PDA

View Full Version : Bounce Theory: The Most Fallacious Modern Fandicapping Idea


DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 05:14 PM
The favourite of the Preakness will obviously be American Pharoah and I believe that there will be a lot of handicappers who will see him with some scepticism, mainly because of the possibility of a bounce in his form. In my opinion, this whole thing about horses bouncing after a single big race, is completely bogus and I never consider it seriously...

I really think that AP is close to a cinch to win the Preakness and I can only hope the bounce theorists to spread the word as much as possible...

Here (http://www.themindofagambler.com/2015/05/04/the-fallacy-of-bounce-theory/) you can read more about my thoughts in the topic...

ReplayRandall
05-04-2015, 05:28 PM
The favourite of the Preakness will obviously be American Pharoah and I believe that there will be a lot of handicappers who will see him with some scepticism, mainly because of the possibility of a bounce in his form. In my opinion, this whole thing about horses bouncing after a single big race, is completely bogus and I never consider it seriously...

I really think that AP is close to a cinch to win the Preakness and I can only hope the bounce theorists to spread the word as much as possible...

Here (http://www.themindofagambler.com/2015/05/04/the-fallacy-of-bounce-theory/) you can read more about my thoughts in the topic...
Delta, so your Preakness winner is American "Whip-struck 32 times" Pharoah?

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 05:29 PM
I happen to be one of those "bounce theorists" you mention...and I can't see why you would think that AP's Derby performance qualifies as the sort of effort which usually leads to a subsequent "bounce". You must have the Derby rated as a much more impressive effort than I have.

Ocala Mike
05-04-2015, 05:39 PM
What Thas said; horses "bounce" off atypical peak performances, and I don't think that AP has anything to "bounce" off. AP has the look of a "play against" in the next two to me.

Saratoga_Mike
05-04-2015, 05:40 PM
I happen to be one of those "bounce theorists" you mention...and I can't see why you would think that AP's Derby performance qualifies as the sort of effort which usually leads to a subsequent "bounce". You must have the Derby rated as a much more impressive effort than I have.

If anything, the Derby performance looked like a bounce off the ultra-impressive Ark Derby win.

PaceAdvantage
05-04-2015, 05:43 PM
Delta, so your Preakness winner is American "Whip-struck 32 times" Pharoah?How has the "struck-with-whip-count" handicapping angle served you in the past?

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 05:49 PM
I happen to be one of those "bounce theorists" you mention...

Thask, I have enough support from my databases and my related research to convince me, that this Ragozin introduced theory is completely fallacious.


and I can't see why you would think that AP's Derby performance qualifies as the sort of effort which usually leads to a subsequent "bounce". You must have the Derby rated as a much more impressive effort than I have.

Absolutely it qualifies. Years ago, I clearly remember Len Friedman in one of his KD seminars stating that if ever had a KD winner, he would certainly skip the Preakness and go directly to Belmont to avoid the bounce..

Saratoga_Mike
05-04-2015, 05:51 PM
DL - you considered AP's Derby win/related figure (not sure if you use figures or not) higher than his recent trend?

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 05:52 PM
Delta, so your Preakness winner is American "Whip-struck 32 times" Pharoah?

Certainly I am turned off from the whipping.. If anything, an all out victorious performance, only elevates the quality of a horse in my eyes, since he confirms that he can outperform his top rivals under a high stress situation...

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 05:53 PM
Absolutely it qualifies. Years ago, I clearly remember Len Friedman in one of his KD seminars stating that if ever had a KD winner, he would certainly skip the Preakness and go directly to Belmont to avoid the bounce..
It does NOT qualify...regardless of what Len Friedman says. The Derby winners historically have done very well at the Preakness. Friedman has it backwards, IMO. If I am ever blessed with a Derby winner...I will ship to Pimlico, and then skip the Belmont.

Ocala Mike
05-04-2015, 06:03 PM
Anyway, there is a whole other aspect to the "bounce" theory that predates Ragozin but does not apply in the case of AP. That is the case where a horse ran a peak race AFTER a very long layoff, and now returns on relatively short rest. The conventional wisdom is that he's now a "play against" because:

1. He will be "overbet" due to the line he shows in the "peak" race and -
2. He has not fully recovered from the wear and tear of the "peak" effort.

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 06:06 PM
Anyway, there is a whole other aspect to the "bounce" theory that predates Ragozin but does not apply in the case of AP. That is the case where a horse ran a peak race AFTER a very long layoff, and now returns on relatively short rest. The conventional wisdom is that he's now a "play against" because:

1. He will be "overbet" due to the line he shows in the "peak" race and -
2. He has not fully recovered from the wear and tear of the "peak" effort.

There are several definitions of the "bounce" theory...and this year's Derby does not fit the mold of any of these definitions.

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 06:19 PM
DL - you considered AP's Derby win/related figure (not sure if you use figures or not) higher than his recent trend?

I admit that I was considering Dortmund to be a more possible KD winner than AP.

Also, even if I consider Andy Beyer to be the Patriarch of the American handicappers and his figures, the most influential handicapping concept ever, I no longer pay any attention to them (and pretty much to any other commercial figure)...

For whatever is worth it, in my proprietary figures I have AP's KD approximately five lengths behind the KD of Animal Kingdom or approximately seven lengths behind Blame, I also have the 4 furlong fraction of AP' race approximately 4 lengths faster than Animal Kingdom's and approximately 2 lengths slower than Blame's..

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 06:22 PM
It does NOT qualify...regardless of what Len Friedman says. The Derby winners historically have done very well at the Preakness. Friedman has it backwards, IMO. If I am ever blessed with a Derby winner...I will ship to Pimlico, and then skip the Belmont.

OK, so we are saying the same think Thask... From what you are saying here, I cannot see how you are a follower of the bounce theory...

ReplayRandall
05-04-2015, 06:23 PM
How has the "struck-with-whip-count" handicapping angle served you in the past?
It served me better than it has Adrian Peterson.. :eek:

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 06:24 PM
Anyway, there is a whole other aspect to the "bounce" theory that predates Ragozin but does not apply in the case of AP. That is the case where a horse ran a peak race AFTER a very long layoff, and now returns on relatively short rest. The conventional wisdom is that he's now a "play against" because:

1. He will be "overbet" due to the line he shows in the "peak" race and -
2. He has not fully recovered from the wear and tear of the "peak" effort.


OK.. This adds another parameter to the theory, which we can easily test and verify how applicable it is...

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 06:35 PM
Anyway, there is a whole other aspect to the "bounce" theory that predates Ragozin but does not apply in the case of AP. That is the case where a horse ran a peak race AFTER a very long layoff, and now returns on relatively short rest. The conventional wisdom is that he's now a "play against" because:

1. He will be "overbet" due to the line he shows in the "peak" race and -
2. He has not fully recovered from the wear and tear of the "peak" effort.


Hmmm.. Out of curiosity, I added the factor you are suggesting: second of a long layoff, on top of candidate to bounce (LL is > 180 days while current days off are between 20 and 40.

Guess what?? In this case the (much small of course) sample is presenting a 1.21 ROI a 3.4 IV and 42% win%... Of course in the database I am using there were only 50 matching horses, while in the other categories there were a few hundred of them

Saratoga_Mike
05-04-2015, 07:00 PM
OK, so we are saying the same think Thask... From what you are saying here, I cannot see how you are a follower of the bounce theory...

Thask is saying AP didn't run a peak race in the Derby, if anything (my thoughts) he regressed.

You define a Derby win alone as a peak race, I assume, from your comments?

Also, thanks for those stats - very interesting.

PhantomOnTour
05-04-2015, 07:01 PM
I'm beginning to think that you database guys are more programmers than handicappers.

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 07:02 PM
OK, so we are saying the same think Thask... From what you are saying here, I cannot see how you are a follower of the bounce theory...
How are we saying the same thing, DL? You deny the existence of the "bounce theory" as a handicapping factor...and I have relied on my understanding of this "bounce theory" for some of my biggest scores. Do you see any common ground in our thought processes here?

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 07:04 PM
You define a Derby win alone as a peak race, I assume, from your comments?


You are correct Mike.. By default, I consider any "major destination" race (like the Derby or the BC) to be the peak, at ,least for the winner..

proximity
05-04-2015, 07:12 PM
I admit that I was considering Dortmund to be a more possible KD winner than AP.

Also, even if I consider Andy Beyer to be the Patriarch of the American handicappers and his figures, the most influential handicapping concept ever, I no longer pay any attention to them (and pretty much to any other commercial figure)...



his top two figure horses were materiality (6th) and upstart (last).

dortmund (106-104-104) looked better than american pharoah (105-100-101-101).

Saratoga_Mike
05-04-2015, 07:34 PM
You are correct Mike.. By default, I consider any "major destination" race (like the Derby or the BC) to be the peak, at ,least for the winner..

Ok, I didn't understand your definition. I would only consider AP a bounce candidate if he ran a huge Beyer in the Derby, well above his past trend (he didn't). Even then, I'd take into account his trainer and the success Baffert's had at keeping horses at peak form throughout the Triple Crown.

RXB
05-04-2015, 07:49 PM
American Pharoah finished farther ahead of Far Right and Mr Z in the Ky Derby than at Oaklawn so I highly doubt that he bounced on Saturday. The quality of competition stiffened immensely; did people really think that he'd win the Ky Derby in a cakewalk?

RXB
05-04-2015, 07:51 PM
dortmund (106-104-104) looked better than american pharoah (105-100-101-101).

Those two 101's were delivered as a 2YO in Aug & Sept.

Tom
05-04-2015, 08:27 PM
I'm beginning to think that you database guys are more programmers than handicappers.You use Quirin type figs, right?
Do you use the new pace top with an increase in final time as a bounce category? I find a lot of horses that just fail after that event.

tophatmert
05-04-2015, 08:27 PM
the bounce theory :The most misunderstood modern handicapping idea

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 08:37 PM
American Pharoah finished farther ahead of Far Right and Mr Z in the Ky Derby than at Oaklawn so I highly doubt that he bounced on Saturday. The quality of competition stiffened immensely; did people really think that he'd win the Ky Derby in a cakewalk?

This isn't the question that is being asked in this thread. The topic here is whether or not American Pharoah's performance in the Derby is the sort that usually leads to a "bounce" in the horse's subsequent start. DeltaLover does not subscribe to the "bounce theory" himself...but presumes to know how the "bounce theorists" make their "bounce" determinations. He has classified AP's performance in the Derby as an upcoming "bounce" indication...and he will come back here after AP wins the Preakness, to again tell us about the inadequacy of the bounce theory as a handicapping idea.

IMO, the bounce theory is a valid handicapping idea...assuming it is properly defined. Everything depends on the definition. And, in my opinion, AP's last race does not qualify as a bounce indication...regardless of how many times the horse was whipped in the race.

thaskalos
05-04-2015, 08:48 PM
You use Quirin type figs, right?
Do you use the new pace top with an increase in final time as a bounce category? I find a lot of horses that just fail after that event.

Best bounce definition that I've ever seen or heard. :ThmbUp: I thought I was the only one who shared this opinion, until I saw Cary Fotias mention it in his book Blinkers Off . Now I know that there were at least 3 of us who had noticed this. :)

RXB
05-04-2015, 08:53 PM
This isn't the question that is being asked in this thread. The topic here is whether or not American Pharoah's performance in the Derby is the sort that usually leads to a "bounce" in the horse's subsequent start.

