK. WHOW, YOU REALLY ARE INVOLVED. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A PROFESSIONAL. I'M REALLY IMPRESSES.

JUSTMISSED
;)

[keilan]

Cratos

>Your illustration using speed figures (which I don’t use) proves my point although I am not accusing you of not understanding "bounce," but your example provided a good reference.

I intentionally choose the the term final figure number, the illustration numbers are a combination of differing variables i.e running style, pace, weight, field size, speed figure etc.

>No so fast, did the horse’s performance decline because of wrong class placement, illness, wrong distance, medication or any number of other things that might have had an adverse impact on the horse’s performance.

Agreed, as I do with much of what you have posted to date.

>However I always start the handicapping of a race by scrutinizing the following five factors: 1. Class, 2. Pace. 3. Distance, 4. Style, and 5. Weight. From those factors I look for angles. Angles can be virtually anything from an equipment change to a jockey change.

Class and Weight are built into the final figure number (power number) and I also consider each race on it's pace-distance and style estimates, I suspect you're referring to running style and or race shape in regards to style.

>I am not sure about your involvement in this sport but I am in it full time and I follow the top 25 racetracks as ranked by the DRF’s Purse Value Indices. I subscribe to the DRF on an annual basis for past performances. I keep charts on a daily basis and I have my own computer program which I affectionately call “Merlin” and I alone developed the algorithms for the program which has taken me 19 years of research.

Those credentials certainly surpass mine, congratulations. I very much enjoy chatting with other players and look forward to participating with you in other threads.

[Cratos]

Hi Just Missed,

I apologize for not writing with more clarity. Of the 25 top racetracks only 5-8 are in operation at any one time. For instance when Belmont is in operation, Saratoga and Aqueduct is closed. Similarly when Santa Anita is operating, Hollywood and Del Mar is closed.

When I say I follow 25 racetracks, what I do is calculate the Surface Speed Resistance Variant (SSRV) for the tracks that are in operation and download the full result chart for the day. I now have the two essential references I need to run my model

Also I don’t play every day. Matter of fact I only make 40 to 50 wagers per year at $200 to $2500 each and I don’t play exotics at all.

I hope this adds some clarity because I don’t post to impress.

[Cratos]

Hi Keilan,

I have enjoyed this discussion and I also enjoy reading your posts. I am always trying to learn more in this game.

[Tee]

A few questions for those enjoying this discussion.

1) Did RTF enjoy a clean trip in the Florida Derby?

2) Did he to your knowledge exit the race in good order?

3) Is he capable of getting 9 furlongs & beyond?

[cato]

As to breeding and RTF's ability to get the longer distance, I think its a little unclear (and that' what makes horse racing)

Here is an article from the DRF

http://www.drf.com/news/article/51951.html

Helm's 2002-2003 sire rating book, rates Smoke Glacken as a "4" and the broodmare sire Al Nasr as a "3"

4 means that the "sire's progeny have demonstarted the ability to win" at both sprint and a distance of up to a mile

(of course, RTF has already wonat a longer distance)

3 means means that the "sire's progeny have demonstarted the ability to win" at a distance of up to 1 1/16 of a mile

BUT, Smoke Glacken only had one or two crops out when this was published--who has access to a newer version of Helm--and has the rating changed any?

ANd for that matter, what is the dosage on the horse?

Stay tuned

Take care,
Cato

[keilan]

Hey Tee,

I didn't see RTF's Florida Derby race so I can't comment on the first two questions.

Is he capable of getting the distance (9f and beyond) based on his races to date I believe so.

Below are the races for Read the Footnotes and Empire Maker, I have included each of their races leading up to the Derby.

Few things to pay attention to when examining each horse are race date, distance, pace number and %E.

Their running styles are slightly different RTF is designated as a (E) runner and Empire Maker has a pressing running style. These energy numbers are very good for quality 3yo's at this stage of their development in view of the pace numbers.



The 108 on RTF's last race line is the pace number and the 51.38 is the energy number.



Read the Footnotes

GP 02/14/2004 8.5 fst FntnOYth G2 108 |51.38 won

Aqu 11/29/2003 9.0 fst Remsen G2 102 |51.13 won

Aqu 11/02/2003 8.0 fst Nashua G3 89 |52.04 won

Bel 10/04/2003 8.5 fst Champagn G1 72|51.74

Bel 09/07/2003 7.0 fst Alw 47000N1X 89 l51.91 won

Sar 08/17/2003 5.0 fst S-Md Sp Wt 41k 88 |51.86 won



EMPIRE MAKER

Aqu 04/12/2003 9.0 my Wood Mem G1 108 |51.03 won

GP 03/15/2003 9.0 fst Fla Derby G1 105 |51.40 won

SA 02/07/2003 9.0 fst R-Sham81k 94 |51.23

Aqu 11/30/2002 9.0 fst Remsen G2 101 |51.82

Bel 10/20/2002 8.0 fst Md Sp Wt 75 |51.02 won



Hope this is helpful.

[Fastracehorse]

Deo Valente,

Trainers don't crank 'em every race - especially the young and improving Derby contenders.

You want to peak these babies at the right time and then tighten the screws.

We have an exciting crop this year - expect many so-called bounces and surprises.

fffastt

[Cratos]

Hi Teeitup,

I will answer your questions as follows:

1) Did RTF enjoy a clean trip in the Florida Derby?

Yes, Read the Footnotes had a good trip and at the eighth pole he was only a half length behind Value Plus, an alleged sprinter.

2) Did he to your knowledge exit the race in good order?

There haven’t been any published reports about any injuries

3) Is he capable of getting 9 furlongs & beyond?

We all have our opinions, but I didn’t like Read the Footnotes in the Fountain of Youth at 1 1/16 miles because of suspect distance limitations and I didn’t like him in the Florida Derby for the same reason.

I don’t transfer 2yo performances to 3yos because of the big change in growth and maturity. Therefore looking only at Read the Footnotes times for the last quarter of his two 3yo races, you would see the following:

Fountain of Youth = 25.06 on a track with a SSRV of a +1.33

Florida Derby = 26.97 seconds on a track with a SSRV of +.66

In a race (the Fountain of Youth) and on a track that was lighting fast, Read the Footnotes came hone in 25.06. He came back on another fast surface and closed in 26.97 seconds. I don’t see this horse getting a 1 1/8 mile or a 1 ¼ mile distance without help.

[keilan]

Hi Cratos,

Final fraction times unto themselves are not significant to me unless I have something to measure it against.

Can you shed some light on what a quality 3yo at this time of year should be running the final fraction on a zero adjusted track and typical pace for class level and distance?

I'm not suggesting Read the Footnotes is a triple crown threat only that he is much better than many others to this point. If he continues to develop he could have a say later on.

Further to this, since he runs on the pace whatever success he might enjoy wouldn't be because of any help he would receive from a Derby field etc.

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"The word 'bounce' rate up there with the 'Beyer Speed Figures' which are no more than CLASS PARS."

Cratos: Would you please explain this statement? Thank you.

Cratos wrote:

"... Beyer and his cronies started this nonsense of bounce."

This is very (what is the word?) revealing. Since, as you said earlier, you believe in holding people accountable, please hold yourself accountable for these words, which are manifestly absurd.

More to follow. Much more.

[Cratos]

Hi Lance,

It looks though you got your feathers ruffle and I cannot help that, but I will be very accountable for my statements. However if you heading toward some type of P--- contest, count me out because I am not here to change your mind, just to give my opinion.

Therefore when I said

Response #1

"The word 'bounce' rate up there with the 'Beyer Speed Figures' which are no more than CLASS PARS."

First of all, the last time I look at the data, Beyer and Associates had taken all of the races run at the North American racetracks and segmented them first into two track class groups (major tracks and other tracks) for their speed figure pars. Then these track groups are dived into race class groups such as maiden, stakes, graded stakes, claiming, and allowance. There are several claiming sub-class groups and two sub-allowance groups.

At first glance this might not seem to be too bad until you look behind the numbers. What Beyer and Associates are attempting to do behind the numbers is to universally normalize horses by class and assess that class with speed.

This is akin to the SAT process that is used by many colleges and universities for entering freshmen. The SAT score taken independent of any thing else says that student “A” and student “B” have equal academic chances at the same college even though student “A” went to a better school than student “B.” I not trying to argue the merits of the SAT system, but to use it such that the understanding of the Beyer Speed Figures might be easier understood.

Therefore Beyer and Associates say for example (the BSFs are fictitious) that a horse which ran 6f for a $15K claiming price at Pimilco in 1:11 and received a BSF of 93 is the same as a $15K horse at Belmont who ran the 6f there in 1:10.73 with a BSF of 93 or a $15K horse at Santa Anita who would run a 6f in 1:10 and also got a 93. Again according to Beyer and Associates all of these performances are the same.

