Do You See This As Positive Or Negative?

[Tara73]

You notice during your paddock inspection a first time starter wearing blinkers. Do you consider this positive or negative and why?

[cnollfan]

Negative. If a horse "gets it" as far as racing is concerned, its first start shouldn't have special equipment. Blinkers are a sign the horse doesn't get it.

Here are first-time starter stats from Ron Tiller provided a few years ago on paceadvantage.com:


Type Age Blink Starts Win% ROI IV
MCL 2 B 7965 8.15 0.74 0.65
MCL 2 No B 13549 9.38 0.84 0.75
MCL 3 B 11512 5.93 0.62 0.53
MCL 3 No B 17576 7.58 0.72 0.68
MSW 2 B 10190 7.46 0.59 0.67
MSW 2 No B 29222 10.02 0.74 0.90
MSW 3 B 8088 6.31 0.55 0.57
MSW 3 No B 19750 8.49 0.70 0.76

[traynor]

You notice during your paddock inspection a first time starter wearing blinkers. Do you consider this positive or negative and why?
Positive. At the very least it indicates a trainer who is not eternally lost in lala land, and is actively thinking about ways to (possibly) improve the entry's performance. A trainer who does not know enough about a horse to know (first time start) whether blinkers are likely to improve its performance is not much of a trainer.

"Performance" is generic--not necessarily "performance in a race." It is debatable whether or not a horse's attention span is sufficient for it to know the difference between "racing" and "running fast."

[Robert Fischer]

It isn't a factor I would really even put any weight on.

There are significant reasons for me to be betting a first time starter, and FTS's almost always involve a relatively large margin for error due to the nature of betting a horse that has never run before.

That isn't to say that information about the FTS can't be gleaned from observation of the equipment. However, I am basically interested in the paddock inspection helping to look for, and avoid physicality related pitfalls in FTS that I have already determined are worth betting "on paper".

[thaskalos]

The "conventional wisdom" is that blinkers on is a positive because it indicates that the trainer has identified the horse's problem and is taking measures to address it...whereas blinkers off is a NEGATIVE, because it is apparently a clear indication that this blinkers on "experiment" didn't work, and the blinkers are now removed in an act of desperation.

There is ample evidence to suggest that both these assumptions might be wrong.

[Tom]

cnollfan's data would seem to suggest it is a negative.

[magwell]

Depends on the trainer, also if money shows.......;)

[Stillriledup]

cnollfan's data would seem to suggest it is a negative.

I agree, very interesting data.

I would love to see those firsters who LOST first time out, how they did if they removed the blinkers for their 2nd lifetime start.

Stats tend to suggest that blinkerless horses do better....maybe just in general they're professional enough to NOT need blinkers.

Another factor might be that the trainers who win a TON of races with first timers, guys like Ward, Asmussen, Baffert and Pletcher it would be good to see if they generally use blinkers on firsters or not....if those guys do not use blinkers, than the stats might be skewed just a bit, but overall, it does seem like a strong case could be made for a blinkerless firster as a better gambling option.

[dasch]

Blinkers are normally added because the trainer wants the horse to focus more. Whether the horse looks around or shies from things or is intimidated by the other horses, adding blinkers will help with those distractions. Obviously if the horse was doing what it was supposed to do there would be no need for blinkers, so they would be a negative just for that reason.

With that said, adding them WILL help the horse focus and if the horse does have natural ability he/she might just pop out of the gate and wire the field.

I would love to see a breakdown by distance, as I think by default the shorter the distance the better these horse would finish.

[nijinski]

Secretariat made his debut in blinkers . Certainly kept his mind on
running .

[Ocala Mike]

Secretariat made his debut in blinkers . Certainly kept his mind on
running .



Not that day, however.

If there doesn't seem to be too much speed in the race I'm looking at, I view a FTS with blinkers as a possible wire-to-wire threat. Depends on how the track is playing, also.

[cnollfan]

I would love to see those firsters who LOST first time out, how they did if they removed the blinkers for their 2nd lifetime start.



This is for all 2nd time starters, no distinction made between winning or losing debut. Provided by Ron Tiller on this forum in 2009.


