Evaluating Big Winners

[classhandicapper]

I thought a thread on this subject might be interesting (it is to me lol).

When a horse wins by a huge margin it's usually because of one of several things (or a combination of a few of them).

1. He was way better than that class of horse.

2. That particular field was very weak for the class.

3. He got a bias aided win or perfect trip relative to the other contenders.

4. He shook loose on a sloppy track he loved.

5. Combinations

What techniques do people use to try to determine what category of horse they are dealing with and where it fits against horses of a much higher class when they move up.

[Overlay]

I don't give any special weight to a big margin of victory by itself (as compared to a win by a narrower amount) as far as the horse's chances in today's race, especially if the horse is moving up, or if there were identifiable factors working in the horse's favor in the big win that won't be present today. That big win was against another field under a unique past set of circumstances. I'm more interested in how recently the horse did it, how fast it ran, how the class of competition against which it's competing today compares to that of the previous win, and whether (in light of those factors and others) the horse's odds today are offering value in comparison to my assessment of its winning chances, which (speaking generally) I would think that a big win last out would make less likely.

[rosenowsr]

For the type of horses that i bet (cheap Claimers) a win of 3 lengths or more and returning to a race within 7 days is a very good indicator the horse is in form and the trainer is trying to take advantage of it. Is there value in this? No. Mainly because it is so obvious.
Can I statistically prove this,No. Just my observation. YMMV

[Robert Goren]

Or they have gotten hold of new drug that worked very well on it.

[rastajenk]

I think the Seahawks won with a #3 from that list. :cool:

[classhandicapper]

How about if we also refine this to very lightly raced maidens and limited ALW winners where there is a very wide range of quality and it's much harder to determine if it's a category #1 or category #2 horse.

[Clocker]

How about if we also refine this to very lightly raced maidens and limited ALW winners where there is a very wide range of quality and it's much harder to determine if it's a category #1 or category #2 horse.

Lightly raced means even harder to categorize. Maidens, even good ones, can be very unpredictable in their first several races. Maiden claimers even more so.

[thaskalos]

IMO...these big wins usually occur because of a combination of factors. A speed horse in a paceless race finds itself with the aid of a speed-biased racing strip...or a horse is dropped in class to meet a group of horses whose form has recently been tailing off. You will also see the occasional miracle-working trainer...working his magic with a new acquisition.

In any case...I feel it's best that the horseplayer should NOT rate horses off of their runaway victories...simply because the circumstances that they were earned under are usually not repeatable.

The bias-aided horse will likely encounter more early speed opposition and a more "normal" track next out...while the dominating class-dropper won't find itself at the same level again.

[limit2]

It seems some of your answers you seek as: last 3 recent outings, last winning trip and unexpended energy in last race in a front running effort can be found in a book. The book is by Dan Geer titled "Pro-rated Longshots".

[classhandicapper]

Lightly raced means even harder to categorize. Maidens, even good ones, can be very unpredictable in their first several races. Maiden claimers even more so.

That's the killer for me.

With experienced older horses, the you can evaluate the competition off many races, the horses themselves are already fairly well sorted out class wise etc... So between that information and what I get from replays, charts etc.. I can usually figure out what happened.

But in races for maidens, NW1, etc... it can get really tricky.

There's such huge range of quality at that level and you also have to evaluate first time starters, second time starters that may have jumped up etc... It's often really hard to tell what happened. There are 10 length winners that are total dregs, very strong and deep fields where everyone was reasonable tight at the finish, horses that won by modest margins that had a ton of energy in reserve after the wire and are capable of much more etc..

The standard answer is to just look at their pace and speed figures. Admittedly that works fairly well. But I like to try evaluate these things in a non figure way also.

We've had some very good examples of this issue in some of the races for 3yos in the last couple of months where big winners with fast time jumped from statebred races into open company and won for fun again, But I've seen an awful lot of dismal failures like that too.

[Clocker]

There's such huge range of quality at that level and you also have to evaluate first time starters

I have found that the tote board is the most reliable indicator of whether an FTS is a contender. Also, I remember Jim Quinn saying in his condition book that an FTS in a claiming race is a pretty good indication of a mediocre horse. If the horse showed any promise at all, a trainer would not put it up for sale in its first time out.