Then what is wrong with the Beyer and Associates postulation you might ask? For starters, class at American racetracks is not that homogenous. Class in my opinion is the consistent demonstrated ability of a horse to win at a given level and it can only be measured in the post-sense. It is important to understand that only wins by a horse validates it class level. Also class can be fleeing. In 2002, Alderbaran had a habit of finishing second when sprinting at the graded level; however in 2003 he was nothing short of sensational when he became a dominant winning sprinter and he won the 2003 Sprinter of the Year award.

Is Beyer and Associates all wrong? Not absolutely wrong but close to it. Then why do the BSFs appear to be good at the graded level. Because there is no class above the graded class level and those races account for about 2% of all races run in North America. Therefore with the small population of both horses and graded races, the inherent quality (e.g., good breeding) of the horses at that level will consistently provide for good performances. Furthermore the career of the graded horse (other than geldings) is very short (under 20 races total for the horse’s career). But a low price claimer with no breeding possibility will probably stay in racing for 7 or 8 years and have 50 to 60 starts and maybe more. Because this lack of quality, the BSFs across the population of the low price claimers are very instable, erratic, and not a very good measurement of winning performances.

Again, at the graded stake level there is considerable more homogeneity between those levels of racehorses and even if the BSFs appear to be more meritorious, they still leaves much to be desired.

Response #2

"... Beyer and his cronies started this nonsense of bounce."

I hope that I am not being put in a Court of Law, but having been in this business nearly 40 years and have heard Beyer himself used the term I stand by my statement. However you appear to be upset about my comments to the extent that you were ready to say that I am not “accountable” for my statements.

As I have said I have been in business a long time and I fear no one in terms of handicapping and wager methodology. Do I know all? Hell no and I continue to learn, but only that which will further my winning at the racetrack.

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"It looks though you got your feathers ruffle"

No ruffled feathers have I.

"What Beyer and Associates are attempting to do behind the numbers is to universally normalize horses by class and assess that class with speed."

Wrong. Beyer uses the projection method. Every other word you wrote on the subject is therefore irrelevant, and you wrote a lot of words. Please read "Beyer on Speed." It will clear up your confusion.

Cratos wrote:"... Beyer and his cronies started this nonsense of bounce."

Then Cratos wrote:

"I hope that I am not being put in a Court of Law, but having been in this business nearly 40 years and have heard Beyer himself used the term I stand by my statement."

For years and years, Beyer has been FAMOUS for denouncing bounce theory, which was coined by Ragozin years before Beyer ever used the word. You seemed to be saying that since Beyer has used the word "bounce," he must be the one who "started this nonsense of bounce," as you put it. Your logic is staggeringly bad, and your knowledge of the history of the subject is staggeringly bad--and this from someone who claims he has been in the business for almost 40 years.

I have no interest in getting into a fight over this, Cratos. I just want you to hold yourself accountable, as you yourself wanted someone held accountable earlier on this string.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I suggest we just put out the "facts" as we understand them, with a short reference if possible. See you on the highly opinionated and critical Off Topic threads, if you all type there!

[Cratos]

“For years and years, Beyer has been FAMOUS for denouncing bounce theory, which was coined by Ragozin years before Beyer ever used the word. You seemed to be saying that since Beyer has used the word "bounce," he must be the one who "started this nonsense of bounce," as you put it. Your logic is staggeringly bad, and your knowledge of the history of the subject is staggeringly bad--and this from someone who claims he has been in the business for almost 40 years.”

Okay Beyer didn’t coin the term but he has publicly used it therefore at minimal that makes him a subscriber to its content.

However what is very revealing is that you don’t understand statistics or you are just “dumbing down” to be argumentative. The Beyer figures are assigned after a horse has run the race. The projection part is the affixing a variant to the number. But it still comes down to a measurement.

It was clear in your first post that want you wanted to get into a p----- contest. Sorry, with me that will not happen. If you like the Beyer Speed Figures use them because this is pari-mutuel wagering and I am one of the bettors you will betting against if we are betting different horses and I welcome the challenge.

I have never written a post on this website or any other website that I didn’t hold myself accountable first.

But what is strange you are defending a methodology that you have yet to explain except to say it is a projection. No one can ever accuse you of being verbose.


Also Beyer is not FAMOUS, he is popular but so was Lewin in his day and Ansilie in his day. I have read all of Beyer books and have an original copy of "Picking Winners," the book that jump started the Beyer methodology.

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"Okay Beyer didn’t coin the term"

We are progressing. I wish you had simply admitted this earlier. That's usually the best way to handle mistakes.

"he has publicly used it therefore at minimal that makes him a subscriber to its content."

The truth is that Beyer came to bounce theory about 35 years late. He did computer studies in "Beyer on Speed." They proved to him--based on large samples--that bounce theory was legitimate. He then effectively apologized to Len Ragozin. All this is in the book. Pages 30-42. But Beyer is still nowhere close to being as strong a believer in bounce theory as Ragozin is. Indeed, he spends a good chunk of the book giving examples of so-called "bounces" that he believes were nothing of the sort. This is a nuanced subject. Painting with a broad brush, as you have been doing, is ill advised.

"The Beyer figures are assigned after a horse has run the race."

Really getting yourself out there on a limb now, aren't you?

"The projection part is the affixing a variant to the number."

No, the projection part is affixing a variant (or variants) to a racetrack, and thence to the numbers of the horses who ran over it. You are stating it in a misleading way.

"Beyer Speed Figures' which are no more than CLASS PARS."

This statement is false. Beyers are not based on class pars. They are based on the previous figures of the horses and the times of today's races. See chapter one of "Beyer on Speed." In this and all of his other books, Beyer has pointed out at length why he DOES NOT rely on class pars for making variants. Indeed, he ridicules the concept of class throughout "Beyer on Speed."

"If you like the Beyer Speed Figures use them"

I very much prefer using the Sheets. What I object to is you making false statements about Beyer concerning matters of fact, matters that can be looked up in Beyer's books, matters that someone who has been in the game as long as you really ought to understand.

"But what is strange you are defending a methodology that you have yet to explain except to say it is a projection."

Beyer is a wonderfully clear writer. He explains his methodology in all of his books. I have discussed it at length on other strings. Please don't make me repeat myself.

"I have read all of Beyer books"

Then why do you need me to explain his methodology?

"Also Beyer is not FAMOUS,"

Now this is just plain silly. And it's over--unless you break some new ground.

[GameTheory]

Cratos --

Any insight into how you determine the "Surface Speed Resistance Variant" would be interesting. Apparently not with class-based pars. It sounds like your issue is more with Quirin-style figures than with Beyer, which are based strictly on class pars. I make Quirinish figures for myself, and the variants produced have shown themselves to be better than nothing (but speed figures are not the cornerstone of my handicapping either), but I'm interested in just what you are doing if it is neither based on projection or class...

[Lance]

Game Theory wrote:

"It sounds like your issue is more with Quirin-style figures than with Beyer, which are based strictly on class pars."

"Beyer on Speed," page 18:

"Most handicappers use par times as the basis of their figures...But it is much more accurate to create a track variant by comparing today's time with the way the actual horses in that race should have run. This is called the projection method--used to calculate all of the figures used in this book."

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Lance
Game Theory wrote:

"It sounds like your issue is more with Quirin-style figures than with Beyer, which are based strictly on class pars."

"Beyer on Speed," page 18:

"Most handicappers use par times as the basis of their figures...But it is much more accurate to create a track variant by comparing today's time with the way the actual horses in that race should have run. This is called the projection method--used to calculate all of the figures used in this book."

Subject-object confusion there. I meant that Quirin figs are strictly class-based, whereas Beyers are projection method...

[raybo]

RE: "The word 'bounce' rate up there with the 'Beyer Speed Figures' which are no more than CLASS PARS."

First, let me say that I don't like Beyers speed figures, never have. I realize that they are probably ok if you know how to adjust them, but there just seems to be too many holes in them to be useful over a wide spectrum. But, to say that they are class pars strikes me as a little misleading.

You stated: " Class in my opinion is the consistent demonstrated ability of a horse to win at a given level and it can only be measured in the post-sense".

This statement might be true if you are talking about "past" class. Past class will not win a race for you. Current class is determined, in my opinion, by current condition, which also determines current pace ability, current distance ability, current speed ability and can indeed be determined pre-race if you can handle the task of figuring condition. The speed rating, Beyers or otherwise, is only a portion of class, unless you are saying that Beyers speed figures include condition, ability to handle the pace, ability to handle the distance, etc, etc.

Class encompasses all these factors, so how can you say the Beyers are class pars? No offense intended but, are you saying that Beyers figures are meant to be universal at all class levels, distances, and paces? I don't think that's what Beyers intends. In my opinion Beyers, and all other speed figures, are only valid for the race in which they were assigned. You can use them as a guide for other races but they must be adjusted each time the distance changes or the pace expectations are different or the surface changes, etc. After you do all those adjustments, then you can validate the new speed figure through current condition.

Now you have indeed determined current class( the ability to handle the expected pace, the distance, the current surface and surface condition, and the expected final time), otherwise the speed figure has no meaning, at least in my opinion anyway.

If Beyers is really attempting to cross class lines with their speed figures then it's no wonder that I don't like them, that seems to me to be impossible.

