When you are dreadful on paper

[Stillriledup]

Ive been seeing a lot of 'disgusting' looking PPs on horses who dramatically got better overnight. Yesterday at Belmont a horse got 2nd who was virtually eased 3 times in a row, he got bet hard, looked 99-1 on paper but went off 10-1 in real life and showed drastic improvement.

Same today at Belmont w Street Shark, 3 of his last 4 were eased jobs but today hes as grim as nails to cross the line first.

Margies minute in the 4th at SA wins at 7-2 w terrible PPs.

I dont know about you but i have a hard time risking money on horses who look like this in the PPs. I also dont remember so many 'ease jobs' coming back to race well. Maybe its always been this way and i havent noticed? These bad PP horses dont show gradual improvement and then fire a good shot, they fire the big shot right off the bad PP line. Rough game.

[Robert Fischer]

Ive been seeing a lot of 'disgusting' looking PPs on horses who dramatically got better overnight. Yesterday at Belmont a horse got 2nd who was virtually eased 3 times in a row, he got bet hard, looked 99-1 on paper but went off 10-1 in real life and showed drastic improvement.

Same today at Belmont w Street Shark, 3 of his last 4 were eased jobs but today hes as grim as nails to cross the line first.

Margies minute in the 4th at SA wins at 7-2 w terrible PPs.

I dont know about you but i have a hard time risking money on horses who look like this in the PPs. I also dont remember so many 'ease jobs' coming back to race well. Maybe its always been this way and i havent noticed? These bad PP horses dont show gradual improvement and then fire a good shot, they fire the big shot right off the bad PP line. Rough game.

You are doing a good job recognizing what you believe to be a phenomenon.

You are also doing a good recognizing the unexpected (compared to the bad form) heavy betting action.

Stick with it, and you will soon find a profitable play or a type of play that signals that you should pass the race. Good luck.

[Stillriledup]

You are doing a good job recognizing what you believe to be a phenomenon.

You are also doing a good recognizing the unexpected (compared to the bad form) heavy betting action.

Stick with it, and you will soon find a profitable play or a type of play that signals that you should pass the race. Good luck.

When i see these bad PP horses get bet much lower than their pps suggest they might, i take notice and ask "hmmm, why is this horse not double or triple the price"

The old me would just think the horse is being bet down by people who dont have the same set of PPs that i have, but now i look at it differently.

[Tall One]

I'm surprised the thread isn't about Street Shark getting dq'ued to second. Glancing at his pp's, the 5 looked like a good fit today, SRU.

Last five:

4/4/15~7F GI Carter (out) and should've been 97-1

3/21/15~6F Peeping Tom (out), Piquant(sneaky) who won @15-1, and Ground Force who ran third, both won next out.
____________________________
1/22/15~6F 50K claimer--3rd beat 2 3/4
_____________________________________
12/15/14~6F AOC 62,500NW2/$-N--(way out)

11/28/14~ 6 1/2F $20K claimer---CLAIMED---6 length winner

Works have been a little slow, but four of them since the Carter, no issue with Fragaso, Chatterpaul is 14-4-1-0 for the meet, and putting the gelding(by Street Sense out of a Rahy mare) back on the grass at 6F and at a 40K level.

[SG4]

I don't think there's anything too complicated on all the samples brought up here. Betting a horse off non efforts especially when they're eased doesn't inspire the most confidence, but several of these bad efforts were either on surfaces which weren't preferred by the horse, were against much tougher classes or involved tough pace scenarios. A key is to be forgiving when you see efforts like this as sometimes it's easiest to pack it in (whether it's the horse or jock doing this) making the running line look much worse. These weren't horses who dramatically improved overnight, they all just ran back to prior races as they were now in scenarios that enabled them to run their best. Following the $ in situations like this can be very useful, but more so in that I think it shows "smart money" by people digging deeper in the PPs to bet on these horses, not the old "they knew" scenario.

[Laminarman]

Really F'ing stupid question: how and why is a horse eased? Is that in the PP? Do they call it "eased?" Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"

[thespaah]

Ive been seeing a lot of 'disgusting' looking PPs on horses who dramatically got better overnight. Yesterday at Belmont a horse got 2nd who was virtually eased 3 times in a row, he got bet hard, looked 99-1 on paper but went off 10-1 in real life and showed drastic improvement.

Same today at Belmont w Street Shark, 3 of his last 4 were eased jobs but today hes as grim as nails to cross the line first.

Margies minute in the 4th at SA wins at 7-2 w terrible PPs.