ALL 2nd Race Lifetime Horses

Blinkers Today Blinkers FTS Starts Wins Win% ROI IV
BL Today BL 1st ST 39803 3681 9.25 0.64 0.83
BL Today No BL 1st ST 11555 1038 8.98 0.64 0.81
No BL Today BL 1st ST 2001 178 8.90 0.70 0.80
No BL Today No BL 1st ST 75848 9293 12.25 0.72 1.10

[Tara73]

Interesting comments. As a rule, I don't like to see those blinkers on FTS. Heaven forbidden the extension blinkers. However, with some trainers it's not a negative. Bob Baffert comes to mind.

[nijinski]

Interesting comments. As a rule, I don't like to see those blinkers on FTS. Heaven forbidden the extension blinkers. However, with some trainers it's not a negative. Bob Baffert comes to mind.

Many years ago they called blinkers the Rogues Badge for a reason . But then we had Big Red dispel that rumor . LOL .

We've discussed this here before ad I found an interesting article then with
Steve Asmussen saying he kept away from them to distance himself from quarter horse racing . Adding also that he felt good horses like to see what's coming at them . I think Palace Malice felt that way :lol:

I guess watching the trainer pattern would be the best bet as pointed out
here .

[nijinski]

Not that day, however.

If there doesn't seem to be too much speed in the race I'm looking at, I view a FTS with blinkers as a possible wire-to-wire threat. Depends on how the track is playing, also.

He ran out of ground . His blinkers were classic though !

[Jeff P]

Here's what I have for all FTS (thoroughbred only) in North America from Jan 01 2013 current through yesterday Feb 03 2013:

ALL FTS BROKEN OUT BY BLINKERS TRUE/FALSE:

Amt
Value P/L Wagered Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE -5240.30 26680.00 0.8036 1375 13340 .1031 1.0435 NO BLINKERS
TRUE -3688.60 12444.00 0.7036 558 6222 .0897 0.9079 WORE BLINKERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS -8928.90 39124.00 0.7718 1933 19562 .0988 1.0000 ALL FTS

I'm 100% certain that exceptions exist (individual horses, trainers, etc.) but overall the data suggests blinkers are a negative.


-jp


.

[Stillriledup]

It sort of makes sense that the horses who are "less focused" (need blinkers) are going to lose more races than the ones who are more focused.

But, you know, until you see it on paper, you never know for sure. Its not even close and yet, whether or not a horse starts his career with blinkers or not is not something the public cares about at all, horses who otherwise look good won't be "less bet" because of the equipment.

[Jeff P]

There's a typo in the following line from my above post:Here's what I have for all FTS (thoroughbred only) in North America from Jan 01 2013 current through yesterday Feb 03 2013:
This is what I was actually trying to type: Here's what I have for all FTS (thoroughbred only) in North America from Jan 01 2013 current through yesterday Feb 03 2014:BLINKERS TRUE/FALSE ALL FTS:

Amt
Value P/L Wagered Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE -5240.30 26680.00 0.8036 1375 13340 .1031 1.0435 BLINKERS
TRUE -3688.60 12444.00 0.7036 558 6222 .0897 0.9079 WORE BLINKERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS -8928.90 39124.00 0.7718 1933 19562 .0988 1.0000 ALL FTS



Carry on...

-jp

.

[Robert Goren]

Blinkers are a negative. They mean the horse has a problem. The blinkers may or may not solve it. I prefer my firsters not to have any known problems. JMO

[fmolf]

Blinkers are a negative. They mean the horse has a problem. The blinkers may or may not solve it. I prefer my firsters not to have any known problems. JMO
If a horse is starting from a top notch,high % barn i do not think we as handicappers can make that judgement.As to whether it is a positive or a negative.What i do wish is that equiptment changes be listed in the workout tab.Then maybe we could better assess what blinkers on or off really mean.

[HUSKER55]

FWIW.....
I read somewhere that blinkers are put on a horse to slow it down so it runs a consistent race. If the barn is in the top 50 I would say it is a sign that the trainer is alert to the horse's potential. Being a herd type animal the horse will want to be near the front by nature.

This is one of the reason I hate FTS....but they win at good odds.

Damn it! Does that mean I am an addict! :confused: :D

[pandy]

I love blinkers on but not with first time starters. However, I think in many cases the trainers who put blinkers on a horse first time out are just trainers who use blinkers on most of their horses, not necessarily because the horse has a focus problem. Let's face it, many trainers really aren't that good. I see blinkers on firsters more at the smaller circuits and usually its trainers that don't have a lot of horses. If a trainer like Pletcher used blinkers on a firster then you would know that he thought the horse needed them.