Maybe you really didn't mean to say that Beyers are "class" pars, maybe you used the wrong wording, maybe you meant that they are "time/variant" pars.

Maybe I'm all wet too, whaddaya think?

[GameTheory]

And of course par tables based on "class" are referring to class of race, not of horse. They are race-level/condition pars...

[raybo]

Speaking of class par tables, etc., I wonder if anyone posting to this board has developed class par, speed par and pace par tables for the Bris figures?

[Cratos]

Hi Lance,

You said:

"Okay Beyer didn’t coin the term"

We are progressing. I wish you had simply admitted this earlier. That's usually the best way to handle mistakes.

I rplied:

No, we are not progressing because you took a “journalistic license” and truncated my statement to fit your response. What I said and stand by is the following:

“Okay Beyer didn’t coin the term, but he has publicly used it therefore at minimal that makes him a subscriber to its content.”

You said:

“The truth is that Beyer came to bounce theory about 35 years late. He did computer studies in "Beyer on Speed." They proved to him--based on large samples--that bounce theory was legitimate.”

I replied:

If “Beyer came to bounce theory about 35 years late” and “Picking Winners” was published in 1975 and re-issued in 1994 with “Beyer on Speed” coming out in 1995 I find it disingenuous of you to make the above statement not unless you know Andrew Beyer personally. Also you have yet to succinctly explain the “Bounce Theory.”

You said:

“No, the projection part is affixing a variant (or variants) to a racetrack, and thence to the numbers of the horses who ran over it. You are stating it in a misleading way.”

I replied:

I knew if you talked longer enough, you would put your foot in your mouth. Taking the times of the races will NOT give you a variant of the track. Why, because you have two variables competing against each other, the track surface and the horse. On a theoretically fast surface you can have a horse run a slow time which has nothing to do with the surface. For instance, an out of condition horse might not perform well even if the track surface is “fast.” If you follow minor tracks you will see horses “raced into condition” by some trainers. A horse might run 6f in 1:14 and lose by 10 lengths only to come back in its next outing in condition and run the same distance over a nearly identical surface in 1:11 and win.

However help is on the way to help determine the track surface in the form of Dr. M. L. Peterson of the University of Maine, builder of a testing device which he has brought to Santa Anita racetrack for testing. The device, which simulates the impact of a hoof into the track surface at an angle to approximate a horse, measures the vertical and horizontal responses of the soil, the impact penetration and the shear strength.

If Dr. Peterson device proves to be reliable then a track surface speed variant can be determined.

Two factors primarily impact the speed of a horse independent of its efforts and innate ability. One is air resistance and the other is surface resistance. Both of these resistances can be mathematically calculated, but up until Dr. Peterson came up with this device, I know of no other way of determining the proper inputs to make the calculations.

Finally you are dead set on auguring something you know little about with inane responses and because of that I will discontinue my response to you. It is not being rude, but intellectually you have yet to say anything.

[Tom]

Peterson's variant machine.
Dos it tak into account the rail may be wet and the outer paths wind blown dry? Or the rail is frozen?
Or the wind varries during the day?
My point is, where do measure this surface resistance? The horse run over the whole track. Will Peterson?
An interesting concept, to be sure, and maybe with some studies it could find a place in handicaping.
But I wonder, will the macine ever bounce?

[Cratos]

Hi Tom,

You’ve asked some excellent questions and I am not the one to give you the answers because the device and testing is by Dr. Peterson.

However other people are during work in this area and one of them is Rhonda Rathgeber, PhD, DVM, at Hagyard, Davidson and McGee Equine Associates in Lexington, Kentucky who investigated track surfaces and footing as part of her doctoral work.

The following is an excerpt from the article I read about Dr. Rathgeber’s work:

“My PhD was in locomotion. I did a thesis on surfaces, changing the moisture content of a particular surface and measuring the track recoil and impact resistance of that surface—actually quantitatively measuring it with a device made by the engineering department and then running horses across it with different force transducers on their shoes. Different piezo electric crystals and cinematography measured characteristics of their stride. In a galloping horse, those dynamics change a bit if footing is dry, with very little moisture content,”says Rathgeber. “My thesis was on different track surfaces, measuring them to determine the impact and the recoil of the track. The impact measurement determined how hard it was, and the recoil is how much bounce it gives back to the horse’s stride. We measured it at different moisture contents and then made recommendations to race tracks as to the appropriate moisture content for best footing.”

I realize at this juncture some of these tests are suspect and others might not prove anything. However as an engineer I have been down this road many times in doing research on a particular project and have had my share of failures.

But without these types of scientific efforts we will never understand track surface variants.

[Cratos]

Hi Raybo,

“Maybe you really didn't mean to say that Beyers are "class" pars, maybe you used the wrong wording, maybe you meant that they are "time/variant" pars.”

No, I meant “Class Pars” and let me expand this. What I am saying is that the Beyer methodology does not measure speed as it relates to the track surface. In this year’s Fountain of Youth, Beyer gave the victor, Red the Footnotes a 113 on his scale. However Read the Footnotes came back and ran fourth in the Florida Derby which Beyer assessed with a 92. According to the DRF website, Beyer gives two points per beaten length at the route and with Read the Footnotes losing by 4 ½ lengths, his Beyer should be around 90.

On the other hand I looked at Read the Footnotes Fountain of race and said the track had a SSRV of +1.33 with Read the Footnotes actual time being 142.71 his adjusted time should be 1:44.04 and his projected time for the 1 1/8 mile Florida Derby on a Gulfstream racing surface with a “zero” SSRV would be !:50.2.

However Read the Footnotes ran 4th in the Florida Derby in a final time of 1:52.05 on a Gulfstream racing surface with a SSRV of +.66 which gave him an adjusted time of 1:52.71. Draw your own conclusion and ask yourself did Read the Footnotes run 2 and 1/5 seconds slower than his Fountain of Youth performance or did he run as expected.

Just for the record I had 1. Tapit, 2. Value Plus, and 3. Read the Footnotes as my top three choices.

In my opinion what is being said by Beyer is that each horse is in a particular CLASS group with the group having a certain average time (PAR) and that horses can be segmented into CLASS groups whose performances can be assessed/graded by that average time with point system.

Beyond the technical inconsistencies with Beyer that I have a problem with, it is also the administrative issue of stating that a class of horse at one racetrack is equal to the class of a horse at another racetrack. That might be true in some cases, but the way condition books are written by racing secretaries it difficult for me to believe such postulation. However I do believe at the Grade I stake level this assumption come the closest of being true and that is where Beyer has had some good public success.

[Tom]

Technology can lead to some neat improvments in handicapping. This machine that can put a number on a track rather than Fst, Gd, Sly, etc, would be something you could test out mathmatially.
GPS is already here, but apparently the money is the roadblack.

[kenwoodallpromos]

PM or email me if you want my 10 point workout time/track speed prediction method to check out.

[Tom]

Originally posted by cato
Helm's 2002-2003 sire rating book, rates Smoke Glacken as a "4" and the broodmare sire Al Nasr as a "3"

4 means that the "sire's progeny have demonstarted the ability to win" at both sprint and a distance of up to a mile

(of course, RTF has already wonat a longer distance)

3 means means that the "sire's progeny have demonstarted the ability to win" at a distance of up to 1 1/16 of a mile

BUT, Smoke Glacken only had one or two crops out when this was published--who has access to a newer version of Helm--and has the rating changed any?

ANd for that matter, what is the dosage on the horse?

Stay tuned

Take care,
Cato

In the 2003-2004 Ratings, both are rated a 3 on SI

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"In my opinion what is being said by Beyer is that each horse is in a particular CLASS group with the group having a certain average time (PAR) and that horses can be segmented into CLASS groups whose performances can be assessed/graded by that average time with point system."

This has now been explained to you at least five times and by several different people. Beyer does NOT use class pars. He compares the horses' prior figures to today's final times, and then he makes projections. From these projections he makes variants. He keeps his numbers in line by comparing performances of shippers. He could not care less what class group horses are in.


"Beyond the technical inconsistencies with Beyer that I have a problem with, it is also the administrative issue of stating that a class of horse at one racetrack is equal to the class of a horse at another racetrack."

He states the complete OPPOSITE. See pages 23 and 24 of "Beyer on Speed." Again, he states the complete OPPOSITE. And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for making false claims about a man's business. One more time, Cratos:

"Beyer on Speed," page 18:

"Most handicappers use par times as the basis of their figures...But it is much more accurate to create a track variant by comparing today's time with the way the actual horses in that race should have run. This is called the projection method--used to calculate all of the figures used in this book."

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"If “Beyer came to bounce theory about 35 years late” and “Picking Winners” was published in 1975 and re-issued in 1994 with “Beyer on Speed” coming out in 1995 I find it disingenuous of you to make the above statement not unless you know Andrew Beyer personally."

Kudos on putting together the most illogical, idiotic paragraph I have read in some time. In "Beyer on Speed," Beyer said that he changed his mind on bounce theory after doing computer studies. Beyer is 52 years old. He has been playing the horses since he was a little boy. You are saying that it is disingenuous of me to quote from his book unless I know him personally. With this you not only take the cake. You retire it.