I dont know about you but i have a hard time risking money on horses who look like this in the PPs. I also dont remember so many 'ease jobs' coming back to race well. Maybe its always been this way and i havent noticed? These bad PP horses dont show gradual improvement and then fire a good shot, they fire the big shot right off the bad PP line. Rough game.
Couple questions...
1. were any of these horses coming off extended layoffs?
2. Were any of them in new barns?
3 Were there any equipment changes or equipment used or deleted( bandages for example) for the first time?
4. What are the trainer stats that were pertinent to the horse's performances?
5. change in surface for the first time?
6. Were there any significant changes in distance for the first time?
7. dramatic upgrade in the Jockey?
All of these are angles one must look through before allowing the comment line to convince them "this horse is a toss"....

[raybo]

Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"

Absolutely! There is nothing quite as good for getting horses race ready than a race.

[HoofedInTheChest]

Really F'ing stupid question: how and why is a horse eased? Is that in the PP? Do they call it "eased?" Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"
“how and why is a horse eased?”

The jock pulls back on the reins and takes the horse back out of the race. If a jock senses that the horse may have an injury, he will ease the horse. If a jock feels that the horse has no shot for whatever reason he may ease the horse.

Is that in the PP? Do they call it "eased?"

You will find that in the “trip notes”, and yes they call it eased.

Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"

Some horses are entered in a race for conditioning purposes, example... if you see a horse that normally runs in route races, and he/she is entered in a 5F race, more than likely the horse is there for conditioning. If you ever see a horse take off on the lead by 30 or 40 lengths, and then gets passed by the entire field late, it was probably sent out for conditioning, that or the jock is a pinhead.... ahem Ramsammy.

[HoofedInTheChest]

It’s not unusual for a horse to win the next time out after the horse was “eased” or “vanned off”, if you see the horse return 6 or 7 days later, i wouldn’t ignore the horse, especially at Woodbine. If i see those beautiful XXXXXXX throughout the horse’s last line, and it’s coming back in under a week or so, said horse is an automatic addition to my horizontal wagers. The public generally treats these horses as damaged goods, and i’ve been burned enough times to know better.

[DJofSD]

Really F'ing stupid question: how and why is a horse eased? Is that in the PP? Do they call it "eased?" Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"
Typically called a public work out.

[HoofedInTheChest]

Here is a good example from last month.

[Laminarman]

Here is a good example from last month.

Thank you everyone. Seems that being eased sucks for the bettor if you didn'k know the jockey was going to do a workout only. That's an interesting screenshot, is that a program or taken from online PP's?

[Grits]

Laminarman, for the long term, I would particularly note what SG4 has written here. The dilemma doesn't always have to do with the notion of going for a workout only.

Past performances don't suck...how we use their information sometimes can.

[HoofedInTheChest]

Thank you everyone. Seems that being eased sucks for the bettor if you didn'k know the jockey was going to do a workout only. That's an interesting screenshot, is that a program or taken from online PP's?
The screenshot is from RDSS, a horse racing software system.

Generally, a jock will not ease a horse in a workout unless there is an injury, the jock will push the horse as hard as he/she can go to condition the horse, without much concern for the outcome of the race. Being able to identify a “public work out” comes with experience, and it’s not an exact science by any means unless you are in the know.

Another one to watch out for, if a horse that regularly runs in sprint races, and then all of a sudden moves to a route race, it’s there for conditioning (mind you a sprinter can win when sent further in some cases). The best way to get a sprinter in shape is to run him/her in a route, than they move the horse back to a sprint in its next start. The horse should fire over its next 3 starts, but this always doesn’t pan out, especially with Maidens. When it comes to Maidens, a trainer will try just about anything to get the horse to win, while they are still trying to figure out if the horse is a sprinter or a router.

[pondman]

If you can spot them, many trainers have a 50% in the money rule. If they run them over their heads and don't get a check for a few races they start making management decision to get the horse in the money. If they've been in the money, they make decisions to go over the head of the horse where they no there isn't much chance.

[DJofSD]

If you can spot them, many trainers have a 50% in the money rule. If they run them over their heads and don't get a check for a few races they start making management decision to get the horse in the money. If they've been in the money, they make decisions to go over the head of the horse where they no there isn't much chance.
I'm not quite following. With the purse structure the way it is now a days, what does in the money mean?

[BlueChip@DRF]

Really F'ing stupid question: how and why is a horse eased? Is that in the PP? Do they call it "eased?" Do some trainers use races as "training sessions?"

Some are probably used as fillers to fill up races as a favor and a chance to get in a "public workout" and "darken" the horse's form at the same time.

I usually look for DNF in it's last race and bet them in their next.

[Stillriledup]

Couple questions...
1. were any of these horses coming off extended layoffs?
2. Were any of them in new barns?
3 Were there any equipment changes or equipment used or deleted( bandages for example) for the first time?
4. What are the trainer stats that were pertinent to the horse's performances?
5. change in surface for the first time?
6. Were there any significant changes in distance for the first time?
7. dramatic upgrade in the Jockey?
All of these are angles one must look through before allowing the comment line to convince them "this horse is a toss"....