[thaskalos]

I have found that the tote board is the most reliable indicator of whether an FTS is a contender. Also, I remember Jim Quinn saying in his condition book that an FTS in a claiming race is a pretty good indication of a mediocre horse. If the horse showed any promise at all, a trainer would not put it up for sale in its first time out.

This is outdated thinking, IMO.

But I could be wrong... :)

[JohnGalt1]

The definition of a BIG win to me is---

1) Won by 3 or more lengths.

2) Must be no more than 2 lengths ahead at second call.

3) Big win must have been run on a fast track. A big win on a wet/fast track could be aided by the surface.

4) A big win is not awarded to a horse from a maiden claiming race. A maiden claimer is not as likely to benefit from a big win since the competition it faced is usually of lesser quality. Maiden special weights can be credited with big wins because they are classier horses.

And it is only a condition factor for me. A horse off a big win but 5 lengths slower than another would not be a win bet but would be playable underneath.

[Light]

My homemade computerized horse handicapping program spits out any horse that had a "big win" (i.e. won by 3 lengths or more) in its last start for the card I am handicapping. I have a further condition that it cannot be a w-w job. The ROI is negative with these "big win" types.

Yesterdays lone qualifier at Aqu was "Alcomatch" and he ran 4th.

[cj]

IMO...these big wins usually occur because of a combination of factors. A speed horse in a paceless race finds itself with the aid of a speed-biased racing strip...or a horse is dropped in class to meet a group of horses whose form has recently been tailing off. You will also see the occasional miracle-working trainer...working his magic with a new acquisition.

In any case...I feel it's best that the horseplayer should NOT rate horses off of their runaway victories...simply because the circumstances that they were earned under are usually not repeatable.

The bias-aided horse will likely encounter more early speed opposition and a more "normal" track next out...while the dominating class-dropper won't find itself at the same level again.

Good post. I just recently gave a horse named Marriedtothemusic the fastest TimeformUS speed figure of the year, a 122, in a 5.5f romp at Aqueduct. He won by nearly 10.

However, this doesn't mean I expect him to run 122 next time out. The race was an allowance/optional claimer, but he was the only horse to run without a tag. The others were in for 30k. He cruised to a clear lead against inferior horses and ran very fast. While obviously he is a very talented horse, if he were to jump in next time and take on the likes of Candyman E, the Toboggan winner on Saturday, I doubt he repeats the number.

This is gambling though, and that is always a factor. If he is 2-1 next out against better, I'll be against. If he is 10-1, I'll take a shot.

[Stillriledup]

I thought a thread on this subject might be interesting (it is to me lol).

When a horse wins by a huge margin it's usually because of one of several things (or a combination of a few of them).

1. He was way better than that class of horse.

2. That particular field was very weak for the class.

3. He got a bias aided win or perfect trip relative to the other contenders.

4. He shook loose on a sloppy track he loved.

5. Combinations

What techniques do people use to try to determine what category of horse they are dealing with and where it fits against horses of a much higher class when they move up.

Depending on how many lifetime starts a horse has, the first thing i'll look for is if that horse has the ability to battle with other horses and win a close finish. Some horses either win big or go home, the big winning horses "braven up" when they save ground on the turns, ride a bias, beat a weak field etc so i'd want to see if that horse is game and can fight if challenged.

And, it all depends on price next time, but those large margin winners tend to be overbet, cappers love the big win.

[classhandicapper]

My homemade computerized horse handicapping program spits out any horse that had a "big win" (i.e. won by 3 lengths or more) in its last start for the card I am handicapping. I have a further condition that it cannot be a w-w job. The ROI is negative with these "big win" types.

Yesterdays lone qualifier at Aqu was "Alcomatch" and he ran 4th.

My guess is that there are sub groups of them that are ROI positive but the trick is to identify the ones that are better than they look vs. the ones that took advantage of favorable conditions.

Like I said in a earlier post, with older horses, you have such a complete record of both that horse and the competition, it's pretty easy to figure out what happened. But with lightly raced horses, it's a different thing.