"Also you have yet to succinctly explain the “Bounce Theory.”

It has been explained a dozen times on these "bounce/sheets" strings. I explained it last night. I provided a link to the Sheets site, where it is explained. Several other people have explained it. It is explained in the books you pretend to have read. Again, www.thesheets.com. Click on "Introduction." It's on the left side of the screen after you scroll down an inch or two.

"Taking the times of the races will NOT give you a variant of the track. Why, because you have two variables competing against each other, the track surface and the horse. On a theoretically fast surface you can have a horse run a slow time which has nothing to do with the surface."

Jesus, this is "wisdom" out of about 1923. That is why Beyer, Ragozin, and Thoro-Graph compare the times to the FIGURE HISTORIES of the horses. You have had about 10 shots at understanding this. Some horses will not run their race, for whatever reason. But large groups of horses will, and these are the horses you use to make variants.

"However help is on the way to help determine the track surface in the form of Dr. M. L. Peterson of the University of Maine,"

Determine the track surface in the FORM OF A MAN? That doesn't seem very reliable to me. All kidding aside, go to thorograph.com and read why help isn't coming any time soon.

"I will discontinue my response to you."

Thank God I won't get any more responses from someone who: 1: Thought that Beyer, of all people, came up with bounce theory. 2: Thinks Beyer makes figures based on par times. 3: Thinks Beyer claims that a class of horse at one racetrack is equal to the class of a horse at another racetrack 4: Thinks it's disingenuous to quote from a book without knowing the author.

You have been in the game for 40 years? Better luck in the next 40.

[raybo]

RE: "No, I meant “Class Pars” and let me expand this. What I am saying is that the Beyer methodology does not measure speed as it relates to the track surface. In this year’s Fountain of Youth, Beyer gave the victor, Red the Footnotes a 113 on his scale. However Read the Footnotes came back and ran fourth in the Florida Derby which Beyer assessed with a 92. According to the DRF website, Beyer gives two points per beaten length at the route and with Read the Footnotes losing by 4 ½ lengths, his Beyer should be around 90.

On the other hand I looked at Read the Footnotes Fountain of race and said the track had a SSRV of +1.33 with Read the Footnotes actual time being 142.71 his adjusted time should be 1:44.04 and his projected time for the 1 1/8 mile Florida Derby on a Gulfstream racing surface with a “zero” SSRV would be !:50.2.

However Read the Footnotes ran 4th in the Florida Derby in a final time of 1:52.05 on a Gulfstream racing surface with a SSRV of +.66 which gave him an adjusted time of 1:52.71. Draw your own conclusion and ask yourself did Read the Footnotes run 2 and 1/5 seconds slower than his Fountain of Youth performance or did he run as expected."

Cratos,

You took an example of a horse in a race and through mathmatical means "projected" a final time for him on another track and at a different distance. That appears to be quite "weak" to me. Did you consider all the other factors that determined his final time in the race? Post position, his exit from the gate, his energy expended while trying to get into proper position following the start, traffic he experienced during the running of the race, mis-judgements by his jockey or others that may have affected him, the pace of the race, his condition as a whole, his ability to run the additional distance at the pace he was facing and all the other factors? It appears not, so how can you expect your "projections" to actually happen? I would expect them "not" to happen, under those conditions. If your projections actually came to pass I would be surprised. This class of animal, admittedly, is pretty consistent compared to lesser animals, but they do have form cycles and bad races and other problems during the running of races just like all other horses. I guess what I am saying is that your example and your explanation made very little sense to me.

As far as Beyers being "class" pars, it would seem that you believe that a horse in a lower "class"(class level) can never run as high a Beyers number as a horse in a higher "class", or that if he did the numbers would not be comparable. Why is this? Does not a 90 Beyers in a claiming race relate to a 90 in an allowance race? If not, then what's the point of creating the numbers in the first place? If Beyers' don't measure final times, taking into account the condition of the track, then I must not be looking at the same Beyers that you are. Whether or not there are "pars" for different classes and tracks really doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm going to consider the surface and the expected pace of the competitors anyway. Yes, I know that a horse who has run a 90 Beyers in the past can be beaten by a horse who has run only an 85 Beyers, with both animals being in perfect condition and having a smooth trip. That is a function of pace. It suited one and not the other. Or the surface didn't suit one or the other, etc etc. But, my point is , the Beyers, (although I much prefer Bris speed figures to Beyers or any others), can still be used as a measurement for both animals no matter what class they came from or what class they now run in. "Class level" makes no difference because a particular "class level" may not be the same from race to race which would invalidate the Beyers even within the same "class level".

Don't you agree?

Bottom line: Speed ratings, no matter who produces them, are only tools that must be used in conjunction with other tools to get a better picture of what actually took place and what kind of "projections" can be made for the future.

My definition of "class" and your definition of "class" obviously conflict. I try not to confuse "class" with "class levels". "Class levels" are only labels used for grouping. "Class", in my opinion, is a horse's performance ability at a specific point in time and in a specific set of circumstances.

I don't mean to offend or insult, just a discussion.

[Cratos]

Raybo wrote

“You took an example of a horse in a race and through mathmatical means "projected" a final time for him on another track and at a different distance. That appears to be quite "weak" to me. Did you consider all the other factors that determined his final time in the race? Post position, his exit from the gate, his energy expended while trying to get into proper position following the start, traffic he experienced during the running of the race, mis-judgements by his jockey or others that may have affected him, the pace of the race, his condition as a whole, his ability to run the additional distance at the pace he was facing and all the other factors? It appears not, so how can you expect your "projections" to actually happen? I would expect them "not" to happen, under those conditions. If your projections actually came to pass I would be surprised.

Hi Raybo,

I sorry to disappoint you, but all quantifiable factors were taken into consideration. Also with a background in forecasting (and I mention that only to say I do have experience in setting up predictive models) I understand that affixing a time value to every ‘variable” you think will impact the horse is illogical. You have to be able to measure your variables in a way that will product similar outcomes over time. I don’t see all of the variables you mention as measurable.

When you talk of energy expended, what you talking about? A horse has “potential energy” and “kinetic energy” You should know one to calculate the other because what you talking about is “work.” Did plot an energy expend curve with respect to distance and pace? if not, your statement about energy is serendipity at best.

Incidentally I didn’t take “an example of a horse in a race and through mathematical means "projected" a final time for him on another track and at a different distance.” The two racetracks and race distances were normalized. Therefore they could be logically and rationally compared

I didn’t respond to your entire post because I see it as two posts I will respond to the second part later.

I am also discussing and I am not challenging your integrity or intelligence.

[Cratos]

SJK

I am not sure where or who you directing your comment to, but I agree with you even if you are directing them at me.

If there has been a change in this industry it is the introduction of the PC which allows the academic types to take this game to a level it has never seen.

Horse race handicapping pure and simple is data analysis and the hard and soul of data analysis is statistics. Computers and statistics is the perfect marriage.

[karlskorner]

Thats it. 3 simple paragraphs sums it all up. I gotta get me a book on how to become an "academic type". 3 years on this board and that has to be the most astounding post I ever read.

[Tom]

http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTractsArchive/TT010330.htm


Here is an interesting article on a perfomrance bounce.

[raybo]

RE: <I sorry to disappoint you, but all quantifiable factors were taken into consideration. Also with a background in forecasting (and I mention that only to say I do have experience in setting up predictive models) I understand that affixing a time value to every ‘variable” you think will impact the horse is illogical. You have to be able to measure your variables in a way that will product similar outcomes over time. I don’t see all of the variables you mention as measurable>

You made my point. You can't use numbers to measure all the factors involved in a horse race. So, how can you expect to project a performance level with any degree of accuracy concerning speed figures, Beyers or otherwise, if you ignore in your calculations the ones you can't numerically measure? You seem surprised that Read The Footnotes didn't perform as your numerical calculations projected that it would, or that Beyers' assigned figure for the Florida Derby performance appears wrong to you. What I am saying is that no matter which speed figures you employ, they are only part of the equation. The fact that a horse didn't acheive your projections doesn't mean that the speed numbers are wrong, as far as they go, only that they don't measure all the factors either. Beyers is only doing the best he can with what he has to work with. They are just numbers, after all. Data (numbers) is important in predicting future races, but they will never tell you everything that happened or is going to happen in the running of races. I believe fiercely that the successful handicapper must employ every advantage available to him including the "figures" and the "ssrv's" and whatever else you find helpful, but just don't be disappointed when these calculations fail you. In my opinion, speed figures attach a number to a time that enables handicappers to coarsely compare one horse to another and they should be a rough estimate of one horse's final time ability compared to others, but final time is not the final answer. One must consider all the other factors in order to validate the final time figure. This cannot be done entirely through mathmatical calculations. If your final calculated grade or what ever you use to distinguish one horse from another shows only a small separation between 2 horses and you don't consider the non-numerical factors also, I would expect your calculations to fail you as often as they work for you. As I stated earlier, I don't like Beyers' figures because they appear to be inconsistent and have "holes" in them. Trying to use them in numerical calculations that already leave something to be desired appears to be an exercise in futility, at the very least.