I should've used the Quote button to make my response more specific, as it had been suggested that his Ky Derby win was a regression from his Ark Derby win.

Tom
05-04-2015, 09:02 PM
Best bounce definition that I've ever seen or heard. :ThmbUp: I thought I was the only one who shared this opinion, until I saw Cary Fotias mention it in his book Blinkers Off . Now I know that there were at least 3 of us who had noticed this. :)

I search for it.
A couple of things I look for generally, that, and third off a layoff, and cut backs. Lots of dead ends, but those fields have lots of potatoes buried in them.

ReplayRandall
05-04-2015, 09:16 PM
IMO, the bounce theory is a valid handicapping idea...assuming it is properly defined. Everything depends on the definition. And, in my opinion, AP's last race does not qualify as a bounce indication...regardless of how many times the horse was whipped in the race.
IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves. In fact, a horse struck over a dozen times is one of the worst ROI plays in his next race, with the exception being a minimum 4 week rest between starts.
I observe and notate every day the abuses put on these horses, no matter the class level. I could go into great detail of what I do see via replays, at the experience level I analyze them, but I will stop here and just say that I would love to see a TC winner for horse racing fans and the game itself. However, IMO AP is not going to succeed for numerous reasons, and we'll all just have to wait another year....

Tom
05-04-2015, 09:17 PM
Let me ask because I have no idea - Firing Line ran T-Graph numbers of 7-7-3-1-1

He paired up a new top and then went in to a 10 furlong race and did not change leads. Would the stress of pairing up fast new tops be a reason for not changing leads? Never heard it mentioned before.

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 09:18 PM
I'm beginning to think that you database guys are more programmers than handicappers.

This is how it supposed to be Phantom :p

sammy the sage
05-04-2015, 09:22 PM
IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves. In fact, a horse struck over a dozen times is one of the worst ROI plays in his next race, with the exception being a minimum 4 week rest between starts.
I observe and notate every day the abuses put on these horses, no matter the class level. I could go into great detail of what I do see via replays, at the experience level I analyze them, but I will stop here and just say that I would love to see a TC winner for horse racing fans and the game itself. However, IMO AP is not going to succeed for numerous reasons, and we'll all just have to wait another year....

Agree w/this post...on all points...

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 09:35 PM
IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves.

Hey Randall, can you please tell this to my friend Thask???

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 09:38 PM
Ok, I didn't understand your definition. I would only consider AP a bounce candidate if he ran a huge Beyer in the Derby, well above his past trend (he didn't). Even then, I'd take into account his trainer and the success Baffert's had at keeping horses at peak form throughout the Triple Crown.

I hear you, but still the fact that he was challenged for the very first time and his jock had to push him so hard, is not something that you would consider an over the norm performance that can be a cause of a bounce?

ReplayRandall
05-04-2015, 09:39 PM
Hey Randall, can you please tell this to my friend Thask???
He might get mad at me for lecturing him.. :cool:

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 09:44 PM
He might get mad at me for lecturing him.. :cool:


Please try, because apparently he does not listen to me :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Saratoga_Mike
05-04-2015, 09:47 PM
I hear you, but still the fact that he was challenged for the very first time and his jock had to push him so hard, is not something that you would consider an over the norm performance that can be a cause of a bounce?

Not using my definition, but I think you've explored the matter much more closely than I have. I thought Tom used an interesting definition. More important than "will he bounce or not?" is "will he stay sound or not?" imo.

Tom
05-04-2015, 09:47 PM
I hear you, but still the fact that he was challenged for the very first time and his jock had to push him so hard, is not something that you would consider an over the norm performance that can be a cause of a bounce?
No, not at all.
He might bounce next time, but his 105 was only a 5 point move after tying his 2yo tops. 30 point moves by tops horses are not that unusual. I expect his to move ahead agian next time out.

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 09:52 PM
No, not at all.
He might bounce next time, but his 105 was only a 5 point move after tying his 2yo tops. 30 point moves by tops horses are not that unusual. I expect his to move ahead agian next time out.

OK, but the point I am trying to make (and probably I do not communicate it properly), is that chances are that those who believe that indeed he is a bounce candidate, they will be proven wrong...

But after the phone conversation I had with Thask, maybe my comment was not spot on, since from what I can see, almost half of us, do not seem to even believe that AP is a bounce candidate...

Fingal
05-04-2015, 09:56 PM
the bounce theory :The most misunderstood modern handicapping idea

Pharoah may bounce, regress, whatever you want to call it but there's a couple questions- First by how much ? And if Pharoah does "bounce" will that effort still be good enough to beat all of the others ?

And then what's going to be the quality of the competition he's going to face ? As of now it's supposedly Firing Line & Dortmund. Will they "bounce" themselves off that stretch drive or did it sharpen them so they'll advance ?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

Tom
05-04-2015, 10:06 PM
But after the phone conversation I had with Thask, maybe my comment was not spot on, since from what I can see, almost half of us, do not seem to even believe that AP is a bounce candidate...

It would not surprise me to see him improve another 3-5 lengths.
He has only had a 5 point move up - I thing he was set back by his physical problems at 2, so there may still be a big move in him.

DeltaLover
05-04-2015, 10:12 PM
It would not surprise me to see him improve another 3-5 lengths.
He has only had a 5 point move up - I thing he was set back by his physical problems at 2, so there may still be a big move in him.

I think that this is the most possible scenario

maddog42
05-04-2015, 10:46 PM
Best bounce definition that I've ever seen or heard. :ThmbUp: I thought I was the only one who shared this opinion, until I saw Cary Fotias mention it in his book Blinkers Off . Now I know that there were at least 3 of us who had noticed this. :)

Make that 4. Between the Beyer definition and the Fotias, I have come up with my own definition or concept. Cheaper horses bounce much easier than stakes horses.

RaceTrackDaddy
05-05-2015, 01:07 AM
I might be totally wrong with my current memory of something I saw so many years ago when I first heard the term 'bounce theory'. Think it was the guy that was promoting Thoro-Graph system with charts and numbers.

In order for it to be ready for a bounce, the horse had to exceed all previous efforts on the chart, like a life time mark or by a number of lengths won than in any previous competition. (forget the criteria used in the chart).

I really don't think the Ky Derby was one of those exceptional efforts (lifetime efforts) as he has demonstrated that speed and effort prior.

I am one who was touting (and went all in last weekend) keying Mubaahij in the 11th race and using no one else in all bets leading into that. I was live with a $5 Oaks/Derby DD (paying $110 per buck), Oaks/Wodford/Derby $1 pick-3 (that would have required my signature to receive the winnings) and most of the pick-3 and pick-4 going into the derby plus the $50 to win and all the exotics with Mubtaahij on top, nothing else. I went for the throat and came out a loser.

But watching the race, I really think there is only one in there that has a shot to be AP, Firing Line really exploded on that made for speed track at Sunland. Preakness with the tight turns and shorter distance might present a great help to FL in the Preakness. I took a shot at AP in the Derby, will take another two shots at him in the Preakness and Belmont.

In case anyone hasn't heard, Mubtaahij is not going to UK as the connections have decided to keep him in the states, pass up the Preakness and try to be the spoiler in the Belmont.

I might be stupid at times, but I am one that persevere to beat the favorite. I do believe that AP is not a Triple Crown winner in 2015 and will try once more to go take a shot.

Elliott Sidewater
05-05-2015, 01:57 AM
It does NOT qualify...regardless of what Len Friedman says. The Derby winners historically have done very well at the Preakness. Friedman has it backwards, IMO. If I am ever blessed with a Derby winner...I will ship to Pimlico, and then skip the Belmont.
Are you sure about that? As an owner, you would be vilified if you even contemplated not running a potential Triple Crown winner in the Belmont. I can just imagine what Jim Rome, Boomer Esiason, Dan Patrick, and Michael Wilbon would say that the ghost of Jim McKay would say about you. "The Sport of Kings, or Cowards?" In 24 hours or less, you would sink from being one of the most admired men in America to one of the least popular, just a smidgeon better than let's say, Aaron Hernandez Say it ain't so, Thaskalo(s).......

Stillriledup
05-05-2015, 03:24 AM
IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves. In fact, a horse struck over a dozen times is one of the worst ROI plays in his next race, with the exception being a minimum 4 week rest between starts.
I observe and notate every day the abuses put on these horses, no matter the class level. I could go into great detail of what I do see via replays, at the experience level I analyze them, but I will stop here and just say that I would love to see a TC winner for horse racing fans and the game itself. However, IMO AP is not going to succeed for numerous reasons, and we'll all just have to wait another year....

I've found that this is correct also. I'll also add that the whip striking is part of it and i think the other part of it is that the reason the horse was struck so many times in the first place was because the horse was no good or struggling along. There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.

SO, its definitely a combination of whip strikes and maybe the horse struggling along because of soundness or a medical issue, but at any rate, a lot of whip strikes is a bad thing, if a horse has to get beat up to win, they don't usually bounce back as good as ever in their next start, horses who get beat up are automatic throwouts for me, almost at any price.

Good post.

thaskalos
05-05-2015, 03:40 AM
I've found that this is correct also. I'll also add that the whip striking is part of it and i think the other part of it is that the reason the horse was struck so many times in the first place was because the horse was no good or struggling along. There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.

SO, its definitely a combination of whip strikes and maybe the horse struggling along because of soundness or a medical issue, but at any rate, a lot of whip strikes is a bad thing, if a horse has to get beat up to win, they don't usually bounce back as good as ever in their next start, horses who get beat up are automatic throwouts for me, almost at any price.

Good post.
So...you consider American Pharoah to be a throwout in the Preakness, right?

RoyalHeroine
05-05-2015, 03:54 AM
I might be totally wrong with my current memory of something I saw so many years ago when I first heard the term 'bounce theory'. Think it was the guy that was promoting Thoro-Graph system with charts and numbers.

In order for it to be ready for a bounce, the horse had to exceed all previous efforts on the chart, like a life time mark or by a number of lengths won than in any previous competition. (forget the criteria used in the chart).

I really don't think the Ky Derby was one of those exceptional efforts (lifetime efforts) as he has demonstrated that speed and effort prior.

I am one who was touting (and went all in last weekend) keying Mubaahij in the 11th race and using no one else in all bets leading into that. I was live with a $5 Oaks/Derby DD (paying $110 per buck), Oaks/Wodford/Derby $1 pick-3 (that would have required my signature to receive the winnings) and most of the pick-3 and pick-4 going into the derby plus the $50 to win and all the exotics with Mubtaahij on top, nothing else. I went for the throat and came out a loser.

But watching the race, I really think there is only one in there that has a shot to be AP, Firing Line really exploded on that made for speed track at Sunland. Preakness with the tight turns and shorter distance might present a great help to FL in the Preakness. I took a shot at AP in the Derby, will take another two shots at him in the Preakness and Belmont.

In case anyone hasn't heard, Mubtaahij is not going to UK as the connections have decided to keep him in the states, pass up the Preakness and try to be the spoiler in the Belmont.

I might be stupid at times, but I am one that persevere to beat the favorite. I do believe that AP is not a Triple Crown winner in 2015 and will try once more to go take a shot.

Not wanting to nitpick while at the same time wanting to dispel an often quoted myth that is taken as gospel, as Rich Perloff stated today, in answering an email, the turns @ the Preakness are not tighter than at the Churchill.