I'll give you 2 examples.

In the Busher, Joint Return looked too slow and had probably benefited from a fast pace in her last. Most handicappers probably hated her. But I had reason to think she was actually a lot better than that slow figure indicated. I came really close to punching a big ticket on her, but decided against it at the last second because I don't have this issue totally sorted out in my mind yet.

Samraat was another that won big, but he did it with a clear lead in a slow paced race. So many people were convinced he wasn't as good as he looked. But I had reason to think that might not be the case. It seems he was better than he looked too.

It get really tricky to figure these lightly raced big winners out because they haven't revealed what's in the tank yet. Some of these easy trips are not really downgradeable offenses at all, but others are.

Here's an extreme example.

Imagine Dr. Fager getting loose against a weak field on a gold rail. He might not even run a big figure because he'd win so easy. But he'd still be Dr. Fager. We'd know that because we'd have his full race record going into the race, but not if he only had a few starts.

[Light]

My guess is that there are sub groups of them that are ROI positive but the trick is to identify the ones that are better than they look vs. the ones that took advantage of favorable conditions.

I'm not convinced that a solid subgroup exists for any horse racing angle. The only thing that may exist is a subgroup that may increase ROI slightly on any given angle but that is debatable.


In the Busher, Joint Return looked too slow and had probably benefited from a fast pace in her last. Most handicappers probably hated her. But I had reason to think she was actually a lot better than that slow figure indicated. I came really close to punching a big ticket on her, but decided against it at the last second because I don't have this issue totally sorted out in my mind yet.

Interesting that you bring up "Joint Return". I didn't want to say,but on Saturday at Aqu, he was the lone qualifier spit out from my program for "Big Win" types (who come off the pace) paying $16.80. I didn't want to mention that because it would have got your hopes up. I incorporated the "Big Win" from Ainslee's theory. But Ainslee never made a computerized study of it. It just seemed like a great angle. When Sarava won and paid $100 off a big win, I was convinced Ainslee had to be right and computerized his angle. I wish Ainslee's theory held up to the acid test, and I haven't found a subset to offset the overall negative ROI. (I don't include $100 horses in ROI calculations).

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

[Clocker]

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

Several writers have pointed out that a bounce after a big win isn't always a bounce. If a horse wins big in a pace advantaged race and does nothing next out in a pace disadvantaged race, the bounce is not because of the effort of the big race, it is because of the pace difference. The problem is separating the two.

[cj]

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

[Exotic1]

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

Right.

If we expand that to say not all figure regressions (movements) are a result of reaction but are sometimes due to favorable vs. unfavorable setups, pace, bias etc, then the bounce or reaction doesn't happen as often. Taking that a step further, if the regression is not a result of a reaction how can historical regression data be used to predict a bounce?

Bottom line we aren't here to theorize, it's about cashing. Is there a formula to predict a regression, i.e time between races, stretch dual, sex (of the animal), quality of the animal, trainer, how the horse was ridden out, double tops of pace and final time, double tops of late speed and final time, etc. Or should we just assume that a big figure will be followed by a lower figure because that's the way to play it?

[thaskalos]

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

Well...it might not be a "bounce", but it's got to be "something"...because horses sometimes give uncharacteristically bad performances even under ideal circumstances.

I, personally, think that horses give subpar efforts for a variety of reasons...and some of these subpar efforts cannot be traced to the circumstances presented during the running of the race. IMO, the horse -- as a living, breathing creature -- should be allowed to have an off day...just as all human athletes give bad performances on occasion. Other bad efforts might be traced to trainer intention...or drug "experimentation".

There is a handicapping theory out there which states that the horse's last representative race is the clearest indication of a horse's current form...and that horseplayers should not overlook that race unless there is a valid reason for doing so. My OWN theory is, that the proponents of this "last race is best theory" noticed how many times horses win off of apparently dull last races...so they tried to find reasons for these form reversals, which would BOTH -- explain the unexpected result, AND preserve the sanctity of this "last race is best theory" that they have so embraced.

And THAT'S how the "bounce theory" came about...IMO.