PS. "energy expended", in my opinion, is an "analog" expression in your "digital" world. But, it doesn't mean that you can't quantify it. One's brain doesn't have to have everything explained to it numerically in order to arrive at a conclusion. The fact that one has a hard time applying "energy expended" to numerical performance calculations only tends to corroborate my original statement, not prove it to be serendipitous.

[Cratos]

Hi Raybo,

A good post and a good response, however please characterize correctly. My wagering decision is not based solely on “numbers.” when it come to handicapping. But I do believe that variables that are quantifiable are very good if they are properly quantified. As I have posted earlier on the PA forum I am a class handicapper. We can go back forth on what class is and what it is not, but it is a variable that can only be identified in the post-sense. Far as the energy calculation, the “engineer” in me will always take a scientific approach to such calculation

Again thanks for replying and nice chatting with you.

[raybo]

RE: <Far as the energy calculation, the “engineer” in me will always take a scientific approach to such calculation>

I assume by this statement that you either are or were an engineer. If so, 'nuff said. :)

I have a brother-in-law who was an EE and at one time worked for Philco-Ford in the space program back in the late 60's and early 70's. He is exactly the same way about the stock market. He insists that one can use the same kind of scientific approach. He's spent no telling how much money on software and seminars for market investing and he spends more time actually doing human analysis of the data from the software he's bought than he ever did before he had the software and as far as I can tell, he's no better for it. Back when I was toying with the idea of writing a computer program to handicap the horses he was all gung-ho about his being able to help me create the software. That is, until he saw all the data involved and all the little nuances that had to be taken into account. He quickly disappeared from the picture. That is why I ended up with an Excel spreadsheet instead of a stand-alone piece of software. Oh well, at least this way I know exactly what is going on in my program because I personally typed in every formula and recorded or wrote every macro. I am quite technical myself but I don't think everything can be reduced to numbers. Sometimes you just have to let your brain do it's thing.

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"Read the Footnotes came back and ran fourth in the Florida Derby which Beyer assessed with a 92. According to the DRF website, Beyer gives two points per beaten length at the route and with Read the Footnotes losing by 4 ½ lengths, his Beyer should be around 90."

Let's see if the "engineer" in you can figure out the problems with your math.

[Cratos]

Lance,

Please help me with my “math” because 4 ½ times 2 equal 9 and 92 minus 9 equals 83. What did I do wrong? I divided and because Beyers are not fractional numbers, I made the number 2 which would have been 92 minus 2 equals 90. If this is the only math error I ever made, I am delighted. But I am still waiting for you to write one logical construct.

However what is strange, it took you several days to find that big math error.

[Cratos]

Raybo,

Whether you like it or not, racing is about numbers. However I am not like your brother-in-law for one reason I don’t know him and another reason is the only facets that I have exhibited about myself are horseracing and engineering.

Developing an energy curve for a horse is no small task especially if you don’t have the parameters of size, weight, shape, and stride because what you really need to know is the aerodynamic drag. Also how you do account for the resistances? Stock car racers have worked those equations for years and continue to do so today.

But this conversation is concluded on my part because it is moving toward academics and it should be about horseracing.

[JackS]

Aerodynamics, winds (steady and gusts,NSE&West), horses running behind each other to reduce drag- Talk about an endevor to put any meaningful number to such physics is IMO, hopeless. Probably best to stay with adjustment programs more intouch with attempting a more realistic estimation of speed. No ones numbers are absolutly correct and never can be. That doesn't mean no one comes close, and in this game the closest wins.

[raybo]

RE: <Whether you like it or not, racing is about numbers. However I am not like your brother-in-law for one reason I don’t know him and another reason is the only facets that I have exhibited about myself are horseracing and engineering.>

First of all, I never said racing wasn't about numbers, only that numbers are not the complete answer and that everything cannot be reduced to numbers.

Secondly, I never said you were like my brother-in-law, only that he had the same scientific approach with the stock market, and that he too was an engineer.

I can understand your being convinced that numbers can solve the racing question, with your back ground in engineering you have been trained to believe the way you do. You are the one who brought up the "engineer" thing, not me. But it does explain some things about your opinions. Believe me it's much more pleasant to believe solely in the numbers than it is to know that numbers alone will not get it done. It took me a while to realize that myself. It sure would have been easier and quicker if numbers alone were the answer. I tried to make it so, myself, but it simply isn't.

I'm sorry if this discussion has become too "academic" for you, but you probably gained your "numbers" expertise through academics. So, if numbers are what racing is about, you should feel right at home in academia.

Oh, by the way, no offense intended.

[Lance]

Cratos wrote:

"Please help me with my “math” because 4 ½ times 2 equal 9 and 92 minus 9 equals 83. What did I do wrong? I divided and because Beyers are not fractional numbers, I made the number 2 which would have been 92 minus 2 equals 90."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Enough with the rationalizations. Enough with the excuses. You screwed up, Cratos. You screwed up on simple math.

"If this is the only math error I ever made, I am delighted."

It isn't. You made FOUR math errors in one sentence. Here is your sentence:

Cratos wrote:

"Beyer gives two points per beaten length at the route and with Read the Footnotes losing by 4 ½ lengths, his Beyer should be around 90."

Homework assignment: Find the four math errors in your sentence. That's right, four math errors in one sentence. And don't whine. If you know enough to say Beyer is worthless, as you did, then you know enough to be accountable for your own errors.

"it took you several days to find that big math error."

No. It took me two seconds to find your four math errors. I decided to point out your errors when you decided that it was somehow necessary to claim you were an engineer.

You are a complete and total fraud, Cratos. Nothing could be more clear. If you wish to dispute this, begin by going through your old posts and quoting what you wrote about Tom Brohamer--every word. We will go from there. We will go quite a bit.

[raybo]

Guess that pretty much puts an end to this thread. I hate hostility. Healthy disagreement is fine but insults are not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Lance, settle down Mr. 16 posts....

[kenwoodallpromos]

I agree with PA.

[Lance]

Kenwoodallpromos wrote: "I agree with PA."

Thanks for the comment, Kenwood. There are times when one must take a bold stand, and you just did. I appreciate that. If I may be so bold as to ask, have you read this entire string? If so, and it must be so or you would not have chimed in, what do you think about Cratos's comments about Andy Beyer being a fraud, Len Ragozin being a fraud, Brown of Thoro-Graph (by extension) being a fraud, and Tom Brohamer being worthless--someone whose "followers" can be compared to those of Jim Jones (before my time, but I think he led a cult whose members, in the hundreds, committed suicide on his instructions)? Any opinion on these matters, Kenwood? Do you think Cratos is a "complete and total fraud"? I do. I believe that ANYONE who has had any experience making speed figures will instantly spot Cratos as a fraud. Indeed, his comments on the subject--and his attempt at "track equalization"--are so off-the-chart idiotic and hilarious that I think Cratos is now a reliable test: If one doesn't consider him to be a total joke, one should reconsider one's hobby/profession.

There is more: Cratos is playing a coward's game. The Sheets has a message board. Thoro-Graph has a message board. I linked to both sites. Cratos has the opportunity to look people in the eye, as it were, as he is calling them frauds. He chooses not to. To be blunt, I am sickened by this.

PA: Same questions for you. Honestly, I have immense respect for what you do here, but, to be honest, not for one second do I think you have folllowed this whole string. If you had, you would have put a stop to Cratos's libel and stupidity a long time ago. I was waiting for you to jump in. I was documenting my charges. He was ignoring them and continuing his libel. Is this board a place where anonymous buffoons get to write whatever lies they want to about men of good reputations--with no fear of being called "complete and total frauds" in return?

That said, I do apologize to you. I did violate your rules. I was angry. I was wrong to make my anger your problem. You do a great job of running this board. You do it with your own money. I respect that. This is far and away the best racing message board I have ever seen. The credit belongs to you. Thank you. Again, I apologize to you. You have my word that I will never do anything like this again.

[Larry Hamilton]

Lance, three things are apparent from your posts: No one puts two words together better than you do. The content of your post is cogent and at times brutually honest. And, you are a class act. PLease hang around.

[Larry Hamilton]

I have really taken some off line criticism about my response. I am still not sure what I misread.

If nothing else, this Lance is a galvanizer!

[raybo]

Although I am not a contributor to the "off line" criticism you mention, I think they are in reference to Lance's "general" attitude in his posts. I have not been a member of this board very long, but from the posts by him that I've read, he seems to take an unusually negative stance in many threads. Just my opinion, everyone has their own cross to bear.

[JackS]

We all have a right to dissagree with anyone's methods including these very well known men who have dedicated a large portion of their life trying to figure this game out. I've read the books and learned. To say I follow any single person in my own handicapping would be untrue. We incorporate reasonable and practical methods to our own methods which is a conglomeration of everything we've ever read . Couple this with a few years of horse racing experience, our own attitude adjustments, and a positive outlook on life in general, we might actually beat this game .Bayer,Quinn, Brohamer are just a few of the "must reads"and would guess that reading should continue through-out ones life unless one feels he already knows it all.