If you overlay satellite pics of each, what you will see is that CD track is only a wider track than Pimlico.

http://www.drf.com/blogs/pimlico-tight-turned-and-speed-favoring-nope

Just trying to help us all. It's difficult enough to cash in the 1st place!:bang:

LottaKash
05-05-2015, 03:59 AM
There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.



I posted this in another thread...

What I saw, in the saddling paddock, was an AP, that was very nervous, twitchy, and uncomfortable in that setting...Perhaps it was the crowd noise and all the hoopla surrounding the Big Race...His groom had to turn him towards the back wall a few times, I guess in an effort to try and keep him calm, before the call to post..

But what struck me the most, and no one seemed to key on this, but I "did" observe a very sweaty AP, and as they panned the camera, I didn't see that with most of the others that keyed on...He was dripping wet from his mane right on down to his forelegs...

Not only that, but AP seemed yet still more nervous and flighty in the post parade, as well...His outrider had all to do with holding him, as his head was flailing about, like he was really bothered....Almost like AP just wished he was somewhere else on that day...

Sometimes, a speedster just wants to go, but in this case he seem so bothered...And, based on what I saw, I truly believe that, all that nervous energy expenditure took a lot out of him, and perhaps, thus the incessant coaxing at the end of his race...

Still, he overcame it all, and showed all of his rivals who was boss at the end...Good trip was a good friend too, I'd say...

On bounces, perhaps that was a bounce of sorts from his good recent wins and super works...And what we saw was the result of it....I couldn't say either way tho...But, I saw what I saw, is all..

raybo
05-05-2015, 05:00 AM
I haven't seen the numbers for AP's Derby yet, but from watching the race, both Dortmund and Firing Line ran their butts off. So, if AP also ran his butt off, or got whipped excessively, he will still be facing the same two major contenders, both of which ran their butt off also. Is AP a "bounce" candidate for the Preakness? IMO, NO! Simply because a "bounce" horse is not supposed to win the next race, and AP is facing the same 2 major contenders, who experienced similar energy expenditure in the Derby, and should still beat them in the Preakness, all other things being equal. (of course, there are other horses to be considered in the Preakness, some that gained something from the Derby and some that did not run in the Derby and are fresher, so AP may indeed get beat, but not necessarily because he "bounced")

I only expect for a horse to bounce for sure, if he improved his early performance in his 3rd race back versus his 4th back, and he improved his late performance in his 2nd race back versus his 3rd race back (what I call a "two race improvement"), and won his last race. IMO, that last race was the result of a "two race improvement" and produced a peak performance in his last race, and if in that last race he did not simply cruise to the win but had to work hard at it from the beginning of the race, he is expected to "bounce" in his next race, if that race is of the same class, unless he is laid off and then comes back in a softer race.

So, in summary, I don't adhere to traditional "bounce" theory as stated by others, but do adhere to it if the scenario above exists. So, I'm a single scenario "bounce" guy.

Like Thaskalos, if I have a winner in the Derby, and he comes out of that race well, I would probably send him to the Preakness, but not necessarily send him to the Belmont, unless he also wins the Preakness and comes out of that race well. 3 races in 5 weeks is tough on any horse (and in AP's case, 4 races in 8 weeks), so the distance and depth of the surface in the Belmont would be of definite concern to me, if I am sincerely looking after the health of my horse.

MJC922
05-05-2015, 06:39 AM
The bounce theory has two components, level of effort and spacing. Spacing is recovery time between races. I think we can all agree horses need a certain amount of recovery time after a race which (depending upon the robustness of the individual) can vary. If horses didn't need recovery time there would be no reason to not see them running every other day, and we don't see that so presumably time off is required. Ideally then, every horse exiting a race has an optimum number of days rest (a number which is unknown to us) and if they get that rest, barring injury they should be able to return and 'run back to their race' so to speak. Add to this mix several other considerations, the theory that more recovery time may be needed after a greater level of effort and how short or how well-rested the horse was going into that effort and now you have many sequences to study before you could put relevant stats to any of this. Some even go a bit further and get into differences between the different ages, sexes and distance (body types) as to the amount of recovery time may be required. At this time I'm a believer in some of it, especially so in the modern era where Lasix and other medications like painkillers allow horses to overextend and require some extra recovery time. One of the reasons the triple crown is especially tough IMO is spacing. These trainers understandably train to peak in the Derby not the Preakness. They come back on what is too little recovery time for the Preakness. If the horse manages to win both races then very likely those were substantial 'efforts'. Given that the spacing of these races is way too close for the typical modern thoroughbred there's usually a regression in the Belmont, and against top-level competition very few horses can get it done with any type of regression in form.

Elliott Sidewater
05-05-2015, 06:41 AM
The turns on the turf course at Pimlico are very tight, and probably are contributing to some of the surprise wire to wire turf winners there each year.

Elliott Sidewater
05-05-2015, 06:49 AM
So...you consider American Pharoah to be a throwout in the Preakness, right?
So if the number of whip strikes is signficant, why hasn't anyone considered putting that information in the past performances? A jockey once whipped a horse we owned excessively when she wasn't giving him her best, and we never rode him again. But if she had been in a stretch duel to win the race, I wouldn't have cared how many times he chose to whip her, nor did it ever seem to have a carryover effect on any of the repeat winners I've owned. Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, unless you happen to be a PETA board member.

five-eighths
05-05-2015, 07:16 AM
Wouldn't another component of the bounce theory relate to the relative class level of each race?

I mean horses at AP's level would be more likely to just take a lay-off, but for cheaper horses if the trainers suspect the horse might bounce wouldn't they try to race them in a lower class race?

MJC922
05-05-2015, 07:36 AM
Even if someone had the Derby effort rated as a big 'new top' for AP I'm not sure the Preakness is ever a reliable place to expect a bounce. In a race like the Derby which trainers have a months ahead roadmap to peak out the horse's form cycle on that day it would make me lean toward the horse having another good shot to fire in the Preakness, even though it's not a good thing on short rest the horse will usually respond. On a typical day though with cheaper horses (claiming horses for example) the plan is totally different, there's not much prepping going on and the mere indication of a bigger effort for the horse can more reliably be seen as a negative if it returns on short rest.

On the handicapping side of things a lot of this comes down to hair-splitting. I personally believe in the bounce, the need for recovery time etc, I believe it's a factor which influences outcomes. Can I leverage it? If someone says this should be ignored because it can't be leveraged, well, I won't argue with them. Maybe they're right. I'm more comfortable with saying it can't be leveraged and should be ignored than saying it isn't even a factor in race outcomes.

pandy
05-05-2015, 08:07 AM
There are several definitions of the "bounce" theory...and this year's Derby does not fit the mold of any of these definitions.

I agree. This is not a bounce situation, which usually occurs after a horse improves sharply to either a new lifetime top or produces a speed figure that is sharply better than its previous race, or previous best race.

Another factor is that so many horses that win the Derby repeat in the Preakness that it would seem foolish to automatically call a Derby winner a bounce prospect.

classhandicapper
05-05-2015, 09:47 AM
I just wish people wouldn't abuse the term "bounce".

Horses sometimes run huge speed figures when they get loose on the lead in a moderate pace, catch a gold rail or speed favoring track, face a soft field, draft behind a duel in the pocket and cut the corner, catch a sloppy track they love etc... Sometimes horses just have an especially good day.

When they come back and race in more honest circumstances, they are not bouncing if they don't repeat that figure. That's a mean reversion or reversion to a normalized figure level.

To me, a bounce is a physical reaction to a very difficult race or series of difficult races.

IMO, there's no question that horses wear down during long hard campaigns. That's especially true if a series of races was especially tough. Trainers have known this for decades. I've seen it countless times among top horses. But it's standard form cycle stuff that was written about in the very old handicapping books.

Years ago, trainers would give a horse a break here or there to freshen them up. Now, we've taken spacing to an extreme to keep horses fresh and try to deliver more peaks, but it's basically the same thing.

I haven't looked at the stats carefully enough, but I don't find bounces especially predictable. I just know the further into the campaign you go and the tougher the series of races, the greater the probability that the horse is going to throw in a serious clunker (less so on turf). The most predictable pattern is when a horse has a history of injuries. Trainers can sometimes get them back to the races for one top effort before they fall apart again.

pandy
05-05-2015, 10:08 AM
I've had some nice hits on horses that came off a new lifetime top and were overlays in their next start, but they were young, lightly raced horses. So I don't think it's smart to just immediately dismiss horses that come off big efforts. A lot has to do with the odds, and the competition, and how easy the horse won. A horse that guts out a nose win under heavy urging after a long stretch battle and improves its figure by 20 points is more of a bounce prospect than a horse that breezes to a 6 length handy win and improves its figure by 20 points.

classhandicapper
05-05-2015, 10:37 AM
I don't think it's smart to just immediately dismiss horses that come off big efforts. A lot has to do with the odds, and the competition, and how easy the horse won.

I agree.

Even when there is validity to a particular horse being more likely to bounce, if everyone is thinking the same thing, the odds may more than compensate for the extra risk. Various Sheet players have a lot of impact on the odds.

The other thing I forget to mention is that any random horse will occasionally throw in a clunker. So just because a horse was coming off a peak effort does not mean a subsequent clunker was related to that effort. It could just be a random event that a handicapper's preconceived notion is attributing to a bounce.

Valuist
05-05-2015, 11:01 AM
IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves. In fact, a horse struck over a dozen times is one of the worst ROI plays in his next race, with the exception being a minimum 4 week rest between starts.
I observe and notate every day the abuses put on these horses, no matter the class level. I could go into great detail of what I do see via replays, at the experience level I analyze them, but I will stop here and just say that I would love to see a TC winner for horse racing fans and the game itself. However, IMO AP is not going to succeed for numerous reasons, and we'll all just have to wait another year....


Interesting theory. I haven't used it. The only issue I see with tracking whip counts is it could be VERY time consuming. And often times, difficult to see if a horse has a another horse right to his/her inside, and the rider has the whip in the left hand. Won't find many winners, but I could see this getting one off of many heavily bet horses.

MJC922
05-05-2015, 06:58 PM
I just wish people wouldn't abuse the term "bounce".

Horses sometimes run huge speed figures when they get loose on the lead in a moderate pace, catch a gold rail or speed favoring track, face a soft field, draft behind a duel in the pocket and cut the corner, catch a sloppy track they love etc... Sometimes horses just have an especially good day.

When they come back and race in more honest circumstances, they are not bouncing if they don't repeat that figure. That's a mean reversion or reversion to a normalized figure level.

To me, a bounce is a physical reaction to a very difficult race or series of difficult races.

IMO, there's no question that horses wear down during long hard campaigns. That's especially true if a series of races was especially tough. Trainers have known this for decades. I've seen it countless times among top horses. But it's standard form cycle stuff that was written about in the very old handicapping books.

Years ago, trainers would give a horse a break here or there to freshen them up. Now, we've taken spacing to an extreme to keep horses fresh and try to deliver more peaks, but it's basically the same thing.

I haven't looked at the stats carefully enough, but I don't find bounces especially predictable. I just know the further into the campaign you go and the tougher the series of races, the greater the probability that the horse is going to throw in a serious clunker (less so on turf). The most predictable pattern is when a horse has a history of injuries. Trainers can sometimes get them back to the races for one top effort before they fall apart again.