I think the bounce theory has merit...but its effects are not as widespread as many think.

[cj]

I think the bounce theory has merit...but its effects are not as widespread as many think.

I agree, it is a term used too broadly and applied to situations where it isn't really supported. Just because a horse runs fast doesn't mean the race took a negative toll on a horse.

But I also agree there are times it happens. Probably the best I've seen it spelled out was in James Quinn's Figure Handicapping, and it involved horses returning from layoffs and some specific conditions.

[Valuist]

Are we defining "big win" strictly by winning margin, or does ease of victory count? Just saw a replay of a Gulfstream race from mid January where the rider was literally standing up in the irons at the end; about as geared down as Rachel Alexandra in the KY Oaks.

[BIG49010]

The big deal breaker for me with runaway winners is field size. You do it against 12 others on a fast track or firm turf course, you have something.

Beat a 5 horse field, I'll wait and see how you are.

Geared down and 10 in front, is quite different from 10 in front and worked hard to get there.

[Light]

When I mentioned "bounce", I was referring to lateral movements in distance,class and surface. Of course there are horses who are obviously going to bounce due to negative trainer/jock changes,new surface, distance, class etc.

Think about it. If these horses in this lateral category don't bounce, we would all clean up. Just bet the highest speed fig horse with huge show bets and go to the bank. With show bets, the optimum pace is minimized as a bounce contributor. But why can't the horse with the best closing kick and SR in the field hit the board? Bounce and form cycle. Again I am referring to horses repeating the same conditions they just ran well in. I know they are not machines, but the bounce factor/form cycle is real and major and why handicapping is an art.

[Light]

The big deal breaker for me with runaway winners is field size. You do it against 12 others on a fast track or firm turf course, you have something.

Beat a 5 horse field, I'll wait and see how you are.

Geared down and 10 in front, is quite different from 10 in front and worked hard to get there.

I guess you wouldn't like a horse called Moments Notiz. He beat only 3 others at Aqu on Dec 26.It wasn't even a "big win". But that led to a "big win" on Dec 31,followed by another win on Jan 19. It's not field size that matters,it's the horse.

[Overlay]

Are we defining "big win" strictly by winning margin, or does ease of victory count? Just saw a replay of a Gulfstream race from mid January where the rider was literally standing up in the irons at the end; about as geared down as Rachel Alexandra in the KY Oaks.
In The Compleat Horseplayer, Ainslie defined a "big win" as one where the horse is leading or running close to the pace at the stretch call, and gains ground from there to the wire to win going away. A running line that he used as an example was:

4 2 1 (by 2 lengths) 1 (by 2) 1 (by 2) 1 (by 4)

I don't believe that he applied strict numerical criteria as far as lengths ahead or behind at any point. (I'm sorry that I can't quote verbatim or more extensively from the text, since I don't have the complete book at my fingertips.)

[classhandicapper]

I'm not convinced that a solid subgroup exists for any horse racing angle. The only thing that may exist is a subgroup that may increase ROI slightly on any given angle but that is debatable.




Interesting that you bring up "Joint Return". I didn't want to say,but on Saturday at Aqu, he was the lone qualifier spit out from my program for "Big Win" types (who come off the pace) paying $16.80. I didn't want to mention that because it would have got your hopes up. I incorporated the "Big Win" from Ainslee's theory. But Ainslee never made a computerized study of it. It just seemed like a great angle. When Sarava won and paid $100 off a big win, I was convinced Ainslee had to be right and computerized his angle. I wish Ainslee's theory held up to the acid test, and I haven't found a subset to offset the overall negative ROI. (I don't include $100 horses in ROI calculations).

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

What I'm trying to do is separate the horses that only won big because they benefited from favorable conditions from the rest. It's that subgroup that contains many horses that jump up even further next time out (sometimes even when they had a good trip last out).

The most fertile ground is lightly raced horses that haven't fully revealed what they have in the tank yet. Narrowing that subgroup down further is where there's some potential because most people are looking at the speed figures kind of staticly.

I have mixed feelings about the term bounce.