It seems pretty dumb to use blinkers on a firster. The horse is going to get a better education if it can see what's happening in its first start.

[burnsy]

Yet another reason to avoid the maidens which I try to do. But when you play picks its a necessary evil. Many times, first timers with blinkers is a bad sign because the horse is not breaking right. If the horse has many gate works and is wearing blinkers, you may be able to leave it off your ticket. For me, a bunch of gate works is a negative blinkers or not. The horse is needing practice to start. I'm more of a "thinker" than a stats guy so I have to see "everything"...the type of works, trainer, breeding and distance. I agree with Pandy, if its not the first start and the horse adds blinkers. I'm taking a long hard look. If that horse has learned anything and has any ability or natural speed.........it could be down the road in a hurry on less experienced horses and I've seen big prices on horses like this over the years. The stats don't really help me because I'm looking for a price and many times to get it you have to find the situations that go against the norm. Many times you have to go against the "grain" to hit that double digit odds horse.

[burnsy]

Not that I'm against stats...I understand them and quantitative research. So I don't want to diss the stats. For you stats folks.......sometimes outliers are your best friends when you recognize one....that's where the money is...:cool:

[Light]

Here's what I have for all FTS (thoroughbred only) in North America from Jan 01 2013 current through yesterday Feb 03 2013:

ALL FTS BROKEN OUT BY BLINKERS TRUE/FALSE:

Amt
Value P/L Wagered Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE -5240.30 26680.00 0.8036 1375 13340 .1031 1.0435 NO BLINKERS
TRUE -3688.60 12444.00 0.7036 558 6222 .0897 0.9079 WORE BLINKERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS -8928.90 39124.00 0.7718 1933 19562 .0988 1.0000 ALL FTS

I'm 100% certain that exceptions exist (individual horses, trainers, etc.) but overall the data suggests blinkers are a negative.


-jp


.

I think your stats and the Tiller stats provided are misleading. Obviously most FTS's lose and many are still learning what they are doing in a race. I would break it down by odds in this case. The best guage (IMO) of a "live" FTS are horses bet down from their ML.They are more likely to be contenders rather than the horses at 10-1 and up with no action. These 10-1 and up horses with no "action" are going to make up a large portion of your database and skew the results more negative. Personally I have no interest on this subject except to point out the flaw here in the way the data is presented.

[Light]

The reason I mention this is because lets say you want to know the percentage of horses who stretch out for the first time and do it successfully. Well if you cull the horses with no shot and use some protocol like odds or speed rating rank you will get a significant difference in results. You just can't throw a blanket over data without breaking it down.

[dasch]

Here's what I have for all FTS (thoroughbred only) in North America from Jan 01 2013 current through yesterday Feb 03 2013:

ALL FTS BROKEN OUT BY BLINKERS TRUE/FALSE:

Amt
Value P/L Wagered Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE -5240.30 26680.00 0.8036 1375 13340 .1031 1.0435 NO BLINKERS
TRUE -3688.60 12444.00 0.7036 558 6222 .0897 0.9079 WORE BLINKERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS -8928.90 39124.00 0.7718 1933 19562 .0988 1.0000 ALL FTS

I'm 100% certain that exceptions exist (individual horses, trainers, etc.) but overall the data suggests blinkers are a negative.


-jp


.


Using this data there are more than twice as many non blinkered 1st time starters than blinkered, so in an average field of 10, with 6 1st time starters, there would be 4 without blinkers and only 2 with blinkers. And a 10% win by the without blinkers is a "negative" over a 9% win with blinkers? Yet the without blinker horses outnumber them over 2-1?

I would say the exact opposite, that using this data would suggest its a positive.

[Jeff P]

I think your stats and the Tiller stats provided are misleading. Obviously most FTS's lose and many are still learning what they are doing in a race. I would break it down by odds in this case. The best guage (IMO) of a "live" FTS are horses bet down from their ML.They are more likely to be contenders rather than the horses at 10-1 and up with no action. These 10-1 and up horses with no "action" are going to make up a large portion of your database and skew the results more negative. Personally I have no interest on this subject except to point out the flaw here in the way the data is presented. Ok. Here's what I have in the database if, instead of all FTS, I restrict the query to FTS at post time odds less than 10/1 with the added requirement that post time odds be less than morning line odds...