Good points. My problem with the sheets camp isn't the theory, I think there's inherently a flaw in the assumption that fast time by itself represents effort. As you hint at above, fast time for the horse can be merely a slightly above avg effort earned under ideal conditions . It's reasonable to assume horses can overextend under all kinds of pace scenarios which may or may not turn out to be 'fast' races -- slow pace races with a closer trying to come from a mile back and then sweeping outside as the pace quickens is a good example of what actually may be a huge effort and is buried with an average final time.

What I think most people should have no problem grasping is several horses in every race may well be coming back too soon (are still muscle sore, or for any one of myriad reasons aren't 100% interested in going full tilt already) which may lead to a subpar effort for the horse either on that day or a complete x'ing out for the horse in the race after that. We should consider what IS a subpar effort for a horse too, it's not much when we consider the average sprint race is 70+ seconds in duration and the route 100 seconds. A subpar effort is literally less than one second for a horse over the entire race distance. IF we watch a clock and see how long it takes for even a full second to elapse, it's not much at all.

RaceTrackDaddy
05-05-2015, 08:02 PM
Not wanting to nitpick while at the same time wanting to dispel an often quoted myth that is taken as gospel, as Rich Perloff stated today, in answering an email, the turns @ the Preakness are not tighter than at the Churchill.

If you overlay satellite pics of each, what you will see is that CD track is only a wider track than Pimlico.

http://www.drf.com/blogs/pimlico-tight-turned-and-speed-favoring-nope

Just trying to help us all. It's difficult enough to cash in the 1st place!:bang:

Thank you Ms Heroine: I never knew that. It must have been an illusion given the track was not as wide that we assumed it had to be tighter. That will help in future handicapping.

Stillriledup
05-06-2015, 12:16 AM
So...you consider American Pharoah to be a throwout in the Preakness, right?

I normally try really hard to beat the Derby winner in the preakness simply because they're "obligated" to run no matter how the horse came out of the race.

Specifically about AP though, i'd lean to toss him because , his beaten up with the whip is worse than normal because in APs previous race, he was cruising under hand rides, so when a horse who has been winning and traveling without much urge, and then gets beaten up, its more concerning to me than if the horse was a horse who normally has to be urged hard to get there.

But, with that said, i'll still take a look at the field and make a determination with 2 mins to post if i like AP and how he warms up and his price, i have an open mind about it since the Derby winner usually seems to do well in the preakness.

AndyC
05-06-2015, 11:35 AM
I've had some nice hits on horses that came off a new lifetime top and were overlays in their next start, but they were young, lightly raced horses. So I don't think it's smart to just immediately dismiss horses that come off big efforts. A lot has to do with the odds, and the competition, and how easy the horse won. A horse that guts out a nose win under heavy urging after a long stretch battle and improves its figure by 20 points is more of a bounce prospect than a horse that breezes to a 6 length handy win and improves its figure by 20 points.


So in your view a horse who runs a mile and wins in 1:34 under a heavy urge is more likely to bounce than the same horse winning the race in 1:34 by 6 lengths?

In my view it takes the same amount of energy for the horse to run either race.

pandy
05-06-2015, 11:45 AM
So in your view a horse who runs a mile and wins in 1:34 under a heavy urge is more likely to bounce than the same horse winning the race in 1:34 by 6 lengths?

In my view it takes the same amount of energy for the horse to run either race.

You left out the part when I said breezes to a handy win.

If the jockey is pounding every inch of blood out of the horse and it wins by 6 lengths, then no, it would be the same thing. But if the horse draws off to a handy win, then yes, the horse that gutted out the narrow victory under heavy urging is more likely to bounce.

cj
05-06-2015, 12:15 PM
So in your view a horse who runs a mile and wins in 1:34 under a heavy urge is more likely to bounce than the same horse winning the race in 1:34 by 6 lengths?

In my view it takes the same amount of energy for the horse to run either race.

It kind of depends how the 1:34 is done...21, 44, 108, 134 is a lot different than 23 46 110 134. Pressure matters too, when pressed it is a lot more likely there were some moments where the race was quicker and more intense.

pandy
05-06-2015, 12:17 PM
It kind of depends how the 1:34 is done...21, 44, 108, 134 is a lot different than 23 46 110 134. Pressure matters too, when pressed it is a lot more likely there were some moments where the race was quicker and more intense.

Totally agree.

thaskalos
05-06-2015, 12:27 PM
I know that I am not the first one to say this, but these runaway winners who seem to win with a lot in reserve do not usually impress in their subsequent start. It appears that the "ease" of their impressive win might be an optical illusion.

pandy
05-06-2015, 12:33 PM
I know that I am not the first one to say this, but these runaway winners who seem to win with a lot in reserve do not usually impress in their subsequent start. It appears that the "ease" of their impressive win might be an optical illusion.


From my experience, not if the speed figure is good. My original point was that a horse that improved its speed figure by 20 points was more of a bounce prospect if it gutted out a win as opposed to drawing off to a handy win. Naturally you have to take into consideration the quality of the field it beat, as well.

Tom
05-06-2015, 12:35 PM
I'll take a horse who fought it out the length of the stretch to win (or lose) narrowly over a daylight winner most of the time.

And odds play a role in the bounce, too.
At 6-5, I'm pretty sure the horse will bounce.
At 10-1, probably not.

thaskalos
05-06-2015, 12:45 PM
Thask, I have enough support from my databases and my related research to convince me, that this Ragozin introduced theory is completely fallacious.


Since Ragozin does not give enough credit to the pace aspect of the handicapping puzzle, I refuse to consider him the legitimate originator of the "bounce theory". As far as your database is concerned, I myself have seen database results encompassing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RACES, which clearly suggest that horse wagering is a losing enterprise...no matter what odds range the bettor elects to wager on. The horses across all the odds ranges collectively return less than the wagered amount...with the possible exception being the very few who go off at odds approaching 1/9. So...does that mean that we should forget about horse racing as a profit-generating venue?

I don't place much credence on the "collective" findings of a database. I find that gambling -- and life itself -- is a little more complicated than that.

cj
05-06-2015, 01:05 PM
I don't place much credence on the "collective" findings of a database. I find that gambling -- and life itself -- is a little more complicated than that.

It is a LOT more complicated than that, you were just being nice.

DeltaLover
05-06-2015, 01:37 PM
The concept of a database is nothing new and certainly not a concept that was born during the Computer Revolution. Databases have been with us, since the dawn of the civilization and it is true that the most ancient manuscripts that were ever found are nothing else than record keeping documents, that were used for accounting purposes. The same concept applies to horse racing, which is using all kinds of databases since its very early days, either for stud related or to keep track of historical results.. All the tools you use in your everyday as a horse bettor are derivatives of a database: track variants, past performances, speed figures, winning percentages, running styles are just a few of the concepts that would had been impossible to have without the existence of databases.. Having said that, I really cannot understand what exactly is your objection about using a database for handicapping related matters.

In my opinion, handicapping and databases are extremely closely related and who ever doubts it, clearly leaves in denial.

DeltaLover
05-06-2015, 01:42 PM
I don't place much credence on the "collective" findings of a database. I find that gambling
-- and life itself -- is a little more complicated than that.

I do not think that what you are saying here is breaking news for the users of databases..

Data is used to create a model, which by default is a simplified miniature of the reality, that allows us to extract some useful conclusions that can be used in the real world.. This is exactly how science and technology is functioning since the beginning of the day.

thaskalos
05-06-2015, 01:55 PM
I do not think that what you are saying here is breaking news for the users of databases..

Data is used to create a model, which by default is a simplified miniature of the reality, that allows us to extract some useful conclusions that can be used in the real world.. This is exactly how science and technology is functioning since the beginning of the day.

Are any of these "models" capable of out-handicapping a pencil-and-paper handicapper like myself? If so...then I'd like to see a demonstration. And if not...then why do I need one of these models for myself?

DeltaLover
05-06-2015, 02:10 PM
Are any of these "models" capable of out-handicapping a pencil-and-paper handicapper like myself? If so...then I'd like to see a demonstration. And if not...then why do I need one of these models for myself?

This is not the right question to ask.

First of all you need to understand that the uses of a db when it comes to horse racing, can be categorized in two major groups:

(1) Evaluate concrete handicapping opinions, that can be defined by specific handicapping scenarios. In this category, I have no doubt at all, that the database can outperform any pen and pencil handicapper. Examples of this category, can be found on things like what is the impact value of post positions, turf to dirt or three year old against older and which of them is overlooked or not by the betting crowd.

(2) Use AI, to create non deterministic models, resembling a block box betting system. I believe that we probably do not yer have an AI system that can constantly outperform any pen and pencil bettor (although at this point I need to note that even this PP is implicitly getting a lot of database help, in the form of speed figures, track variants etc).

If you ask for my opinion, I believe that the optimal horse bettor, consists of a machine – human team, that takes advantage of both of their skills and abilities.

To get back to your question, I believe that the correct question, is if your current betting performance will be improved if you start using more advanced data mining techniques and technologies and I think that the answer is clearly YES.

DeltaLover
05-06-2015, 02:12 PM
If so...then I'd like to see a demonstration.

I can definitely give you a demo of how a betting model can be used, assuming that you will do your homework and spend some time studying some related material. Otherwise, a demo is not enough, but a full blown, result oriented multi week betting exercise is needed.

Tom
05-06-2015, 02:20 PM
I used databases a lot but I never build any models fro them.
I used them to gain information.
Much along the lines of the Bet This Not That columns at DRF.

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 02:23 PM
I know that I am not the first one to say this, but these runaway winners who seem to win with a lot in reserve do not usually impress in their subsequent start. It appears that the "ease" of their impressive win might be an optical illusion.

IMO, this is the same kind of phenomenon as the false bounces I was talking about before.

Most horses that win with a lot in reserve do so because they either got a perfect trip, found a very weak field, or are lightly raced horses on the way up. Next time out they either get more average circumstances or they take a huge step up in class where they face much tougher conditions. Then when that handy win with a speed figure of 100 translates into a similar or even lower figure next time, people say the "handy" didn't mean anything. I think the handy meant something, they just got a tougher trip next time.

DeltaLover
05-06-2015, 02:27 PM
I used databases a lot but I never build any models fro them.
I used them to gain information.
Much along the lines of the Bet This Not That columns at DRF.

This is a very good use of databases and definitely an area where you can see a clear boost in your performance as you eliminate the personal bias when it comes to decided about the value of a specific factor...

Note
Judging from some screen-shots from your software that you posted in the past, where you were translating metrics like fractional times and track variants to z-scores and impact values, I believe that you have a very good system and also you are way more advanced from the image you try to project when you are making statements about using arcane technologies like XP etc

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 02:31 PM
Much along the lines of the Bet This Not That columns at DRF.

Mike Hogan is a very studious and sharp guy.

https://twitter.com/DRFFormulator

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 02:40 PM
I don't want to continue taking this thread too far off topic, but I am using my new database for information formatting/retrieval and research. It's helping me accomplish more in a timely fashion and also allowing me to research things I've long been curious about. Plus, I'm not even that good with the technology yet. The upside must be WAY bigger for someone more nimble than I am. I knew that would be the case from many years ago when I manually built a limited one on my AT Clone using Dbase 3+. But importing all the PPs, results, stats etc.. opens some doors.