[andicap]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
Lance, three things are apparent from your posts: No one puts two words together better than you do. The content of your post is cogent and at times brutually honest. And, you are a class act. PLease hang around.

ditto

[kenwoodallpromos]

You comments about Jim Jones are off topic! / "fraud" IMO, does not describe Cratos or those he accused of it! Frauds conciously try to decieve and I accuse none of that. I do not use speed to handicap because I have found easier and more profitable ways to pick. But handicappers are welcome to use whatever they believe to be the best information available to them including Brohamer and anyone's followers. I am only in racing to make money, so ROI is the only test for me. I can only get proof that a person's methods work by tracking their total bets or public picks, and there are many that do not sell info that do much better that public handicappers; So I will not knock anyone's methods; if their methods are worse than mine, then they finance my winnings!LOL!! / Mathematical errors- Didn't really notice them, but I have no degree and only use addition and 5-point elimination in my handicapping so I can remain fairly uneducated in math. I flunked Algebra, but have have not seen the need for that to figure out if my pick is an overlay!!LOL!!

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, maybe I will read the thread again....

[Tom]

After reading this thread, I don't miss VS so much.
:rolleyes:

[Cratos]

Lance wrote:

“PA: Same questions for you. Honestly, I have immense respect for what you do here, but, to be honest, not for one second do I think you have folllowed this whole string. If you had, you would have put a stop to Cratos's libel and stupidity a long time ago. I was waiting for you to jump in. I was documenting my charges. He was ignoring them and continuing his libel. Is this board a place where anonymous buffoons get to write whatever lies they want to about men of good reputations--with no fear of being called "complete and total frauds" in return?”

Cratos reply:

Hi PA,

If you can find any of the 40 posts that I have submitted to be fraudulent then by all means bar me from this website forever. I said then and I will say again Beyer speed Figures are Class Pars. I also said that the word “bounce” is a word of convenience. Additionally I said calculating energy used/expended by a horse is a very difficult task because of the unknown variables.

However please find in the 40 posts that I have submitted to the PA Forum to be the basis for the following false response

Lance Wrote:

“Cratos's comments about Andy Beyer being a fraud, Len Ragozin being a fraud, Brown of Thoro-Graph (by extension) being a fraud, and Tom Brohamer being worthless—“

Cratos Reply:

I never made such statements explicitly or implicitly. However I find this “Lance” person somewhat paranoid. Criticizing public handicappers and disagreeing with authors of handicapping books is part of the online forum attraction. To advocate as “Lance” has is that I am a coward and I should go to the various forums and confront various authors is idiotic and stupid.

He found a simple math error in a post that I submitted and went bonkers. Therefore my question to you is this: Is the forum own and controlled by “Lance” and do freedom speech and freedom of the press have any validity on the PA forum. Lastly please ask “Lance” to prove to me technically that that I am wrong without resulting to inane rhetoric.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, I read the thread again. My apologies to Lance, although I would like to say that I think both you guys are taking this conversation way too personally.

Cratos, early on in this thread, you tried to discredit the "bounce" theory by pointing out the efforts of Affirmed/Alydar and Secretariat. How can this possibly aid your argument?

Your're using as examples some of the greatest racehorses that have ever stepped on a racetrack. They are going to be the EXCEPTION, not the RULE!

[Cratos]

Hi PA,

What I said and will stick by it is that there isn’t a body work that gives scientific credence to the “bounce theory.” If you believe it, it ok by me because people are entitle to their own beliefs. However to say because Affirmed, Alydar, Secretariat were great racehorses they can’t be used to discredit the so-called “bounce theory’ flies in the face of good analysis.

[GameTheory]

Personally, I find Lance's comments WAY over the top. Cratos never accused anyone of being a fraud or even hinted at it. He has some problems with the methodology of some of the these speed-figure makers like Beyer. So what? To talk about libel and so forth is pretty nuts...

[Cratos]

Hi Game Theory,

I am an independent thinker and I bet and lose my money. I don't follow the crowd so to speak because I believe if we think alike we all don't think at all.

[plainolebill]

Originally posted by Cratos
Hi Game Theory,

I am an independent thinker and I bet and lose my money. I don't follow the crowd so to speak because I believe if we think alike we all don't think at all.

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

General George S. Patton Jr. USA

[Show Me the Wire]

In the interest of furthering the "bounce discusion" I state the following:

Today 3/25 at Oaklawn, Flaming Dixie, race 9, is a bounce candidate and will lose. She ran a huge effort, last race, for no apparent reason, coming off a little freshening layoff.

Futhermore, I am predicting the final time of today's race will be run in approximately 1:10 3/5.

This assumes the track will be dry and fast. Scattered t-storms are predicted today for the area, so if it rains all predictions are off about the final time.

And please do not ask me what horse I think will win, that is my private information. The purpose of this post is to discuss the bounce theory and not red-board, so I will not be posting that I had the winner, after the race.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Tom]

Flamming Dixie-ran second at 1.80 to 1. Final time was 110.5
Nice call. Hope you had the winner at $15.40.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

Thank you for the comments.

I promised not to red-board, but I will say the winner was one of three preliminary contenders, I thought could win the race in the projected final time.

I say the bounce is reality.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Cratos
Hi Game Theory,

I am an independent thinker and I bet and lose my money. I don't follow the crowd so to speak because I believe if we think alike we all don't think at all.

I really do believe the above quote, especially the part about losing.

Ah, the sound of silence is thunderous.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[raybo]

RE:< I say the bounce is reality>

Of course it's reality. I don't call it a bounce though, I call it "falling from form". No horse can remain in peak condition forever. All this denial of "bounce", if that's the popular venacular, is pure "BS". Call it what you like, but it happens sooner or later to every horse, some more frequently than others.

In my opinion, those that deny that a horse can be predicted to fall from form after a particularly strenuous effort or several tough efforts in a row, are running from the possibility that they don't know how to handicap condition. Condition is the hardest thing in racing to figure, and it's the most important single factor in handicapping.

If you don't spend time in each race you handicap determining each horse's current condition, you are missing the boat. Believe it!

Bold statement? You bet! The truth doesn't have to be shy.

[DeoVolente]

Raybo,

How true!

How have you gotten better over the years handicapping condition? Suggest any reading material? There is one writer for ATM I think his name is Nick Borg who writes many helpful articles on condition.

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:

I agree with your statements about condition. I am assuming you are talking about the horse's physical condition. However, a bounce is different than falling or going off form. The bounce is separate from the form cycle

For a good definition of a bounce look a mountainman's post. I agree with you a bounce does not happen after a series of good competitive efforts, it is a horse going off form or worse a physical problem has emerged.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[raybo]

RE:<How have you gotten better over the years handicapping condition? Suggest any reading material? There is one writer for ATM I think his name is Nick Borg who writes many helpful articles on condition.>

This is a subject close to my heart. And the answer is not an easy one to explain. Much of what I have learned about "form" throughout the past 26 years was just an accumulation of data in my brain, sourcing from thousands of handicapping sessions. I admit to reading a few books early in my racing career but I don't even remember who wrote them, I remember 1 particularly that followed the exploits of Pittsburg Phil. I read 4 or 5 books and just let the subject matter sit there, basically.

My partner, who introduced me to the sport in about 1978, pounded into my head from the very beginning that, until you can figure current condition, and past condition for that matter, you will always be guessing about the future performances of horses.

I have studied the problem for over 25 years now and am a much better handicapper because of it. I guess the biggest strides I made came about when I started using a computer to handle racing data for me. Not that the computer was the answer but it certainly allowed me to experiment much more effectively and more quickly. When you have the ability to handicap and compare the results for hundreds of races in minutes, your learning curve goes up exponentially. The advent of "equalized" figures was a God-send. The ability to actually be able to compare performances at different distances and on different surfaces is one of the most important developments to have ever come to thoroughbred racing. I'm not just speaking of speed ratings, they've been around for many years. I mean class ratings and pace ratings and pars. We now have "real" numbers we can use for comparisons that don't have to be adjusted too much.

I would say that pace figures have brought me to where I am, more than any other single factor. From good pace figures, along with a solid, realistic grading procedure, one can finally "see" a horse's condition, exceptions not withstanding of course.

I know this post is not very specific but it is a complicated subject and hard to express in words on a page. It almost requires "hands-on" training to explain what I do. There are so many things that your eyes see and your brain interprets, much of it becomes subconscious, ingrained knowledge.

[raybo]

RE:<I agree with your statements about condition. I am assuming you are talking about the horse's physical condition. However, a bounce is different than falling or going off form. The bounce is separate from the form cycle.>

I am talking about both. Normal condition cyling happens to every horse, some are more readily seen than others, but still there. "Bounces" as it has been named by some, is nothing more than a change in that condition cycle. Both events are caused by the same thing, fatigue. One has to be aware of both, but they both result in the same thing, a variance or reversal in the performance level of the horse. "Bounces", for me anyway, go hand-in-hand with form cycle and must be treated the same, just in varying degrees.