I just used those as examples of a bigger picture. With any horse who looks 'broken down' on paper any good handicapper can make a case as to why the horse was playable. While you list a lot of angles, im talking about horse with 2, 3 or more consecutive terrible pp lines, its certainly easy to make an excuse for one line, but 3?

This cosmic coincidence on the 10th at belmont had 3 lines in a row where he basically couldnt finish. Now, hes 10-1 and running a hole in the wind for 2nd?

[Tall One]

The Spaah has listed reasons why they may look "dead on paper", and the horse I listed, that you mentioned, was claimed for 20k, but ran over his head 3 out of 4 for the new connections. Point being, don't sell short a horse coming back to a level where they "belong". 40K race for Street Shark in hindsight was about right considering the 3rd place effort back in January for 50, as well as having previous success on Belmont's grass.

Also, thought in the money (purse money) meant 1st-4th, but some will pay to 5th? This correct?

[Pensacola Pete]

Also, thought in the money (purse money) meant 1st-4th, but some will pay to 5th? This correct?

A few tracks pay a nominal amount to all entrants.

"In the money" usually means 3rd or better, since there's a fall off to 4th place.

[biggestal99]

Ive been seeing a lot of 'disgusting' looking PPs on horses who dramatically got better overnight.

I dont know about you but i have a hard time risking money on horses who look like this in the PPs. I also dont remember so many 'ease jobs' coming back to race well. Maybe its always been this way and i havent noticed? These bad PP horses dont show gradual improvement and then fire a good shot, they fire the big shot right off the bad PP line. Rough game.

Its always been this way. Cosmic coincidence (the horse in question) looked bad.

But CC was:

a. dropping in class
b. switching tracks (back to the scene of his last win)
c. off a layoff
d. turf to dirt

in mark Cramer's book, Thoroughbred Cycles, he has a whole chapter dedicated to exactly this phenomenon.

One mans bad looking horse is another ones bet.

Allan

[ultracapper]

Ive been seeing a lot of 'disgusting' looking PPs on horses who dramatically got better overnight. Yesterday at Belmont a horse got 2nd who was virtually eased 3 times in a row, he got bet hard, looked 99-1 on paper but went off 10-1 in real life and showed drastic improvement.

Same today at Belmont w Street Shark, 3 of his last 4 were eased jobs but today hes as grim as nails to cross the line first.

Margies minute in the 4th at SA wins at 7-2 w terrible PPs.

I dont know about you but i have a hard time risking money on horses who look like this in the PPs. I also dont remember so many 'ease jobs' coming back to race well. Maybe its always been this way and i havent noticed? These bad PP horses dont show gradual improvement and then fire a good shot, they fire the big shot right off the bad PP line. Rough game.

Margie's Minute is a horrible example. She was a MSW winner that had been running strictly against AlwOC company and was moved to Marty Jones a race back. Yesterday she was in for a tag for the first time, a conditional (N2L) claim at that with Jones taking the blinkers off. She had shown very sharp speed for him the first time, and the sever drop in class was a guarantee she would carry that speed further. I didn't play her, but I was well aware she was in there.

[Tall One]

Street Shark was wheeled back today in the 5th at Belmont. Same class as last(40k) but stretching out to a mile off the 6F turf sprint.

$25.20 $12.80 $6.90

Of which I had none..

[lamboguy]

i am going to give you a prime example of why you can't judge a horse by what he looks like on paper.


go to the first race at Oak Tree today an Arabian race, the 2 horse ran in Deleware and looked awful. the bottom horse went off the favorite and looked good.

the horse that looked awful won for fun, i had him as an even money proposition and he paid $12 for win.

[Robert Fischer]

Street Shark was wheeled back today in the 5th at Belmont. Same class as last(40k) but stretching out to a mile off the 6F turf sprint.

$25.20 $12.80 $6.90

Of which I had none..

I knew the name rang a bell. Didn't play it either :D

[Stillriledup]

Margie's Minute is a horrible example. She was a MSW winner that had been running strictly against AlwOC company and was moved to Marty Jones a race back. Yesterday she was in for a tag for the first time, a conditional (N2L) claim at that with Jones taking the blinkers off. She had shown very sharp speed for him the first time, and the sever drop in class was a guarantee she would carry that speed further. I didn't play her, but I was well aware she was in there.

Why is it a horrible example, she showed nothing on paper, thats what the thread is about. Doesnt matter WHY she couldnt run, which is what you are now backfitting. If she ran up the track again would you have been shocked?