First, all horses in the database meeting those requirements from Jan 01 2013 through yesterday Feb 04 2014:
query start: 2/5/2014 12:13:49 PM
query end: 2/5/2014 12:13:53 PM
elapsed time: 4 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE STARTSLIFETIME = 0
AND ODDS < 10
AND ODDS < MLINE
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #02-04-2014#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 8639.80 8392.60 8330.30
Bet -10162.00 -10162.00 -10162.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -1522.20 -1769.40 -1831.70

Wins 1114 1896 2495
Plays 5081 5081 5081
PCT .2192 .3732 .4910

ROI 0.8502 0.8259 0.8198
Avg Mut 7.76 4.43 3.34


From there, here's the above sample broken out by True/False for Blinkers Worn:
BY BLINKERS TRUE/FALSE:

Amt
Value P/L Wagered Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE -1051.60 7198.00 0.8539 799 3599 .2220 1.0128 NO BLINKERS
TRUE -470.60 2964.00 0.8412 315 1482 .2126 0.9699 WORE BLINKERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS -1522.20 10162.00 0.8502 1114 5081 .2192 1.0000 ENTIRE SAMPLE


I don't really have a dog in this fight. Feel free to interpret as you see fit.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Using this data there are more than twice as many non blinkered 1st time starters than blinkered, so in an average field of 10, with 6 1st time starters, there would be 4 without blinkers and only 2 with blinkers. And a 10% win by the without blinkers is a "negative" over a 9% win with blinkers? Yet the without blinker horses outnumber them over 2-1?

I would say the exact opposite, that using this data would suggest its a positive.
I posted the following: ...overall the data suggests blinkers are a negative.Meaning that my interpretation is as follows: Blinkers worn is a negative compared to blinkers not worn.


-jp

.

[Light]

Jeff

Thanks for posting that.I'm not sure if I'm interpreting your data correct but it now looks like there is no difference in ROI with or without blinkers where as before there was a 10% difference.

The #1 reason I have for interpreting horse racing data by contenders is this. The top 5 betting choices win 85% (?) of the races. So for any data mining, if you include horses greater than the 5th choice, you are dealing with a large number with a very low percentage of winners 15% (?) that is diluting the results.

[Jeff P]

Light, In the second sample the difference in win rate and roi between the set of those wearing blinkers and those not wearing blinkers is certainly smaller.

FWIW, my interpretation here runs along the following lines:

1. The second sample is restricted to starters whose odds are under 10-1.

2. The first sample contains lots of starters whose odds are greater than 10-1.

3. Therefore, the avg odds of the starters in the second sample are lower than the avg odds of the starters in the first sample.

4. It's been my experience that the lower the odds the harder it is to "move the needle." Think of "the "needle" as a gauge being used to measure win rate and roi when a sample of starters with known characteristics is broken out by some independent variable.

I'm not at all surprised the difference between blinkers false and blinkers true turned out to be smaller in the second sample than in the first sample. Why? Because the avg odds of the starters in the second sample were lower than the avg odds of the starters in the first. (It was harder to move "the needle" in the second sample than it was in the first.)


-jp

.

[cnollfan]

Interpreting Jeff P's latest stats: If a FTS is higher than 10-1 and/or higher than its ML AND is wearing blinkers, its chances are particularly poor when compared to a horse in that situation without blinkers.

[Pensacola Pete]

HTR users: open up three copies of Robot3. Test for the last 50 or 60 days. Now set the odds filter to 0.1 to 9.9 post time odds. Nothing else. Now run Learn All, Learn More, and Learn Tour. Look at the ROIs. Almost everything is clustered around 0.80. That's what you're up against.

[mnmark]

I once asked a decent trainer who had two 1st time starters in the race after he was leaving the paddock why one had binkers and one didnt. He said that the horse that was running without blinkers didnt need them Thats all he said. The horse without blinkers won his debut easily

[BlinkersOn]

:lol: I really feel like I'm getting tossed around a lot in this thread. I'm getting dizzy.

[Stillriledup]

There's also different kinds of blinkers, horses can essentially NOT be getting a blinker change when in reality, they are.