AndyC
05-06-2015, 03:06 PM
You left out the part when I said breezes to a handy win.

If the jockey is pounding every inch of blood out of the horse and it wins by 6 lengths, then no, it would be the same thing. But if the horse draws off to a handy win, then yes, the horse that gutted out the narrow victory under heavy urging is more likely to bounce.

I think the fallacy in racing is that a horse winning easily is somehow making less of an effort than one being urged. Track records rarely occur when a horse is under heavy urging in a tight race. I would expect a horse who is giving his all to run faster times, wouldn't you?

An "easy" win by a horse may, in fact, signal that a horse has peaked in its physical condition with no where to go but down. How many easy win horses at the Preakness have come up short in triple crown efforts at the Belmont?

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 03:22 PM
I think the fallacy in racing is that a horse winning easily is somehow making less of an effort than one being urged. Track records rarely occur when a horse is under heavy urging in a tight race. I would expect a horse who is giving his all to run faster times, wouldn't you?



A horse that was giving his all to win probably didn't get a very easy trip on the way there.

A horse that was winning in hand was probably wiring while loose on the lead, on a sloppy track, on a golden rail, or racing against thoroughly overmatched opposition etc..

It's hard to control for changes in trip and class in any study of "handy" because it's hard to get 2 guys to agree on some of the more objective stuff (like the figures themselves), let alone the impacts of trips and biases on figures.

All else being equal, equal times would seem to mean equal/similar energy used, but handy could mean that a lower percentage of total energy available was used. Unfortunately, all else is rarely equal.

AndyC
05-06-2015, 03:32 PM
It kind of depends how the 1:34 is done...21, 44, 108, 134 is a lot different than 23 46 110 134. Pressure matters too, when pressed it is a lot more likely there were some moments where the race was quicker and more intense.

Most horses have an optimal pattern for running their best races. Given the splits above, if a horse was actually able to produce a 1:34 time racing in two totally different styles, I would argue that the fast-split race may be a better conditioner for a future race. Clearly the horse would be gassed after the fast-split race but does going into oxygen debt faster resulting in more rapid deceleration mean that a horse will be less likely to run a good race in 2-3 weeks?

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 04:04 PM
Most horses have an optimal pattern for running their best races. Given the splits above, if a horse was actually able to produce a 1:34 time racing in two totally different styles, I would argue that the fast-split race may be a better conditioner for a future race. Clearly the horse would be gassed after the fast-split race but does going into oxygen debt faster resulting in more rapid deceleration mean that a horse will be less likely to run a good race in 2-3 weeks?

Assuming identical tracks, almost without question, those performances are not equal even if the final times are equal.

IMO, the race with the faster splits is the more extreme race.

If you are going to argue that more extreme exertion increases the probability of a bounce, it doesn't seem consistent to also argue that he would somehow benefit from the fast fractions as a conditioner.

I think I have seen races where fast fractions benefitted the condition of several horses inside the same race (of course I can't prove that was the reason, but one might think it would be similar to the impact of a sharp workout). However, I don't think I've ever seen a situation where fast fractions that were part of an all time peak effort for some older horse helped get him even sharper. I think that is more of a bounce candidate than the typical race.

raybo
05-06-2015, 04:42 PM
So in your view a horse who runs a mile and wins in 1:34 under a heavy urge is more likely to bounce than the same horse winning the race in 1:34 by 6 lengths?

In my view it takes the same amount of energy for the horse to run either race.

IMO, the times run and the lengths involved do not explain energy expenditure fully. Stress is not just physical, nor mental, nor emotional, it involves all three. A horse that wins by 6 lengths does not automatically mean the horse expended less, or more, or the same energy as another horse running the same time.

AndyC
05-06-2015, 04:44 PM
Assuming identical tracks, almost without question, those performances are not equal even if the final times are equal.

IMO, the race with the faster splits is the more extreme race.

If you are going to argue that more extreme exertion increases the probability of a bounce, it doesn't seem consistent to also argue that he would somehow benefit from the fast fractions as a conditioner.

I think I have seen races where fast fractions benefitted the condition of several horses inside the same race (of course I can't prove that was the reason, but one might think it would be similar to the impact of a sharp workout). However, I don't think I've ever seen a situation where fast fractions that were part of an all time peak effort for some older horse helped get him even sharper. I think that is more of a bounce candidate than the typical race.

I did not argue that a horse attending a fast pace would be more inclined to bounce.

My example was of a horse that was versatile enough to run to run 1:34 with 2 different styles of running. I would agree with you regarding older horses and peak efforts. The problem with younger horses is that you never know if the new top is the result a peak effort or of a maturing developing horse.

AndyC
05-06-2015, 04:46 PM
IMO, the times run and the lengths involved do not explain energy expenditure fully. Stress is not just physical, nor mental, nor emotional, it involves all three. A horse that wins by 6 lengths does not automatically mean the horse expended less, or more, or the same energy as another horse running the same time.

I agree. And horses are not equal physically, mentally or emotionally.

raybo
05-06-2015, 05:04 PM
I agree. And horses are not equal physically, mentally or emotionally.

No they are not. And there are other things involved as well; surfaces, track configuration, wind, temperature, field size, class of the field, preferred running styles, gate start, post positions, runup, current form, etc., etc., etc..

classhandicapper
05-06-2015, 06:44 PM
The problem with younger horses is that you never know if the new top is the result a peak effort or of a maturing developing horse.

If you ever solve that problem, please let me know. ;)

Tom
05-06-2015, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by AndyC
The problem with younger horses is that you never know if the new top is the result a peak effort or of a maturing developing horse.

Tops are how you judge developing horses. A young horse running a peak effort is probably because he is developing. What matters is how much of a move was made, and how many new tops or pairs have occurred .

Lemon Drop Husker
05-08-2015, 01:18 AM
Bounce is real.

I'm glad there are those that don't believe it is real.

Carry on.

raybo
05-08-2015, 04:43 AM
Bounce is real.

I'm glad there are those that don't believe it is real.

Carry on.

I agree! Anybody that thinks bounce doesn't exist, I sure hope they have lots of money, and stay in the pools a long, long time. :jump:

Capper Al
05-08-2015, 04:57 AM
Tops are how you judge developing horses. A young horse running a peak effort is probably because he is developing. What matters is how much of a move was made, and how many new tops or pairs have occurred .

Agree. This is more art than science.

Cratos
05-08-2015, 05:12 PM
Thank you Ms Heroine: I never knew that. It must have been an illusion given the track was not as wide that we assumed it had to be tighter. That will help in future handicapping.
The main track turns at Churchill Downs are tighter than the main track turns at Pimilco with the following dimensions:

Churchill Downs-
Turning radii = 411.5 Feet
Distance around radii = 1,292 feet

Pimilco:
Turning radii = 422.3 Feet
Distance around radii = 1,326 feet

Width of the turns is virtually insignificant because you would need about 12 horses in the turn parallel to each other to have an impact of overcrowdings.

DeltaLover
05-08-2015, 05:14 PM
Bounce is real.

I'm glad there are those that don't believe it is real.

Carry on.


Do you have some data to make your case or it is simply a belief and an empirical conclusion?

Cratos
05-08-2015, 05:19 PM
The favourite of the Preakness will obviously be American Pharoah and I believe that there will be a lot of handicappers who will see him with some scepticism, mainly because of the possibility of a bounce in his form. In my opinion, this whole thing about horses bouncing after a single big race, is completely bogus and I never consider it seriously...

I really think that AP is close to a cinch to win the Preakness and I can only hope the bounce theorists to spread the word as much as possible...

Here (http://www.themindofagambler.com/2015/05/04/the-fallacy-of-bounce-theory/) you can read more about my thoughts in the topic...
DL, I am with you about the “Bounce Theory”; I have yet to read a useful definition or application of its use to convince me that it is a good handicapping tool.

aaron
05-08-2015, 07:09 PM
I have seen many of what I call one number horses. These are horses who have run a big top. A top that they never approached before. From my experience,this type of horse will probably regress in his next start. Also,these type of horses may never again approach their top.

cj
05-08-2015, 07:11 PM
I have seen many of what I call one number horses. These are horses who have run a big top. A top that they never approached before. From my experience,this type of horse will probably regress in his next start. Also,these type of horses may never again approach their top.

Very true. I think this is the gist of the "debate" about the bounce, was the one number just a perfect scenario for optimal performance not likely to ever be reproduced, or was it really a physical reaction?

classhandicapper
05-08-2015, 08:26 PM
Very true. I think this is the gist of the "debate" about the bounce, was the one number just a perfect scenario for optimal performance not likely to ever be reproduced, or was it really a physical reaction?

I look at the actual trips and also whether the horse mean reverts after that isolated top or totally falls apart.

If he just drops back to his normal range, I can't see that as a bounce.

If he goes way off form, that might indicate a physical reaction to a big performance. But even horses that have normal looking patterns sometimes totally fall apart. So you'd have to compare the super peak group to the average horse to see what those stats are.

delayjf
05-11-2015, 10:26 PM
The main track turns at Churchill Downs are tighter than the main track turns at Pimilco with the following dimensions:

I know you have done the math, can you tell me if turns at Pimlico and Churchill really that much tighter than other typical mile tracks. I always though the perceived tight turns at those two tracks had more to do with the finish line placement than the actual radius of the turns. Do you think the differences are significant.

raybo
05-11-2015, 10:36 PM
I know you have done the math, can you tell me if turns at Pimlico and Churchill really that much tighter than other typical mile tracks. I always though the perceived tight turns at those two tracks had more to do with the finish line placement than the actual radius of the turns. Do you think the differences are significant.

Don't mean to step on Cratos' toes, but IMO, the tighter the turns, the less speed a horse can carry into it without either being carried wide by centrifugal force, or by exerting more energy in order to repel centrifugal force. Either way tight turns cause a negative effect on the speed during and/or after the turn.

steveb
05-12-2015, 08:51 AM
DL, I am with you about the “Bounce Theory”; I have yet to read a useful definition or application of its use to convince me that it is a good handicapping tool.

just because you have not read it, does not mean it isn't so.
barriers mean a lot to lots of people, but i can't get a useful factor out of them into my model.
of course that is a failure on MY part, or maybe it just gets drowned out with my PIR stuff, where I can get useful information
could the same be true for you and 'bounce'?
anyway, i am more than confident, it's not a theory, although i guess it depends on how you define 'bounce'.

delayjf
05-12-2015, 12:04 PM
IMO, one of the best methods for determining is a horse was going to bounce or not involves developing the skill to observe horses after a race to check their energy level, or more importantly the change in their energy levels after a race. For example, If a horse wins 2 races in a row and exits the winners circle with his head high on his toes, still displaying good energy – then wins a third race and exists the winners circle, with his head down, and walking back to the barn with a lower energy level. That’s a good sign, that the next race will be sub-par.

I used to subscribe to Joe Takach’s newsletter and when he said a winning horse looked bad after a winning effort, that horse almost always ran poorly in their next start. You do have to factor in the horse form cycle, sometimes horses are tired because they needed the race, these horses could be expected to improve in subsequent starts. If you have the time to integrate this into your handicapping, you can find lots of spots to bet against the favorite.

traynor
05-12-2015, 01:08 PM
IMO, one of the best methods for determining is a horse was going to bounce or not involves developing the skill to observe horses after a race to check their energy level, or more importantly the change in their energy levels after a race. For example, If a horse wins 2 races in a row and exits the winners circle with his head high on his toes, still displaying good energy – then wins a third race and exists the winners circle, with his head down, and walking back to the barn with a lower energy level. That’s a good sign, that the next race will be sub-par.