[raybo]

Why is it a horrible example, she showed nothing on paper, thats what the thread is about. Doesnt matter WHY she couldnt run, which is what you are now backfitting. If she ran up the track again would you have been shocked?

Obviously the bolded portion in the quoted post is why he stated that it was a horrible example. A drop in class from AlwOC to conditional claiming N2L, moved to Marty Jones, blinkers off, and showed speed in it's first race for Jones, hardly qualifies as "showed nothing".

[PhantomOnTour]

How about the $100 plus winner in the 4th at Bel today...#7 Snake Oil Charlie?

[Tall One]

^^Which helped the pick 3(races 4-6) pay $19,719 :faint:

[Stillriledup]

Obviously the bolded portion in the quoted post is why he stated that it was a horrible example. A drop in class from AlwOC to conditional claiming N2L, moved to Marty Jones, blinkers off, and showed speed in it's first race for Jones, hardly qualifies as "showed nothing".

Are you talking about her win? Im talking about her previous losses where her PP lines were bad. We are talking about 2 different things.

[salty]

yeah i saw that for sure.

Nothing quite like being knocked out of the pick 5 and pick 4 by a 50-1 that finished 9th 9th 9th 6th 8th 8th with best effort being 9th after making it into 4th early and fading. Even better my 3 choices in the race finsihed 2nd 3rd and 4th.

3 of 4 on the pick 4 and 4 of 5 on the pick 5.

[Poindexter]

Are you talking about her win? Im talking about her previous losses where her PP lines were bad. We are talking about 2 different things.

Sru, the horse is a need the lead type. Switched barns prior to his last start, was completely outgunned in a fast early pace(I forget, but she might have actually had some trouble at the break too but I could be wrong), then for the race you are shocked about, the horse dropped significantly in class, caught a completely paceless filed, set soft fractions and won wire to wire. She was bet to 7/2, because she made a lot of sense, not for any other reason. The first thing I wrote on my PP was very interesting. I love horses like this. The sharps catch them but the public misses them and I feel they offer good value especially in the pick 3's and pick 4's. I eventually backed off and passed the race, but she was not hard to like.

[ultracapper]

Why is it a horrible example, she showed nothing on paper, thats what the thread is about. Doesnt matter WHY she couldnt run, which is what you are now backfitting. If she ran up the track again would you have been shocked?

I just listed all the things that "gave her a look" on paper. If all you're looking at is running lines, you're going to miss a lot of good plays.

And yes, if she would have run up the track, I would have been surprised. I wouldn't have been surprised if she got beat, but I would have been surprised if she didn't give her backers their money's worth. She was racing against the weakest field in her life and had already proven she could beat better when she broke maiden against Special Weight company.

[ultracapper]

Didn't see your post Raybo. Thank you. Didn't mean to just add redundancy to this thread.

And Poindexter, too.

[Stillriledup]

I just listed all the things that "gave her a look" on paper. If all you're looking at is running lines, you're going to miss a lot of good plays.

And yes, if she would have run up the track, I would have been surprised. I wouldn't have been surprised if she got beat, but I would have been surprised if she didn't give her backers their money's worth. She was racing against the weakest field in her life and had already proven she could beat better when she broke maiden against Special Weight company.

This is not what the thread is about. It's not about Margie's whatever and if she really had a shot or not. She was just an example in the thread, she was a correct example because its about bad pp lines only, it doesn't have anything to do with why the lines are the way they are, just that they exist.

[ultracapper]

You asked how these horses with horrible running lines pop up and win. The reason is that there are other factors involved. The point I made is that just because a horse has a terrible running line, or multiple terrible running lines, it isn't always such a big deal that they jump up and improve drastically on those running lines if other factors are taken into account. If you're not making the point that horses with multiple poor running lines shouldn't all of the sudden run a lights out race, I don't understand the point of your thread.

[raybo]

You asked how these horses with horrible running lines pop up and win. The reason is that there are other factors involved. The point I made is that just because a horse has a terrible running line, or multiple terrible running lines, it isn't always such a big deal that they jump up and improve drastically on those running lines if other factors are taken into account. If you're not making the point that horses with multiple poor running lines shouldn't all of the sudden run a lights out race, I don't understand the point of your thread.

I agree. If a horse has bad running lines and nothing shows that would help the horse, then those bad lines might continue. But, when you see the things that were mentioned about this horse, one could logically expect an improvement over those bad lines. The post mentioning that this horse was a poor example of horses that 'show nothing', was correct, because this one just didn't fit that bill.

[Garrigan]

I think, if a horse is "vanned off" the horse can't run for a certain amount of time, then has to have a satisfactory work before the state vet and stewards,
Same with a vet scratch in the post parade, or behind the gate.