Every other race phenomenon

[PressThePace]

Can anyone shed light on horses who seem to run a good race every other time out? I've observed this for years, but have never understood why it happens.

In the 7th race at Canterbury, the :1: Princeapallee seems to be that sort. I watched the replay from the previous race, in which he goes off as the post time favorite....and gets drilled. There wasn't that much out of the ordinary that could explain why the horse failed to fire. There was a jockey change today, from Stevens to Bell. I don't know if that alone can be the reason though for his dominance over a very similar field today.

Thoughts?

[Stillriledup]

I looked at your example horse on paper, that's interesting, one good one than one clunker.

If i was going to make a guess, i would say its a small sample, horses are very fragile and its more likely that a horse will run a clunker off a top effort than it will run a clunker off a "non effort".

I was thinking about this before i looked up this Canterbury horse and in my opinion, pace pressers and speed horses are more likely to throw in clunkers than horses who make one run. If the speed horse gets in too fast of a duel, the horse can stop and be up the track...but, its not likely the closer will "Stop" and back thru the field...so, the closers "clunker" is more subtle.

its also that horses who run great and then stink are just mentally weaker than horses who almost always fire....horses who have a burning desire to race and the will to win will keep digging and overcome adversity...the horses who are mentally fragile seem to have no problems "chucking it".

[DeltaLover]

Can anyone shed light on horses who seem to run a good race every other time out? I've observed this for years, but have never understood why it happens.

In the 7th race at Canterbury, the :1: Princeapallee seems to be that sort. I watched the replay from the previous race, in which he goes off as the post time favorite....and gets drilled. There wasn't that much out of the ordinary that could explain why the horse failed to fire. There was a jockey change today, from Stevens to Bell. I don't know if that alone can be the reason though for his dominance over a very similar field today.

Thoughts?

This kind of scenario is pretty easy to verify.

How would you define a good vs a bad race given the past performances?

[Appy]

"Can anyone shed light on horses who seem to run a good race every other time out?"

Probably not, but it seems consistent with my handicapping performance! :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

I know nothing about this particular horse or the connections, but having observed some patterns with these horses over the years - I came to believe at some levels with certain barns, it was a veterinary phenomenon as much as anything. Basically, the horse having to run a bad one before the connections would think to get the vet down to there to grease up and tune up before he ran again.

[Longshot6977]

Can anyone shed light on horses who seem to run a good race every other time out?

I was actually thinking of this today during my drive to work. My idea is that possibly similar to a human runner, the horse runs a good race and depending on how 'good' it was (e.g wins by a nose or less than 1 length as example, or makes a very tiring effort to hit the board, sprains his foot etc), his muscles get tired or he even gets slightly hurt. Then next race (depending on how many weeks apart) he runs with a little pain and runs 'poorly'. In this race, his ailments seem to get conditioned so he is ready for his next race where he is able to run 'well'. Sometimes when I see a horse win by a nose in his last race and he had a tough stretch run, I toss him today from the win spot knowing he may need today's race as a breather since he may be exhausted from that last race.

But it is hard to answer this question without really knowing what a 'good' or 'poor' race means and how far apart the races are etc. To an owner or trainer, a 6th place finish in a field of 9 or 10 may be a good race for the horse as they may have expected him to come in last with his ailments or whatever they thought was his problem.

[Bennie]

Reminds me of a harness horse I used to follow at Monticello years back. Named Donna Lee Knight. My older sister was named Donna Lee, hence the reason to follow. Anyway, this horse always ran 1st, 3rd or 5th. Never finished in any other position for over 4 months I followed it, but never in any particular order. It ran 3rd it's last race and I said to my girlfriend (who became my first wife and also worked with my sister) this horse is either going to win the next time or run 5th. Entered the following week on a Friday night and drove all the way to Monticello from Passaic County, NJ and bet $100 across the board.
You guessed it, ran 5th. Luckily, there was one race remaining on the card and I boxed the triple using my "favorite" numbers and hit for $340 to make a small profit. And as you can guess, the next week I bet $20 w/p with the local bookie and the horse wins.:bang:
I would ask if you checked the race "conditions" for each of these races to see if there a rise or drop in class, and if there were any reasons for poor races like poor breaks, bumped, wet track, distance change. If you can't find any reason then I would say wait for a "poor" race and bet the next one. Just don't drive for 2 hours to Monticello to make a bet:)

[Milkshaker]

In cheaper classes, I have anecdotally heard that the "every other race" phenomenon can be indicative of a horse's joints being tapped (they run well when the fluid is drained but then tail off until the inevitable next tapping).

[Robert Fischer]

This one is a 6k claimer with some tactical speed. He's not a super horse, but once in a while he has some advantages.

Part of (perhaps near the beginning) of the seesaw zigzag pattern was when he eventually broke maiden. I think it was on the stretch-out from 6f to 1m70y where he had the lead.

Then he had to face winners.
Looks like there was a rail trip thrown in there after failing vs. winners.

Without looking at quality of (an unfamiliar to me) field or even a performance or speed figure, his very latest performance did in fact seem to be an improvement at face value.

[PressThePace]

I know nothing about this particular horse or the connections, but having observed some patterns with these horses over the years - I came to believe at some levels with certain barns, it was a veterinary phenomenon as much as anything. Basically, the horse having to run a bad one before the connections would think to get the vet down to there to grease up and tune up before he ran again.

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm actually leaning toward hannibal's explanation. This horse was significantly better in his "good" outings. I'll be very interested to see his performance is his next outing.

[Pensacola Pete]

Horse runs well, over-extends itself, returns sore. While recovering, but not at 100%, the trainer gives it a workout in-race. Next race it's in top form again and ready for another big effort. The effort sends it back sore, it's given a workout in-race, then a big effort, etc. I've seen it happen over and over, usually with cheap horses.

[rubicon55]

IMO if you are a strong believer in form theory then this might be attributed to form cycle where horses will zig zag on performance or maybe slowly ramp up or down in past performances. This of course is dependent when all things are equal and that the said horse is not running in a class above or below its established level. This is the one idea behind "bounce" theory if you believe you can forecast that. Following a particular horses form running cycle could be used to capitalize on a go or no go wager.

[RaceBookJoe]

One of the 1st handicapping books I ever read ( think it was written maybe 50+yrs ago) had this type of angle listed. You would look for betting patterns, as was described, some stables would seem to win only when the "in and outer" went off at high odds, where other larger stables would only send in the money when the horse was "right". Not sure if this is still viable, maybe on the smaller circuits?