Setting form cycle and injuries aside, I think horses tend to run within a range. So if a horse runs to the top of his range, he's less likely to duplicate it next time than a horse that ran right in the middle of his typical range.

When you throw in bias, pace issues, wet tracks etc.. a lot of horses that appear to be bouncing are simply moving back to more average conditions.

All that said, I have seen examples of huge legitimate races followed by absolute debacles and injury. So there is probably "something" to the theory that an extreme effort can cause the horse to need a freshening or trigger an injury.

[aaron]

I had a very profitable player explain the bounce theory. If the horse is 6/5 he will bounce. If he is 10-1 he won't bounce. He simplified the process by just thinking in terms of value.He believed there is no reason to overthink the theory.

[classhandicapper]

I had a very profitable player explain the bounce theory. If the horse is 6/5 he will bounce. If he is 10-1 he won't bounce. He simplified the process by just thinking in terms of value.He believed there is no reason to overthink the theory.

Good idea. :ThmbUp:

What if he's 7-2 :lol:

[aaron]

Good idea. :ThmbUp:

What if he's 7-2 :lol:
good point,if you perceive 7/2 as value in the race and you believe the horse can beat the field,then make the bet.The point with these type of horses is your going to be wrong a lot,but if you get what you feel is a price,and you have no other questions on the race you should win often enough to make a profit. If you are on the fence you can always pass.

[JohnGalt1]

The only time I use the term bounce is when a horse off a lay off runs a fast race within 1 length either in front or behind, than runs a much slower race and loses by many lengths is a bounce.

My reasoning is a horse off a lay off would be muscle sore after the strenuous race and so might run a clunker.

I think Ray Taulbot had an angle he called the BBB angle--back bounce back.

He would excuse the 2nd race after the lay off and use the the come back race pace line.

In this case the last line is NOT the most representative.

Because of changes in track and weather conditions, and class and distance moves most horses run differently from race to race, so when I see a horse that rand a fast race followed by a slow race without an excuse I won't consider it a bounce and will assume it may be going off form.

[classhandicapper]

Yesterday I was interested in Bridget Moloney as a horse that might be better than she looks on figures. She looked dreadfully slow in beating some really weak fields.

The play would have been a cold Gracer/Bridget Maoloney exacta if the price was right. In this case, BM's big win last out may have been aided by the off track. Quite a few horses won big that day. So that confused the issue further. She did not run particularly well.

[aaron]

Yesterday I was interested in Bridget Moloney as a horse that might be better than she looks on figures. She looked dreadfully slow in beating some really weak fields.

The play would have been a cold Gracer/Bridget Maoloney exacta if the price was right. In this case, BM's big win last out may have been aided by the off track. Quite a few horses won big that day. So that confused the issue further. She did not run particularly well.
I very rarely bet horses back who won big on off tracks unless they have a figure on a fast track that is somewhat in line with their off track figure. In my opinion sometimes horses have big wins on off tracks,because they are the only horse who really liked the off track in that race.

[burnsy]

I thought a thread on this subject might be interesting (it is to me lol).

When a horse wins by a huge margin it's usually because of one of several things (or a combination of a few of them).

1. He was way better than that class of horse.

2. That particular field was very weak for the class.

3. He got a bias aided win or perfect trip relative to the other contenders.

4. He shook loose on a sloppy track he loved.

5. Combinations

What techniques do people use to try to determine what category of horse they are dealing with and where it fits against horses of a much higher class when they move up.


Number 4 does not even count..if its sloppy you have to take the win with a grain of salt. Its harder to gauge with cheaper horses, but with higher class, stakes horses its something you can make money off of. These horses will win big against horses they really outclass and people go crazy over them. Game On Dude is a perfect example of this, last year Verrazano was another in the 3 yo ranks. People get carried away by horses that find weaker fields. You can always spot horses like this, on the internet and in the horse "talk" world and if you really dissect the PP's. You can usually take the Beyer # and "chuck it" too (Dreaming of Julia). People go way overboard and the horse gets over bet every time it runs after that. These horses have a "ceiling" of the level they can reach but most people don't see it. They would rather be on the bandwagon than to use a watchful and critical eye........that's when you pounce and catch the BETTER HORSE at a BETTER PRICE. Its not as much of a gamble when the odds are WRONG. It works in other sports too. Some people never catch on either, they just love "big winners". The ease and distance of winning......means nothing...that does not prove "class"...the level of competition that you beat....is the only thing that matters. Beating your equal by a nose trumps beating schleps by 20.....any day of the week. I use this scenario to my advantage every time I find it. If you don't understand the "fundamentals" of "sports competition", you'll never get it. This applies to Boxing and Football too.