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:

I enjoyed your post about condition (I prefer to call it fitness) so okay I will play. How did you interpret Flaming Dixie's form cycle before the race? Did you think she was in form or going off form.

keep in mind the race was run in 110 2/5 and she was beaten by less than 2 lengths while driving to the finish line. She did not regress to 1:11 plus. So I ask. What was your opinion about her form cycle prior to the race?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[raybo]

RE:<I enjoyed your post about condition (I prefer to call it fitness) so okay I will play. How did you interpret Flaming Dixie's form cycle before the race? Did you think she was in form or going off form.keep in mind the race was run in 110 2/5 and she was beaten by less than 2 lengths while driving to the finish line. She did not regress to 1:11 plus. So I ask. What was your opinion about her form cycle prior to the race?>

I did not handicap or have any interest in the race. I gave up trying to separate world class animals long ago. "Too much sugar for a dollar", if you ask me. I wager on cheaper claimers and allowance races on mid sized tracks exclusively.

Gotta go get ready for Oaklawn. I'll finish my post tonight.

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:

Huh!!! World class animals? The race is part of the standard fare at Oaklawn, an AOC, basically an Anw1x condition, populated by filles with top average Beyer speed figs in the mid to low seventies.

If that is a "world class" race we do indeed live in separate worlds regarding racing.

Oh, btw horses workout on lasix in most racing jurisdictions, so I think it would be the same in Texas.

Best of wishes today with Oaklawn.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:

After reading my above post, the post may be interpreted being confrontational.

I just enjoy esoteric topics relating to racing, like the bounce theory. Your answer took me by surprise, because I understood from some of your previous posts you developed a program to normalize or equalize pace allowing you to discover the horse’s current form cycle.

I assumed, my mistake, it would be easy for you to run your program to calculate the form cycle of this specific horse. I missed understood your previous posts about your use of the computer and discovering form cycles.

I am disappointed because I would have enjoyed a good debate about the race in question to help facilitate specific discussions about form cycles.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tee]

Take the apprentice rider off her 03/12 & does she run the race that makes her subject to a "bounce" in yesterdays affair?

The fact that the filly lost the 3/12 race while on a clear lead tells me that she might be a bad bet for the win spot anyway & I wouldn't have been too concerned if she bounced or not.

[Tom]

1 Flaming Dixie RS E L (K) Tops--> d/s: 20 trk: 20 L90: 20 wet: 22

pp 01 Wk:81 +6 E 2 4 2 Life: 06 1-3-0 d/s: 03 1-2-0 trk: 03 0-2-0

#013 01OP 6.0D ft 097 3yF NW1 05 1-1½ 1-1½ 2-¾ 091-096| 20. |
042 02OP 8.0D my 095 3yF NW1 03 1-1½ 1-hd 5-10 101-089| . 28 |
#053_08OP 6.0D ft 094 3yF NW1 04 3-1 4-1½ 2-½ 091-094| 22 |
111 05TP 6.0D my 093 2yF MSW 08 1-1½ 1-1 1-1¼ 095-093| 22 |
134_06CD 5.0D sy 099 2yF MSW 10 5-3 4-9¾ 8-17 084-077| . 36 |

298 06PRM 5.0D ft 087 2yF MSW 08 2-hd 1-2½ 2-nk 093-088| . 28 |




Last out was a top after a bounce from a pair of tops. This is the HTR Sheets PP - low is best.
I would bet agains her as the favorite and bet on her at 3-1 or higher. She could bounce, she could pair up. Too close to call for me. She improved her top by only 2 points, but she improved her last race by 8. That could be trouble. Look at only her FST races - 28-22-20. I like the bounce alternative today, but the odds will be my guide.

[Show Me the Wire]

Teeitup and Tom:

Flaming Dixie’s admittedly lost her previous race after having the lead. However, she gave way grudgingly and earned her highest Beyer fig off a layoff in impressive time of 1:10 3/5. Her competitions’ best races were run in 1:11. In order, for Flaming Dixie to lose the race either the competition had to improve, for her to regress, or for a combination of both items.

Weight is not an issue as she was carrying about the same weight today. Additionally, I get the feeling, through reading the posts here; most people do not think weight is an important factor. I believe weight is an important factor, but not in this case.

The issue was Flaming Dixie fit enough to run another quality race. Actually, she did run another quality race yesterday as proven by the final time. She lost because she bounced. The bounce theory is based on the fact a fit horse will regress enough to make them vulnerable. The last 1/16 was here undoing as she could not hold of the late run of the winner.

IMHO I do not believe a bounce caused the Feb. 12th poor performance. The losing Feb 12th performance is better explained through the distance switch and/or the track’s condition. My definition of bounce is limited to a jump-up performance after a layoff with out any apparent reason.

It is important to determine if the losing performance is caused by the bounce or some other reason is important. All losing or poor performances are not results of bounces. The bounce is usually good indication, because only sound, fit horses bounce.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

SMTW......thanks for sharing your analysis. It's alway nice to learn from others here. And, nice hit.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

You are welcome. I enjoyed your contribution to this discussion.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Tee]

SMTW wrote,

"Flaming Dixie’s admittedly lost her previous race after having the lead. However, she gave way grudgingly and earned her highest Beyer fig off a layoff in impressive time of 1:10 3/5. Her competitions’ best races were run in 1:11. In order, for Flaming Dixie to lose the race either the competition had to improve, for her to regress, or for a combination of both items."

The point of my earlier post was how Flaming Dixie earned her highest BSF of 94 - carrying 109 lbs vs her previous top of 75 on 02/01/04 carrying 122 lbs.
I still feel if the BSF is adjusted taking into consideration what conditions she earned the 94 under - the effort will not look that strong & she is not a bonified "bounce" candidate.

"Weight is not an issue as she was carrying about the same weight today. Additionally, I get the feeling, through reading the posts here; most people do not think weight is an important factor. I believe weight is an important factor, but not in this case."

Weight was not an issue in yesterday's race as she was carrying the same weight. However as I said above the new top achieved on March 12th & expected effort when cappin for yesterday's race must be looked at from a different perspective because of the previous jock switch & weight differential that could have been a large part of the improvement the filly put forth.

"The issue was Flaming Dixie fit enough to run another quality race. Actually, she did run another quality race yesterday as proven by the final time. She lost because she bounced. The bounce theory is based on the fact a fit horse will regress enough to make them vulnerable. The last 1/16 was here undoing as she could not hold of the late run of the winner."

I'm still not sold on she lost cuz she bounced. She isn't facing mdns anymore & perhaps was in a little deep yesterday. She lost the previous race alone on the lead & yesterday was pressed the entire way & couldn't hold off the late charge of filly that had beaten her before.

"IMHO I do not believe a bounce caused the Feb. 12th poor performance. The losing Feb 12th performance is better explained through the distance switch and/or the track’s condition. My definition of bounce is limited to a jump-up performance after a layoff with out any apparent reason."

I agree with your analysis of the Feb 12th race.

It is important to determine if the losing performance is caused by the bounce or some other reason is important. All losing or poor performances are not results of bounces. The bounce is usually good indication, because only sound, fit horses bounce.

Once again I will agree that a horse must run his/her race in defeat in order for the word "bounce" to enter the equation. I think in this case though a different conclusion could be drawn for Flaming Dixie. I for one will find out what the assigned BSF was for this last race & keep an eye on the filly to see where she goes next & if she can get that 2nd win.

[Tee]

Tom,

Just so I can put things into perspective - what does each HTR point equate to in lengths?

Thanx in advance,

Tee

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by teeitup

The point of my earlier post was how Flaming Dixie earned her highest BSF of 94 - carrying 109 lbs vs her previous top of 75 on 02/01/04 carrying 122 lbs.
I still feel if the BSF is adjusted taking into consideration what conditions she earned the 94 under - the effort will not look that strong & she is not a bonified "bounce" candidate.


I understand your point and I thank you for clarifying I did not sufficiently address your point. If you view the decrease in weight to 109 lbs as a significant reason for the improvement, you are correct the performance should not lead to a bounce. It all depends how the performance is viewed.

According to my speed/performance figures the March 12th performance was a genuine jump-up factoring in the weight carried.

Thank you for your input. It is posts like yours and Tom that make this board worthwhile.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[raybo]

RE:<Huh!!! World class animals? The race is part of the standard fare at Oaklawn, an AOC, basically an Anw1x condition, populated by filles with top average Beyer speed figs in the mid to low seventies.>

I'm sorry, I assumed you were talking about some Stakes race on the west coast or something. I pay no attention to horses' names so I don't even know what day she ran. I will occasionally bet a cheaper handicap or stakes race if there is enough grade separation between the top 2 or 3 horses, but more often than not I'll pass these races. No, my program doesn't do a pace analysis, I do the pace analysis post-processing. I use Bris' pace figures and a formula I developed for comparison between distances. But, I do all the "leg work" on the actual analysis of these figures. If you'll tell me what day she ran I'll load it back in my program and analyze her pace and condition and explain my reasoning for both.