I used to subscribe to Joe Takach’s newsletter and when he said a winning horse looked bad after a winning effort, that horse almost always ran poorly in their next start. You do have to factor in the horse form cycle, sometimes horses are tired because they needed the race, these horses could be expected to improve in subsequent starts. If you have the time to integrate this into your handicapping, you can find lots of spots to bet against the favorite.


I think you nailed it. Deciding whether a horse will or will not "bounce" based on numbers and symbols that present--at best--a highly biased subset of data supposedly "representing" a race is not especially useful. Or accurate.

In the real world, it is not rocket science to tell (with a fair amount of accuracy) when a winner is primed for another good effort and when a winner needs R & R (and is likely to "bounce" in the next outing).

These are horse races, folks. Not competitions between lines of numbers and symbols, no matter how fond one is of such (flawed, incomplete, and conceptually impoverished) reality substitutes.

Tom
05-12-2015, 01:58 PM
Numbers have been working for a lot of people for lot of years.
Using a visual approach is severely limiting and subjective and requires a lot of record keeping for a rather small window of future races.

And pretty much, you have to be at the track. A negative for more than not.

AndyC
05-12-2015, 03:01 PM
In the real world, it is not rocket science to tell (with a fair amount of accuracy) when a winner is primed for another good effort and when a winner needs R & R (and is likely to "bounce" in the next outing).....

You beg the question.

DeltaLover
05-12-2015, 03:30 PM
I think you nailed it. Deciding whether a horse will or will not "bounce" based on numbers and symbols that present--at best--a highly biased subset of data supposedly "representing" a race is not especially useful. Or accurate.

In the real world, it is not rocket science to tell (with a fair amount of accuracy) when a winner is primed for another good effort and when a winner needs R & R (and is likely to "bounce" in the next outing).

These are horse races, folks. Not competitions between lines of numbers and symbols, no matter how fond one is of such (flawed, incomplete, and conceptually impoverished) reality substitutes.


I am very reluctant to rely on any visual handicapping concepts other than trip comments.

Things like gallop outs, paddock inspection and warm ups need a lot of work for data collection, even for a single track..

My systems,are based on placing many bets per day (15 and more) and the only way to find them, is to handicap several race tracks (at least four), so it is impossible for me to gather the additional data.

The data I am using are limited to the official past performances, the foot notes and in some cases on some of my personal trip notes and completely ignore anything else.

ReplayRandall
05-12-2015, 04:43 PM
I am very reluctant to rely on any visual handicapping concepts other than trip comments.
Delta, I trust MY judgment far more than "trip comments" from the form, etc......What you see IS the truth, if you know what to look for. I would revisit this area of your handicapping and do the work. I know it's time intensive, but trust me, it makes ALL the difference in your bottom-line...

Stillriledup
05-12-2015, 05:03 PM
Delta, I trust MY judgment far more than "trip comments" from the form, etc......What you see IS the truth, if you know what to look for. I would revisit this area of your handicapping and do the work. I know it's time intensive, but trust me, it makes ALL the difference in your bottom-line...

I'm with you on this one RR, the truth is in the video if you know how to interpret what you see correctly.

DeltaLover
05-12-2015, 05:05 PM
Delta, I trust MY judgment far more than "trip comments" from the form, etc......What you see IS the truth, if you know what to look for. I would revisit this area of your handicapping and do the work. I know it's time intensive, but trust me, it makes ALL the difference in your bottom-line...

I agree. My point though is that I do not have the time to closely follow all the tracks I play and keep detailed trip notes.. Way too much work for a single person

thaskalos
05-12-2015, 05:05 PM
Delta, I trust MY judgment far more than "trip comments" from the form, etc......What you see IS the truth, if you know what to look for. I would revisit this area of your handicapping and do the work. I know it's time intensive, but trust me, it makes ALL the difference in your bottom-line...

Not to worry. Delta is a friend of mine, and I've already selected a birthday gift for him... :ThmbUp:

http://www.amazon.com/LEARN-TRIP-HANDICAPPING-Paul-Mellos/dp/B002VCTS5S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1431464582&sr=8-3&keywords=trip+handicapping

traynor
05-12-2015, 05:10 PM
Numbers have been working for a lot of people for lot of years.
Using a visual approach is severely limiting and subjective and requires a lot of record keeping for a rather small window of future races.

And pretty much, you have to be at the track. A negative for more than not.

Numbers have been losing for a lot more people for a lot more years. Something like 98%? Especially manipulated with computers, it makes it seem like the computer is "doing all the heavy lifting." The heavy lifting is pretty much worthless if it doesn't result in an improved bottom line.

The ability to sit in one's cave and click keys and buttons--unless it is more rewarding than the alternative of actually going to a racetrack and watching real, live horses compete against each other--is no more than sitting in one's cave clicking keys and buttons.

I wish it were otherwise. I would like to sit and click and make buckets of money as much as anyone else. However, I am a very pragmatic person. I do much better (for other than relatively minor high-volume bets) when I can actually see the horses (and races) live.

DeltaLover
05-12-2015, 05:15 PM
Not to worry. Delta is a friend of mine, and I've already selected a birthday gift for him... :ThmbUp:

http://www.amazon.com/LEARN-TRIP-HANDICAPPING-Paul-Mellos/dp/B002VCTS5S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1431464582&sr=8-3&keywords=trip+handicapping

Not exactly breaking news here Thask...

traynor
05-12-2015, 05:21 PM
I agree. My point though is that I do not have the time to closely follow all the tracks I play and keep detailed trip notes.. Way too much work for a single person

That may be part of the problem--spreading yourself too thin across too many tracks. So many races, so little time.

DeltaLover
05-12-2015, 05:29 PM
That may be part of the problem--spreading yourself too thin across too many tracks. So many races, so little time.

I have to agree. Following a single circuit, makes it possible to keep very detailed notes about handicapping factors that are not available to the betting crowd but this requires a great degree of dedication.

In the past I have gone through this path, keeping records of (non listed )equipment changes (shadow rolls, tongue ties etc), gallop outs, detailed trip and bias notes, humidity, wind and temperature notes etc.. Not any more though.. Too much work and (relative) little additional betting benefit.

Cratos
05-12-2015, 06:26 PM
I know you have done the math, can you tell me if turns at Pimlico and Churchill really that much tighter than other typical mile tracks. I always though the perceived tight turns at those two tracks had more to do with the finish line placement than the actual radius of the turns. Do you think the differences are significant.
The answer to your first question: “if turns at Pimlico and Churchill really that much tighter than other typical mile tracks” is answered by saying that the reason that some racetrack turns are tighter and others are not is because while a racetrack layout might be 1 mile in circumference, its geometric layout might differ from another 1 mile racetrack; typically because of the difference in the length of the stretch.

Your second question: “Do you think the differences are significant” required a calculation.

Therefore we can make the calculations for Churchill Downs, Pimilco, and Santa Anita for comparison with the following reasonable assumptions:

The speed of the horse in the turn is 56.68 ft/sec or the average speed of the Ky Derby mile for the past 50+ years.

The mass of the horse is its body weight plus the its load and is 1,203.62 Lbs.

Therefore with the following track dimensions:

Churchill Downs Turn Radius = 411.5 feet
Churchill Downs Turn Length = 1,292 Feet

Pimilco Turn Radius = 422.3 feet
Pimilco Turn Length = 1,326 Feet

Santa Anita Turn Radius = 420.0 feet
Santa Anita Turn Length = 1,320 Feet

We get the following results of Centrifugal Force for each racetrack:

Churchill Downs Centrifugal Force in the Turn = 292.06 Lbf
Pimilco Centrifugal Force in the Turn = 284.69 Lbf
Santa Anita Centrifugal Force in the Turn = 286.20 Lbf

I am not going to take this any further mathematically, but what you can see is that at Pimilco the horse has approximately a 7 Lb less centrifugal force impact than at Churchill Downs, but will travel 34 more feet in the turn.

Cratos
05-12-2015, 06:43 PM
just because you have not read it, does not mean it isn't so.
barriers mean a lot to lots of people, but i can't get a useful factor out of them into my model.
of course that is a failure on MY part, or maybe it just gets drowned out with my PIR stuff, where I can get useful information
could the same be true for you and 'bounce'?
anyway, i am more than confident, it's not a theory, although i guess it depends on how you define 'bounce'.
I agree that “just because you have not read it, does not mean it isn't so,” but the primary definition states that a “theory” is bounded by laws or principles and that is what causes me not to believe in the “bounce theory.”

Also, if it is “theory” then Secretariat probably shouldn’t have run 3 consecutive track records, Dr. Fager’s last 3 lifetime races which are considered the best of any horse are a miracle, and why didn’t Zenyatta “bounced” before her 20th race; surely there must have been a stellar race or two in her previous 19 starts.

However we could go to a secondary definition and say that “theory” is based on postulations which might seem more reasonable; and in my way of looking at the phenomena of the horse’s performance decline after a stellar performance is the conditional probability of expected performance regression.

delayjf
05-12-2015, 06:57 PM
Numbers have been working for a lot of people for lot of years. Using a visual approach is severely limiting and subjective and requires a lot of record keeping for a rather small window of future races. And pretty much, you have to be at the track. A negative for more than not.

True enough, and I agree, one could only incorporate that kind of data collection at one track. If it were me, I'd focus on the winner as you get more time to evaluate these horses due to the fact that he's is hanging around to get his picture taken. You might be able to get a read on a couple of other horses.

But like I said, if you can master this skill, you can eliminate a lot of false favorites.

Cratos
05-12-2015, 07:05 PM
True enough, and I agree, one could only incorporate that kind of data collection at one track. If it were me, I'd focus on the winner as you get more time to evaluate these horses due to the fact that he's is hanging around to get his picture taken. You might be able to get a read on a couple of other horses.

But like I said, if you can master this skill, you can eliminate a lot of false favorites.

There is a reason that NYRA (Belmont and Saratoga) is where we play.

MJC922
05-12-2015, 08:00 PM
I have to agree. Following a single circuit, makes it possible to keep very detailed notes about handicapping factors that are not available to the betting crowd but this requires a great degree of dedication.

In the past I have gone through this path, keeping records of (non listed )equipment changes (shadow rolls, tongue ties etc), gallop outs, detailed trip and bias notes, humidity, wind and temperature notes etc.. Not any more though.. Too much work and (relative) little additional betting benefit.

IMO I don't think you can have one without the other, seems to me that finding value requires very good interpretation of past performances as step one, and then equally good knowledge of factors that are underestimated by the crowd as the profit catalyst. These types of physicality factors are always going to be a valuable catalyst because they're largely ignored, even in Pittsburg Phil's day this type of close observation is what he thrived on. I don't want to put words into Phil's mouth as he's long deceased but he was the best handicapper ever in my book and the tale of Pulsus in the Maxims was a huge bounce.

Lemon Drop Husker
05-12-2015, 08:36 PM
...... and in my way of looking at the phenomena of the horse’s performance decline after a stellar performance is the conditional probability of expected performance regression.

Ok. So what you call "performance regression", others just use a simpler and more popular term called "bounce".