[BIG49010]

I guess you wouldn't like a horse called Moments Notiz. He beat only 3 others at Aqu on Dec 26.It wasn't even a "big win". But that led to a "big win" on Dec 31,followed by another win on Jan 19. It's not field size that matters,it's the horse.

Funny you mention this horse, he was offered for 30,000 after IND race, and Jacobson has placed him in good spots to make a nice profit. Not a horse you can really bet, unless you like short prices.

[auntjanet5]

I have always called a big win when a horse is in front by a neck or less at the stretch call and go on to win by a length and a half or more. They seem
to be the most reliable repeaters for me.

Nothing automatic but a good starting place.

[BlueShoe]

Runners coming off of swift easy wins, with competitive for today's field speed and pace figures, ala Ainslie's Big Win, coming back quickly and stepping up in class, have long been my pet plays. Often these types repeat while double or triple jumping up the class ladder. However, as others have commented, many cautions must be observed, most surely they cannot be all played blindly as a "system."

One situation that should be handled with caution is when an older inconsistent runner suddenly runs a figure much higher than it's recent outings. For example, a 6yo that is 2 for 30 lifetime that has been running Beyers in the low 70s wins easily with a fig of 85 is going to have me wondering where that effort came from, and would expect regression back to his other recent races. But this does not always happen, sometimes these types do come back and run another smasher, which is why it makes the game tough.

But lets say that 6yo that won inpressively with a fig of 85 is 9 for 30 lifetime, and four and five races back ran Beyers in the low 90s. If all other things fit, these types will send me to the windows for a serious wager. Consistent in form middle aged geldings in claiming races are great wagers, but unfortuneately, everyone seems to know it, and prices are short.

[Light]

Runners coming off of swift easy wins, with competitive for today's field speed and pace figures, ala Ainslie's Big Win, coming back quickly and stepping up in class, have long been my pet plays. Often these types repeat while double or triple jumping up the class ladder.

Everything you said in the above quote was verified yesterday at GP, 11th race. Lochte was coming off a "Big Win" (by 3+ lengths) for OC25K1x only 17 days ago. He stepped up to a G2, same surface, 1/16 longer in distance and won easily again paying $80.60.

[classhandicapper]

Everything you said in the above quote was verified yesterday at GP, 11th race. Lochte was coming off a "Big Win" (by 3+ lengths) for OC25K1x only 17 days ago. He stepped up to a G2, same surface, 1/16 longer in distance and won easily again paying $80.60.

"After the fact" I also considered that horse to be better than he looked on paper. I wouldn't have been aggressive enough to make a win play on him, but he might have been the kind of horse I would have used in a multi-race play or other exotic.

[Light]

"After the fact"

Absolutely. I only saw his form today while reviewing some races from yesterday.

[Stillriledup]

Everything you said in the above quote was verified yesterday at GP, 11th race. Lochte was coming off a "Big Win" (by 3+ lengths) for OC25K1x only 17 days ago. He stepped up to a G2, same surface, 1/16 longer in distance and won easily again paying $80.60.

Lochte's big win (not yesterday, the previous win) was "despite" his trip last time, so his big win was more impressive than say a horse who got the lead on a sloppy gold rail and went all the way in the 1 path while kicking mud on her rivals.

[cj]

Everything you said in the above quote was verified yesterday at GP, 11th race. Lochte was coming off a "Big Win" (by 3+ lengths) for OC25K1x only 17 days ago. He stepped up to a G2, same surface, 1/16 longer in distance and won easily again paying $80.60.

It was a G1 on Sunday, not a G2.

