RaceTrackDaddy
03-24-2014, 06:01 PM
A friend of mine, David Liker, wrote this column some time ago but with the comments by Joe B at the Big M that necessitated his removal on two mounts that night, I thought this article needed to be re-posted.
They Ain’t Always Goin’
(Horseman & Fair World, April 26, 2000)
by David Liker
In a perfect world, the only factors for horseplayers to consider while handicapping a race would be the relative abilities and health of the horses involved in each race, the skill of their drivers, and the luck of the draw. It would be a given that every horse going behind the starting gate was being driven by a driver whose only agenda was to get into the winner’s circle after the race. It is not only improbable that this is reality, but it is also unrealistic to believe that it ever will be reality. Why?
As we all know, there are two games being played at the racetrack: the game of racing horses and the game of betting on those races. What is best for the person betting on any given horse in a race (winning the race) is not always what is best for that horse (or at least what is most important to the people paying the bills on that horse).
Before going any further, I want to point out that this column is not about those entities in the racing business referred to as ‘gambling stables.’ Gambling stables are those that seek to gain an edge in the wagering portion of the game by manipulating the racing portion of the game to some degree. Just as there will always be those in the racing end of the business looking for an edge through the use of ergogenic aids (i.e. performance enhancers), there will inevitably be those in the wagering portion of the game looking for an advantage in this manner. Although a good deal can be said about this, it is not the subject this month.
The subject is racehorse management. Anyone that has ever raced horses knows that it is an expensive proposition. Trainers are looking to maximize a horse’s earning potential for the owner and that doesn’t always equate to doing ‘whatever it takes’ to win today’s race.
First of all, there are times when winning a race on a particular night is irrelevant in the big picture. While this may not seem like a revelation to those racing horses, let’s compare this fact of life with other sports.
Teams headed for the playoffs will often bench their star players in an effort to both avoid injury and rest up for those upcoming playoffs (of course, this is usually only true when a team has no advantage in the playoffs to gain, such as home field, by winning). Winning that game is of secondary importance.
There are also many examples in racing where winning a particular race is not the primary objective. There are cases where, just like the example of teams heading into the playoffs, horses heading into their own major races are driven to make sure that they are not roughed up for their upcoming big money races.
A prime example of this at The Meadows was the horse Nick’s Fantasy. In 1995, Nick’s Fantasy was winless in four overnight races at The Meadows (his best finish was a second in a winners-of-three-but-less-than-seven conditioned pace). But he excelled in stakes competition, winning an elimination of the Adios en route to capturing the Little Brown Jug. Clearly those betting on Nick’s Fantasy in those overnight races at The Meadows were not getting his A-game.
A slight variation of this factor is the stakes races that holds an open draw for its final rather than to seed position according to performance in its eliminations. If there is no advantage in the main event to be gained by winning the preliminary, then it’s probably unrealistic to expect a premium performance either.
Other examples of races where winning might not be the primary objective are those for green horses, horses being taught a different style of racing, or a horse that needs to be ’braved up’ (i.e. running into a blind switch by design).
There are also situations that arise where it might be in the best interest of certain contestants to not win. To use another example from the world of sports, I remember only one occasion growing up that my Dad rooted against a local team. It was 1968 and he was rooting for the Steelers to lose to the Philadelphia Eagles. Why? As arguably two of the worst teams in the NFL in 1968 (if you’re keeping score the Falcons were the other), the loser of this game would have the inside track on the number one selection in the upcoming college draft. For those that don’t remember, this meant the chance to have O.J. Simpson on your team - which in 1968 was a good thing!
It has been a matter of debate for years whether any team would lose on purpose in order to improve their position in the draft. It is also a matter of debate whether some horses underperform in a given race in order to obtain class relief or to remain in the same class. For example, a trainer who is racing his green pacing colt in a non-winners-of-two-lifetime at The Meadows (where the average time of the winner was 1:57.1) may feel that, even though this colt is probably able to win in this class, it is not prudent to subject his colt to the competition in the next class just yet (a winners-of-two-but-less-than-five, with an average winning time of 1:55.3. In claiming race terms, this would be the equivalent of a jump from a $5,000 claimer to a $15,000 claimer).
Clearly it is important to know both the race classification system at your track and the level of competition (remember, it does vary throughout the year) for each class. Knowing this will enable you to determine whether there are any horses that will be penalized (subject to a huge class jump or perhaps not permitted to race at all) by winning the race.