Just because you "expected" it before it happens doesn't make it anymore unreal. It is what good handicappers are supposed to do.

Did you expect Bayern to have an "expected performance regression" in his G2 race on Kentucky Derby day? I most certainly did. He is a classic "bounce" horse just like he was in the Arkansas Derby and Travers.

Cratos
05-12-2015, 10:18 PM
Ok. So what you call "performance regression", others just use a simpler and more popular term called "bounce".

Just because you "expected" it before it happens doesn't make it anymore unreal. It is what good handicappers are supposed to do.

Did you expect Bayern to have an "expected performance regression" in his G2 race on Kentucky Derby day? I most certainly did. He is a classic "bounce" horse just like he was in the Arkansas Derby and Travers.
Apparently I wasn't explicit enough to you.

It is not what you call it; it is how you define it.

You apprear to be argumentative about nothing which is "bounce" as it relates to horseracing is not a "theory".

Lemon Drop Husker
05-12-2015, 10:28 PM
Apparently I wasn't explicit enough to you.

It is not what you call it; it is how you define it.

You apprear to be argumentative about nothing which is "bounce" as it relates to horseracing is not a "theory".

What am I argumentative about?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your 2nd sentence. It makes zero sense to me.

steveb
05-12-2015, 10:41 PM
I agree that “just because you have not read it, does not mean it isn't so,” but the primary definition states that a “theory” is bounded by laws or principles and that is what causes me not to believe in the “bounce theory.”

Also, if it is “theory” then Secretariat probably shouldn’t have run 3 consecutive track records, Dr. Fager’s last 3 lifetime races which are considered the best of any horse are a miracle, and why didn’t Zenyatta “bounced” before her 20th race; surely there must have been a stellar race or two in her previous 19 starts.

However we could go to a secondary definition and say that “theory” is based on postulations which might seem more reasonable; and in my way of looking at the phenomena of the horse’s performance decline after a stellar performance is the conditional probability of expected performance regression.

track records in the main are meaningless.
that it broke 3 records in a row is too, as even i have heard of it, and i don't follow usa races.
if it was that good, why would it bounce, if it did what it did within itself?
and if it was flat out maybe it did bounce, but it was just 'that ' much better than them?
anyway, i know it matters(by my definition), because it adds a significant amount to my models.
not to mention using those horses in trying to make a point, is not too valid in my opinion, because they are anything but your average neddy.


i was not following the bit about turns and whatever, but should not camber be used in those calculations?
although i am of the opinion that knowing all the equations in the world won't tell you any more than the data will.
you may not know why something happens, but if the data tells you it does, then does it matter that you don't know why?
and if camber does not matter, then it just shows that i don't know that subject.
but i don't need to either, i have lots of data!! :)

Cratos
05-12-2015, 10:59 PM
What am I argumentative about?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your 2nd sentence. It makes zero sense to me.
What I meant is that "bounce" is not a theory so there is nothing that exist, but if you believe that I am wrong be my guest; you are entitled to your beliefs.

Also I for one don't get off by popular beliefs and sayings in horseracing because many of them were more myths than reality because the analytical tools we have today wasn't available when those beliefs and myths were established.

For instance it was said at one time that a length equals 1/5 second, yet the measurement of a length was being given as 8 feet; that just didn't make sense and that is what happens when you attempt to validate a "theory"without laws or principles.

Cratos
05-12-2015, 11:08 PM
track records in the main are meaningless.
that it broke 3 records in a row is too, as even i have heard of it, and i don't follow usa races.
if it was that good, why would it bounce, if it did what it did within itself?
and if it was flat out maybe it did bounce, but it was just 'that ' much better than them?
anyway, i know it matters(by my definition), because it adds a significant amount to my models.
not to mention using those horses in trying to make a point, is not too valid in my opinion, because they are anything but your average neddy.


i was not following the bit about turns and whatever, but should not camber be used in those calculations?
although i am of the opinion that knowing all the equations in the world won't tell you any more than the data will.
you may not know why something happens, but if the data tells you it does, then does it matter that you don't know why?
and if camber does not matter, then it just shows that i don't know that subject.
but i don't need to either, i have lots of data!! :)
I know nothing about Australia racing or racetracks, but the turns of American racetracks are significant in handicapping.

Also I am part of a team that uses a parametric model for handicapping.

This doesn't make us better than anyone; it is just our tool of choice for handicapping.

steveb
05-12-2015, 11:22 PM
I know nothing about Australia racing or racetracks, but the turns of American racetracks are significant in handicapping.

Also I am part of a team that uses a parametric model for handicapping.

This doesn't make us better than anyone; it is just our tool of choice for handicapping.

i doubt country would make much difference except for what is particular to that country.
i have worked on more countries than i can remember, and for my own particular specialty, nothing much changes.

i don't understand what being part of a team has to do with anything?
if something is valid, then it's valid regardless.
i have been in teams and still own part of one, and to be honest, it's only their collective wisdom that enables them to win, and then only if the modeller is up to it.

anyway, does camber count or not?

Lemon Drop Husker
05-12-2015, 11:26 PM
What I meant is that "bounce" is not a theory so there is nothing that exist, but if you believe that I am wrong be my guest; you are entitled to your beliefs.

Also I for one don't get off by popular beliefs and sayings in horseracing because many of them were more myths than reality because the analytical tools we have today wasn't available when those beliefs and myths were established.

For instance it was said at one time that a length equals 1/5 second, yet the measurement of a length was being given as 8 feet; that just didn't make sense and that is what happens when you attempt to validate a "theory"without laws or principles.

Your method is better than mine.

You are a much better handicapper and evaluator of horse races than I am.

Continue on your way. I'll continue upon mine.

traynor
05-13-2015, 12:30 AM
What I meant is that "bounce" is not a theory so there is nothing that exist, but if you believe that I am wrong be my guest; you are entitled to your beliefs.

Also I for one don't get off by popular beliefs and sayings in horseracing because many of them were more myths than reality because the analytical tools we have today wasn't available when those beliefs and myths were established.

For instance it was said at one time that a length equals 1/5 second, yet the measurement of a length was being given as 8 feet; that just didn't make sense and that is what happens when you attempt to validate a "theory"without laws or principles.

I don't mean it intrusively, but is your native language other than English? There are certain indicators in your use of language that may be the source of misunderstandings (by others of what you write).

Cratos
05-13-2015, 12:31 AM
i doubt country would make much difference except for what is particular to that country.
i have worked on more countries than i can remember, and for my own particular specialty, nothing much changes.

i don't understand what being part of a team has to do with anything?
if something is valid, then it's valid regardless.
i have been in teams and still own part of one, and to be honest, it's only their collective wisdom that enables them to win, and then only if the modeller is up to it.

anyway, does camber count or not?
My reference to being part of a team was a response to you having a model whereas I don't have model personally, but a team that collectively work together and that is significant because the expertise gathered in team is very good.

As I understand 'camber' it is cross falls which cause a bias particularly in wet weather which I don't think is on American racetracks or are not called out by that name

Cratos
05-13-2015, 12:45 AM
I don't mean it intrusively, but is your native language other than English? There are certain indicators in your use of language that may be the source of misunderstandings (by others of what you write).
No, you are not being intrusive, but I. am an American citizen educated in two of your better schools at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and I really don't want to talk about my personal life because it. Is not revelant to this conversation.

I will try and be. more eplanatory going forward, but math and science is not always simple to. explain with short internet chat room posts.

raybo
05-13-2015, 02:03 AM
No, you are not being intrusive, but I. am an American citizen educated in two of your better schools at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and I really don't want to talk about my personal life because it. Is not revelant to this conversation.

I will try and be. more eplanatory going forward, but math and science is not always simple to. explain with short internet chat room posts.

Can't wait for the responses to this one. :lol:

raybo
05-13-2015, 02:08 AM
My reference to being part of a team was a response to you having a model whereas I don't have model personally, but a team that collectively work together and that is significant because the expertise gathered in team is very good.

As I understand 'camber' it is cross falls which cause a bias particularly in wet weather which I don't think is on American racetracks or are not called out by that name

"camber" refers to the angle of the surface, usually in reference to a turn, in that the surface in the turn is not flat, but rather, higher on the outside of the turn than the inside. Camber can lessen the effect of centrifugal force applied to the horses as they negotiate the turn. The more the degree of camber angle, the more speed that can be carried around the turn, and vice versa.

However, as degree of camber angle increases, so does the effect of gravity on the horse, so the lesser degree of energy expenditure due to increased camber is to some degree evened out by the increased effect of gravity on the horses. Simplistically, increased gravity, in effect, increases the horse's weight carried.

thaskalos
05-13-2015, 02:10 AM
Can't wait for the responses to this one. :lol:
Far be it from me to correct the grammar of an American citizen who has been educated at two of our best schools at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels.

raybo
05-13-2015, 02:15 AM
Far be it from me to correct the grammar of an American citizen who has been educated at two of our best schools at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels.

Me either, but someone will, I'm sure.

Cratos
05-13-2015, 02:45 AM
Can't wait for the responses to this one. :lol:
I can't either, but that is penalty for using. my cellphone; I make typos and errors that I do not realize.

Dahoss2002
05-13-2015, 04:30 AM
For whatever is worth it, in my proprietary figures I have AP's KD approximately five lengths behind the KD of Animal Kingdom or approximately seven lengths behind Blame, I also have the 4 furlong fraction of AP' race approximately 4 lengths faster than Animal Kingdom's and approximately 2 lengths slower than Blame's..
So this year's Derby contestants are slower than Animal Kingdom? I really thought this years Derby entries were a pretty good group. I had no idea that the top 3 betting choices would go all the way around the track from start to finish though. Guess Cali horses rule this year.

Capper Al
05-13-2015, 07:19 AM
Class tells on the turns. The higher class horses can handle the tighter turns better.

pandy
05-13-2015, 09:55 AM
Class tells on the turns. The higher class horses can handle the tighter turns better.

This is one of the things I found so amazing about Zenyatta. A horse that size is not supposed to be good on turns, but she took the turns beautifully even when four or five wide. She was a magnificent athlete. And I agree that classy horses tend to handle turns better.

traynor
05-13-2015, 10:19 AM
No, you are not being intrusive, but I. am an American citizen educated in two of your better schools at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and I really don't want to talk about my personal life because it. Is not revelant to this conversation.

I will try and be. more eplanatory going forward, but math and science is not always simple to. explain with short internet chat room posts.

I'll take the use of "your better schools" as a yes. No insult was intended, and I hope none was perceived.

thaskalos
05-13-2015, 10:31 AM
I'll take the use of "your better schools" as a yes. No insult was intended, and I hope none was perceived.
I hope he isn't Greek...

DeltaLover
05-13-2015, 11:05 AM
So this year's Derby contestants are slower than Animal Kingdom? I really thought this years Derby entries were a pretty good group.

At least this is what my proprietary figures are suggesting... Note that as time goes by and we get to see more races from the TC division, my figs might change (although this is not something common to them)

Cratos
05-13-2015, 05:51 PM
"camber" refers to the angle of the surface, usually in reference to a turn, in that the surface in the turn is not flat, but rather, higher on the outside of the turn than the inside. Camber can lessen the effect of centrifugal force applied to the horses as they negotiate the turn. The more the degree of camber angle, the more speed that can be carried around the turn, and vice versa.
However, as degree of camber angle increases, so does the effect of gravity on the horse, so the lesser degree of energy expenditure due to increased camber is to some degree evened out by the increased effect of gravity on the horses. Simplistically, increased gravity, in effect, increases the horse's weight carried.
Ray,

I understand that camber is the “banking angle” on the turn, but what I don’t understand and I am not being cynical is your assertion that “camber can lessen the effect of centrifugal force applied to the horses as they negotiate the turn”.

The camber has everything to with the force of friction which as a bank in a racetrack is an upward slope toward the center of the track that is designed to hold the horses on the track at high speeds and thus, reduce the chance of the horse going off the track.

From Newton's Third Law it can be understood that the centrifugal force is the reaction force to the centripetal force and although these forces are equal in magnitude and opposition in direction, they do not cancel each other because they do not act on the same body.

The centripetal force is pushing the horse toward the center of the arc (the turn) and the centrifugal force is pushing the horse away from the center of the arc (the turn) and this is the primary reason for the negative affect on the horse.

The jockey is attempting to “save ground” by negotiating the shortest distance around the turn, but the centrifugal force which increases as the radius of the arc (the turn) become smaller is working against the horse and jockey; and this causes a greater expenditure of energy.

Getting back to “camber”, it is apparent that the racetrack designers through experiment or calculation have a banking angle for the turn the on their respective racetracks that as the horse increase its speed in the turn, the force of static friction required to hold the horse gets larger.

Most NA racetrack banking angles are between 4-6 degrees.

Lastly, gravity is never increase, gravity is constant, but the gravitational force is increased by an increase in mass.

Tom
05-13-2015, 07:48 PM
Numbers have been losing for a lot more people for a lot more years. Something like 98%? Especially manipulated with computers, it makes it seem like the computer is "doing all the heavy lifting." The heavy lifting is pretty much worthless if it doesn't result in an improved bottom line.

And let's cut through the usual BS. EVERYTHING has been losing money for many people. You may or not have a winning method - I really do not carer. But I and other I know do very well with numbers ( most much better than I do!). As I said in my post, it is obvious that the heavy lifting HAS been worth it.
Ask ANY of CJ's current or "PaceFigures" customers. You know, they guy who backs his opinions with facts.

I do much better (for other than relatively minor high-volume bets) when I can actually see the horses (and races) live. Now you see, this is just a stupid statement. It is your contention that one cannot use numbers at the track? Or in combination with physicality observation?

raybo
05-13-2015, 07:53 PM
Cratos, you are correct regarding gravity versus gravitational force, I should have said gravitational force.

What I was getting at, regarding camber lessening the 'effect' of centrifugal force, is that as centrifugal force tries to push the horse towards the outside of the turn, camber helps the horse stay in the same path, without expending as much energy as it would have to on a flat turn with no camber. This in turn helps the horse carry his speed around the turn more efficiently.

Regarding gravitational force (I used gravity in error, my bad!), as the horse enters the turn and the camber/banking of that turn, some of the centrifugal force is being directed into the surface, because of the upward angle of the camber, rather than all of it pushing the horse perfectly horizontally to the surface. Some of that force is being directed into the up-sloping surface. Think about race cars hitting a highly banked turn at speed, when they hit that banking, the shocks compress, as if the car suddenly weighed more (acting as if there was an increase in mass causing an increase in the gravitational force). If there was no banking in the turn all of the centrifugal force would be applied perfectly horizontally to the surface, and the shocks would not compress as much because the friction between the tires and the surface would be more easily overcome by the speed of the car, similar to hydroplaning and losing traction. That's why I used the terms "simplistically" and "in effect", rather than stating things in pure physics terminology.

If you were running in a straight line, on a flat surface, and suddenly that flat surface sloped drastically upward and immediately became vertical, like a wall, all of your mass would hit that surface (wall) and your body would suddenly act on that wall as if you weighed a multiple of your actual weight. That's an extreme example, I know, but the principal is the same, just to a much lower degree because the surface of race track turns don't suddenly become vertical but rather just gently upward sloping.

Hope that makes at least some sense (but everybody is probably scratching their heads and thinking what the he-- is that idiot talking about!).

If I'm totally off my rocker, feel free to let me have it! :lol:

However, even though I don't know all the scientific terminology, I do know that if I run, at speed, around a banked turn, my legs are telling me I suddenly weigh more than I did on the flat before the turn.

Lemon Drop Husker
05-13-2015, 08:07 PM
This has devolved into one of the worst threads I've read and been a part of on here at PA.

It has basically become a dick measuring contest.

Believe what you want to believe.

Bet what you want to bet.

But don't try to belittle those with wagering strategies different than your own. Your method is not the be all end all method to winning.

ReplayRandall
05-13-2015, 08:17 PM
This has devolved into one of the worst threads I've read and been a part of on here at PA.

It has basically become a dick measuring contest.

Believe what you want to believe.

Bet what you want to bet.

But don't try to belittle those with wagering strategies different than your own. Your method is not the be all end all method to winning.
LDH, could you be a little more specific?.... :D

Cratos
05-13-2015, 08:30 PM
This has devolved into one of the worst threads I've read and been a part of on here at PA.

It has basically become a dick measuring contest.

Believe what you want to believe.

Bet what you want to bet.

But don't try to belittle those with wagering strategies different than your own. Your method is not the be all end all method to winning.
Very sorry that you are offended by the American tradition of "freedom of expression."

I have not read any post in this thread that coerced anyone to think or believe one way or another.

I always find it amusing how someone can become upset in the anonymity of an Internet chat room.

Lemon Drop Husker
05-13-2015, 08:33 PM
LDH, could you be a little more specific?.... :D

No worries, loved every one of your posts.

Lemon Drop Husker
05-13-2015, 08:35 PM
Very sorry that you are offended by the American tradition of "freedom of expression."

I have not read any post in this thread that coerced anyone to think or believe one way or another.

I always find it amusing how someone can become upset in the anonymity on an Internet chat room.

I find it amusing that you discredit every single opinion other than your own.

Tall One
05-13-2015, 08:41 PM
I hope he isn't Greek...


:D

Cratos
05-13-2015, 09:49 PM
:D
I hope I am not being ethnically insensitive when I say that all Greeks don't like each other and no one Greek have a corner on what is to be Greek.

Cratos
05-13-2015, 09:57 PM
I find it amusing that you discredit every single opinion other than your own.
I really have a lot catching up to do with me posting less than 1 post/day during my 11 year tenure on this forum.

Again, I apologize for not being more amicable to you and agreeing with you more.

Lemon Drop Husker
05-14-2015, 12:23 AM
I really have a lot catching up to do with me posting less than 1 post/day during my 11 year tenure on this forum.

Again, I apologize for not being more amicable to you and agreeing with you more.

I wish you more than mountains of cashing tickets Cratos.

I really do.

As for most on here, don't treat an opinion like it is fodder. Respect them all. There are a lot of smart folks on here.

Cratos
05-14-2015, 01:48 AM
I wish you more than mountains of cashing tickets Cratos.

I really do.

As for most on here, don't treat an opinion like it is fodder. Respect them all. There are a lot of smart folks on here.

I appreciate your good will, but this is an online chat room and even though I vehemently disagree with your characterization of the treatment of fellow posters, I feel compel to inform you that online chat rooms require tough minded participants who can quickly move from topic to topic without remorse or animosity.

Therefore you will find nothing is ever personal in a chat room not unless you take it personally because you know yourself, your strengths, and weaknesses better than any anonymous person in an online chat room.

DeltaLover
05-14-2015, 02:06 AM
but this is an online chat room

Chat room? Really? You sure?

Cratos
05-14-2015, 02:58 AM
Chat room? Really? You sure?
No I am not, but you just verified the thesis of my rebuttal. It is how personal some people take responses and some others attempt to make an argument out of nothing; move on, whether it's a "chat room" or an online symposium it really doesn't matter because most posters come here to express an opinion on horseracing and that is all that matters.

traynor
05-14-2015, 11:43 AM
And let's cut through the usual BS. EVERYTHING has been losing money for many people. You may or not have a winning method - I really do not carer. But I and other I know do very well with numbers ( most much better than I do!). As I said in my post, it is obvious that the heavy lifting HAS been worth it.
Ask ANY of CJ's current or "PaceFigures" customers. You know, they guy who backs his opinions with facts.

Now you see, this is just a stupid statement. It is your contention that one cannot use numbers at the track? Or in combination with physicality observation?

I think the bottom line is that we may have very different interpretations of "doing well." To each his own. I do what works best for me. I don't really care what anyone else does or does not do--as long as she or he is "doing well" with it, I wish him or her continued and increasing success. However, if anyone is NOT "doing well," she or he might improve his or her performance by spending more time at the track, and less time obsessing over computer output.

Tom
05-14-2015, 11:50 AM
Yes, if you want to accept a very limited menu every day.
If you aren't doing well, I suggest spending more time understanding your computer's output.

Especially if you do not live close a track. :rolleyes:

traynor
05-14-2015, 05:42 PM
Yes, if you want to accept a very limited menu every day.
If you aren't doing well, I suggest spending more time understanding your computer's output.

Especially if you do not live close a track. :rolleyes:

I am doing quite well, thank you. I understand the output of the various analysis and data mining apps I use quite well. I wrote them.

Tom
05-14-2015, 08:04 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant the "anyone" you referred to.

Those apps...did you write them in your cave? :rolleyes:

traynor
05-15-2015, 07:45 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant the "anyone" you referred to.

Those apps...did you write them in your cave? :rolleyes:
Yes. With frequent trips to various racetracks as a reality check. I still use the same processes--lots of computing and data mining (continual) with lots of direct observation of horses and races.

maddog42
05-15-2015, 08:29 PM
I agree! Anybody that thinks bounce doesn't exist, I sure hope they have lots of money, and stay in the pools a long, long time. :jump:

Am I the only one that thinks that Dortmund bounced in the Derby and that his next effort should be sharp or at least improved?

Lemon Drop Husker
05-15-2015, 08:32 PM
Am I the only one that thinks that Dortmund bounced in the Derby and that his next effort should be sharp or at least improved?

No.

RaceTrackDaddy
05-15-2015, 08:33 PM
I hope I am not being ethnically insensitive when I say that all Greeks don't like each other and no one Greek have a corner on what is to be Greek.

Being Greek I can say that we do have a lot of in-fighting; but when one Greek is attacked by an outsider, we do ban together then to fight a common enemy.

Just like the city-states waring among each other until the day the Ottoman Empire attacks. No better way to unite the Greeks than to attack one of them.

ReplayRandall
05-15-2015, 08:45 PM
Being Greek I can say that we do have a lot of in-fighting; but when one Greek is attacked by an outsider, we do ban together then to fight a common enemy.

Just like the city-states waring among each other until the day the Ottoman Empire attacks. No better way to unite the Greeks than to attack one of them.
And here's the bright side: να είναι ένας φίλος σε ένα, όλα θα είναι φίλος σου!

RaceTrackDaddy
05-15-2015, 09:06 PM
And here's the bright side: να είναι ένας φίλος σε ένα, όλα θα είναι φίλος σου!

Been a long time since Greek School.
Be a friend to one, then all would be your friend

DeltaLover
05-15-2015, 10:01 PM
Being Greek

???

Gerard03
06-08-2015, 01:47 PM
Excellent post, delta. Something to rethink.