[BlueShoe]

Everything you said in the above quote was verified yesterday at GP, 11th race. Lochte was coming off a "Big Win" (by 3+ lengths) for OC25K1x only 17 days ago. He stepped up to a G2, same surface, 1/16 longer in distance and won easily again paying $80.60.
From a first level allowance to a Grade 1 is a huge jump in class, five or six levels, and like just about every one else, dismissed him as being outclassed. This race was actually a weak G!, in name only, with a field of mostly G2 And G3 runners as far as recent success was concerned. Even so, that was still a much, much tougher field, so hats off to Lochte.

The next race, the Donn, also had a couple of Big Win entrants that had sharp scores over the Gulfstream strip, River Seven and Lea. This player went with River Seven, who could not be found at the end, while Lea wins at 5-1.

[Light]

The next race, the Donn, also had a couple of Big Win entrants that had sharp scores over the Gulfstream strip, River Seven and Lea. This player went with River Seven, who could not be found at the end, while Lea wins at 5-1.

Yeah but you broke one of your own rules that I quoted as far as when a horse comes back off a big win to repeat it. River seven was off 49 days from his "big win" while Lea was only off 29 days. I don't have any stats on days off since big wins but my guess is the trainer would want to return the horse to cash while the horse is still in "big win form" which means sooner than later.

[BlueShoe]

Yeah but you broke one of your own rules that I quoted as far as when a horse comes back off a big win to repeat it. River seven was off 49 days from his "big win" while Lea was only off 29 days. I don't have any stats on days off since big wins but my guess is the trainer would want to return the horse to cash while the horse is still in "big win form" which means sooner than later.
Quite so, Lea had the recency edge, but in stakes races a bit of leeway is okay. The assumption was that River Seven was out of conditions, there was no race for him in the condition book, and that he was being pointed toward the Donn all along. He had worked okay three times since his easy win, which came around two turns, whereas Lea had won a one turn mile race out of the chute with soft early fractions. Had the race been an ordinary claimer, the 49 days away runner would have been an immediate toss, in fact, even 29 days away would have raised the caution flag, although the three works since raced, a positive sign, likely would have pushed the go button. Was wrong in the Donn, who has not been many, many times in our sport? :) Next race.

[pondman]

A big horse is prepping for a big race and everyone in the barn knows they are going to put in a big effort. And nobody wants to waste their horse against it. Racing management needs to find someone to run against the big horse. So they get trainers of lower level horses that are willing to run for place and show money. The big horse dominates throughout.

And when the big horse shows up to the big race it gets clobbered. And when the lower level horses show up for the next, they are over bet, because they ran 2nd to the big horse, they also get clobbered.

Sometimes the horses that tries and steal it on the lead from a big horse, and hang on for 3/4s do okay next time out. Even if they fade badly, and the big horse wins by a big margin.

[classhandicapper]

Just wanted to give this thread a bounce because I saw a few examples of this over the weekend.

[cashmachine]

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

How exactly do you define the "bounce factor"?

[Light]

How exactly do you define the "bounce factor"?

My definition is horses who do not repeat their present form when there is absolutely no excuse for them not to do so.

[Some_One]

My definition is horses who do not repeat their present form when there is absolutely no excuse for them not to do so.

So who's a recent example?

[classhandicapper]

I thought Condo Commando and Competitive Edge were both examples of horses that might be a lot better than their figures. Both won and ran very impressively. Granted, both were favorites. But I could easily imagine people trying to beat both of them with more experienced horses that were also in those races when that may not have been such a great idea.

[Light]

So who's a recent example?

What's your point? I can find many on any given day.

[cj]

I thought Condo Commando and Competitive Edge were both examples of horses that might be a lot better than their figures. Both won and ran very impressively. Granted, both were favorites. But I could easily imagine people trying to beat both of them with more experienced horses that were also in those races when that may not have been such a great idea.

Young, lightly raced horses are always prime real estate for finding horses that are better than their figures, especially horses that win easily.

[classhandicapper]

Young, lightly raced horses are always prime real estate for finding horses that are better than their figures, especially horses that win easily.


Yea, we used to discuss that on your old forum. They aren't always good value because they get bet, but at least you know not to bet against them so enthusiastically.