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:

I think we have exhausted this topic. However, if you feel the need to participate now, I will email you the specifics i.e. the race number, date and race track, just like I did for Tee and Tom:)

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[raybo]

RE:<I think we have exhausted this topic.>

Sounds good to me. I try to live in the future anyway.

[Show Me the Wire]

Raybo:


I enjoy living in the present. Although, I believe it is important to understand the past to make sense out of the future.

Below is the specifics, not only the horse's name. I know you may consider this a world class type race (small stakes), but I think this is a good example of regression, not bouncing.

Today, March 28th race 9, at oaklawn, Chene Rouge is not a bounce candidate, but will regress.

The jump-up on March 10th off the layoff most likely resulted from less weight, and lasix. Additionally, I not sure the performance is really a jump-up. I think the Beyer speed fig is suspect and that is why I believe the horse will regress to its slower performances.

IMO this horse is not fit, like Flaming Dixie.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Raybo:

The jump-up on March 10th off the layoff most likely resulted from less weight, and lasix. Additionally, I not sure the performance is really a jump-up. I think the Beyer speed fig is suspect and that is why I believe the horse will regress to its slower performances.


Oooops I forgot to add the drop in class factor too. Last race Chene Rouge returned to state restricted company.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[cj]

1 FLAMING DIXIE 3yo Ky 7-2 E

OP 03/12/2004 6.0 5/ 7 fst Alw 32000N$Y 80 86 80 84| 82
OP 02/12/2004 8.0 3/ 7 my Alw 32000N1X 88 74 88 58| 73
OP 02/01/2004 6.0 4/10 fst Alw 32000N1X 80 75 75 74| 80
TP 12/05/2003 6.0 8/12 my Md Sp Wt 24k 74 66 74 66| 76*
CD 11/12/2003 5.0 10/11 sly Md Sp Wt 41k 84 79 74 38| 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PrM 06/01/2003 5.0 8/ 9 fst Md Sp Wt 21k 58 48 58 47| 65

This horse certainly didn't look like a bounce candidate on my figures. The problem was, she was just overbet. The 2, 3, and 5 looked capable of as fast or faster races at 6f than the 3, bounce or not. Just an overbet favorite in my humble opinion. The 9 was an even worse second choice. Wish I hadn't been so busy last week, I love these types of threads.

[Show Me the Wire]

cj:

Interesting how different figures tell different stories. My figures, as well as Beyer's, indicated a jump-up. I am not sure about the sheets since I did not have them for this race. I assume at least on T-graph the previous race race showed a jump-up.

I agree she was an over bet favorite as I felt some other horses could move forward and post their best race to date.

My point is Flaming Dixie fits the definition of a bounce horse, according to my figs, as her previous race was a significant improvement off a layoff, which indicated to me she was fit, but would not improve today. Also, I believed she was fit enough to run a competitive race in good race time, which she did.

Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts.

What do you think about today's horse?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[keilan]

Chene Rouge looks good to me here and another good race on top of the last one would be no surprise to me. The horse who looks to regress is #1 Aly Etbauer.

Small caveat, young horses can get good very quickly but still I think Aly Etbauer is the more likely to regress of the two.

[Tee]

Aly Etbauer - To me she finally found a race shape that fit her style in mdn win. With the drop in class she was able to make the lead which probably is where she wants to be. Might not work to her advantage today.

Time for Etbauer - didn't make the lead last out against Chene Rouge & still ran a decent race in comparison to her 1st two outs. Having said it is always hard for me to back a mdn against winners & more seasoned t-breds.

Chene Rouge - Primed for the comeback race? Ran a big one with the weight break and the addition of lasix. Negatives today are the assigned 122lbs & the presence of other spd in the race. She may have left her best on the track March 10. Whether she bounces or regresses I don't care for her at what will probably be a short price.

Humble Lane - Chased Chene Rouge last out running what looks to be a very even race. Should be able to settle a bit behind what could be a lively pace & let the race come to her instead of having her hand be forced.

Crossing Piney - This one gives up so much ground, she is somewhat hard to endorse. The price very well could be right & she might be the only one really running at the end. Downside is the 1st couple races have been won on/near the lead. Will keep an eye on the rest of the card to see if this one has any shot at all.

[Show Me the Wire]

Keilan:

I agree with you a race with many horses that can regress, including all the favorites. I think the winner will stop the clock an about 12, but I would not be surprised with a 13 either.

From a Beyer speed fig perspective this Chene Rouge is a standout and should win fro fun. I am not so certain that whe will win that easily and if she regresses people will attribute it to the bounce.

I say regression without a bounce, but to the mean.

You are right she may still win, but I am confident in will not be in 10 and change.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[cj]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
cj:

What do you think about today's horse?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

If the race has already been run, I apologize, I'm watching basketball today. Looking at the horse, I see no reason to expect a bounce. The horse did indeed run a new top last time by a big margin, but is a lightly raced 3yo who improved with the addition of Lasix...I choose to accept the improvement in this case. My numbers rank the straight 1 a little faster though. The 4 and 5 wouldn't need to do much better to be right there either.

[Show Me the Wire]

No votes for #5 k Js Girl.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sjk]

I will take the 5 if she is available.

[Show Me the Wire]

sjk:

She is available for a min. $2. wager

Looks like Doocy is off all his mounts, better jock on Chene Rouge now, Jamie T.

Surprised, Doocy tried to ride today after the bad looking spill on Puffy Shirt yesterday.

Additionally, it looks like heavy rain at Oaklawn for now and an off track for our highlighted race.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sjk]

I played 1,5/1,4,5

Qualified under $2 min rules.

[Tom]

Originally posted by teeitup
Tom,

Just so I can put things into perspective - what does each HTR point equate to in lengths?

Thanx in advance,

Tee

About a length. I look at anyhting within 3-4 points as contenders unless ther is a particular pace standout. A favotie play is the router cutting back who was near the lead at 6 furlongs in the route and whoese pace figure is better than anything else's final figure in sprints today.

[Show Me the Wire]

I played #5. Winner ran close to 12 (11 4/5), if it didn't rain I am sure the final time would have been slower.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by teeitup

Chene Rouge - Primed for the comeback race? Ran a big one with the weight break and the addition of lasix. Negatives today are the assigned 122lbs & the presence of other spd in the race. She may have left her best on the track March 10. Whether she bounces or regresses I don't care for her at what will probably be a short price.


That is the point. Bet with conviction against a short price horse knowing the percentages are in you favor. You need to know if you are dealing with a fit, meaning a bounce horse, or a horse merely regressing to its mean. Big difference as can be seen by the final times of each discussed race.

Also, I thank everyone that participated in this discussion. I found it very informative and was impressed by well thought out opinions. As I said before it is these types of discussions that make this the best board. Thanks PA.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[raybo]

RE:<I enjoy living in the present. Although, I believe it is important to understand the past to make sense out of the future.
Below is the specifics, not only the horse's name. I know you may consider this a world class type race (small stakes), but I think this is a good example of regression, not bouncing.
Today, March 28th race 9, at oaklawn, Chene Rouge is not a bounce candidate, but will regress.
The jump-up on March 10th off the layoff most likely resulted from less weight, and lasix. Additionally, I not sure the performance is really a jump-up. I think the Beyer speed fig is suspect and that is why I believe the horse will regress to its slower performances.
IMO this horse is not fit, like Flaming Dixie.>

I agree that the 3/10 race performance was due to the layoff and 1st Lasix, she obviously needed the med as indicated by her LP vs EP pace figures. The 11/27 race at 6F also, showed these pace figures: 2F = 95, 4F = 96, LP = 57. She had similar pace lines in her 2 previous races also. I think, even without the layoff, she would have improved her LP in the 3/10 race.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I believe she is capable of another "best" due to the fact that she was "ridden out" in that 3/10 race, even though her work after that race was poor. I could be wrong, but in any event, I would not bet that she will not improve off that race.

The #1 horse, Aly Etbauer, is the horse I would expect to "bounce". Look for #1A to improve off the last 2 races.

Here are my program's automated picks: 6,1,5,4,1A,7,8,2,3

Here is my post program analysis picks : 6,1,5,2,4,1A,7,8,3

Look for the #2 horse to move into the 4 lowest post time odds, due to 1st Lasix and a work that calculates to an 89 Bris speed rating, which equals the #1 in her last race and 1 point less than the #6, Chene Rouge, in her last race.

The 5 horse does not look like an improver off her work on 3/20 after her last race. She could be a factor, however, if I'm wrong about that work.

PS. No, I don't consider a $50K Stakes, world class, but still "classier" than I wager on.

PPS: The trifecta ticket would be: W- #6
P- # 1, 5, 2
S- # 1, 5, 2, 4, 1A

(If this was a superfecta race I would have: 4th- # 1,5,2,4,1A,7

[raybo]

On the 4th row the 1 and 1A both appeared, change this to read:#1,5,2,4,7,8