None of this would matter in a perfect racing world. But since this is reality, why not make reality work for you? Learn the intricacies of the game along with the habits of those racing the horses and adjust your handicapping and wagering strategies where necessary. You will have a huge edge over those handicapping and betting from the past performances alone
They Ain’t Always Goin’
(Horseman & Fair World, April 26, 2000)
by David Liker
In a perfect world, the only factors for horseplayers to consider while handicapping a race would be the relative abilities and health of the horses involved in each race, the skill of their drivers, and the luck of the draw. It would be a given that every horse going behind the starting gate was being driven by a driver whose only agenda was to get into the winner’s circle after the race. It is not only improbable that this is reality, but it is also unrealistic to believe that it ever will be reality. Why?
As we all know, there are two games being played at the racetrack: the game of racing horses and the game of betting on those races. What is best for the person betting on any given horse in a race (winning the race) is not always what is best for that horse (or at least what is most important to the people paying the bills on that horse).
Before going any further, I want to point out that this column is not about those entities in the racing business referred to as ‘gambling stables.’ Gambling stables are those that seek to gain an edge in the wagering portion of the game by manipulating the racing portion of the game to some degree. Just as there will always be those in the racing end of the business looking for an edge through the use of ergogenic aids (i.e. performance enhancers), there will inevitably be those in the wagering portion of the game looking for an advantage in this manner. Although a good deal can be said about this, it is not the subject this month.
The subject is racehorse management. Anyone that has ever raced horses knows that it is an expensive proposition. Trainers are looking to maximize a horse’s earning potential for the owner and that doesn’t always equate to doing ‘whatever it takes’ to win today’s race.
First of all, there are times when winning a race on a particular night is irrelevant in the big picture. While this may not seem like a revelation to those racing horses, let’s compare this fact of life with other sports.
Teams headed for the playoffs will often bench their star players in an effort to both avoid injury and rest up for those upcoming playoffs (of course, this is usually only true when a team has no advantage in the playoffs to gain, such as home field, by winning). Winning that game is of secondary importance.
There are also many examples in racing where winning a particular race is not the primary objective. There are cases where, just like the example of teams heading into the playoffs, horses heading into their own major races are driven to make sure that they are not roughed up for their upcoming big money races.
A prime example of this at The Meadows was the horse Nick’s Fantasy. In 1995, Nick’s Fantasy was winless in four overnight races at The Meadows (his best finish was a second in a winners-of-three-but-less-than-seven conditioned pace). But he excelled in stakes competition, winning an elimination of the Adios en route to capturing the Little Brown Jug. Clearly those betting on Nick’s Fantasy in those overnight races at The Meadows were not getting his A-game.
A slight variation of this factor is the stakes races that holds an open draw for its final rather than to seed position according to performance in its eliminations. If there is no advantage in the main event to be gained by winning the preliminary, then it’s probably unrealistic to expect a premium performance either.
Other examples of races where winning might not be the primary objective are those for green horses, horses being taught a different style of racing, or a horse that needs to be ’braved up’ (i.e. running into a blind switch by design).
There are also situations that arise where it might be in the best interest of certain contestants to not win. To use another example from the world of sports, I remember only one occasion growing up that my Dad rooted against a local team. It was 1968 and he was rooting for the Steelers to lose to the Philadelphia Eagles. Why? As arguably two of the worst teams in the NFL in 1968 (if you’re keeping score the Falcons were the other), the loser of this game would have the inside track on the number one selection in the upcoming college draft. For those that don’t remember, this meant the chance to have O.J. Simpson on your team - which in 1968 was a good thing!
It has been a matter of debate for years whether any team would lose on purpose in order to improve their position in the draft. It is also a matter of debate whether some horses underperform in a given race in order to obtain class relief or to remain in the same class. For example, a trainer who is racing his green pacing colt in a non-winners-of-two-lifetime at The Meadows (where the average time of the winner was 1:57.1) may feel that, even though this colt is probably able to win in this class, it is not prudent to subject his colt to the competition in the next class just yet (a winners-of-two-but-less-than-five, with an average winning time of 1:55.3. In claiming race terms, this would be the equivalent of a jump from a $5,000 claimer to a $15,000 claimer).
Clearly it is important to know both the race classification system at your track and the level of competition (remember, it does vary throughout the year) for each class. Knowing this will enable you to determine whether there are any horses that will be penalized (subject to a huge class jump or perhaps not permitted to race at all) by winning the race.
None of this would matter in a perfect racing world. But since this is reality, why not make reality work for you? Learn the intricacies of the game along with the habits of those racing the horses and adjust your handicapping and wagering strategies where necessary. You will have a huge edge over those handicapping and betting from the past performances alone