I'm still searching for some iron clad way to separate the ones that can run faster from the ones that benefited from a soft trip against much weaker, but it's tough. Some are easy. Others, not so much.

[BlueShoe]

I thought Condo Commando and Competitive Edge were both examples of horses that might be a lot better than their figures. Both won and ran very impressively. Granted, both were favorites.
Actually, CC was second choice at 3.35-1. Thought that, under the circumstances, her Spinaway race was extremely impressive. From winning a mdn clm 75k to a Grade I is a huge rise in class. Next, she was totally left at the break, and then rushed up to get the lead. Almost always when a speed horse does that they hit the wall around the 1/8th pole and back up badly. When she went went on to win so easily, visually it was impressive. Was it the slop, or is she really that good?

[classhandicapper]

Actually, CC was second choice at 3.35-1. Thought that, under the circumstances, her Spinaway race was extremely impressive. From winning a mdn clm 75k to a Grade I is a huge rise in class. Next, she was totally left at the break, and then rushed up to get the lead. Almost always when a speed horse does that they hit the wall around the 1/8th pole and back up badly. When she went went on to win so easily, visually it was impressive. Was it the slop, or is she really that good?

She was very impressive, but I think despite all the rain the track was probably still carrying speed well at that point. So maybe that offset the fact she was off a little bad and rushed up.

Competitive Edge chased a hot pace while 3 wide on a day when the rail was still golden and the track still speed favoring but possibly less so than over the weekend. They came home slow in that race because of the hot pace, but I thought he was extra impressive. That's a tough trip on an honest track, let alone on a golden rail. The question with him is can he be rated and stretch out.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I thought Condo Commando and Competitive Edge were both examples of horses that might be a lot better than their figures. Both won and ran very impressively. Granted, both were favorites. But I could easily imagine people trying to beat both of them with more experienced horses that were also in those races when that may not have been such a great idea.

Beyer improvements of 15-30 points over the past top is not uncommon.
The trick is predicting it. Coming right back at the new level is common as well.
The trick is knowing when the move will occur.

[classhandicapper]

Beyer improvements of 15-30 points over the past top is not uncommon.
The trick is predicting it. Coming right back at the new level is common as well.
The trick is knowing when the move will occur.

Exactly. Here was one that went the other way.

At GP on 8/30 9th race there was a horse named Atreides facing a horse named Pontos.

Atreides looked like a top prospect and was likely to be the big favorite.

Pontos had more experience, didn't look like much overall, but had recently been claimed by a red hot trainer and won by 10 lengths drawing off against a weaker field.

1. I thought there was some chance the Beyer figure for Atreides's last race might be mildly inflated, though he debut was brilliant.

2. I thought Pontos was clearly a new horse for his new trainer and might be even better than that last race looked.

I considered playing Pontos in the race at 5-1. Lucky I didn't pull the trigger because of his overall record. Pontos showed some speed and tired badly. Part of it may have been the mile distance and being choked so hard on the lead. But he clearly didn't have even more in the tank.

If you looked at his one running line coming into the race in isolation, there was nothing different between it and dozens of horses that DO have more in the tank and go forward. It's like you are forced to use things like trainer, pedigree, owner etc... to find additional evidence there may be more in the tank.

[Exotic1]

She was very impressive, but I think despite all the rain the track was probably still carrying speed well at that point. So maybe that offset the fact she was off a little bad and rushed up.

Competitive Edge chased a hot pace while 3 wide on a day when the rail was still golden and the track still speed favoring but possibly less so than over the weekend. They came home slow in that race because of the hot pace, but I thought he was extra impressive. That's a tough trip on an honest track, let alone on a golden rail. The question with him is can he be rated and stretch out.

I enjoy reading your write-ups. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

One of the key things I find is when a 3yo matches or passes his 2yo top.
Itsmyluckyday - tops of 81 at 2, then he runs a 79. 2 points is a match for me...then he follows with a turf race. Back to dirt, a 21 point improvement, which he pairs up next time out.

[classhandicapper]

I enjoy reading your write-ups. :ThmbUp:

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not talking to myself. :lol: