what if one could figure comparable workout times?

[Capper Al]

I know that there are several methods for evaluating workout speeds. I know of three methods myself. The question here is assuming one could compare them successfully? What would they mean? Never knowing the barns intentions nullifies their value doesn't it?

[cj]

I know that there are several methods for evaluating workout speeds. I know of three methods myself. The question here is assuming one could compare them successfully? What would they mean? Never knowing the barns intentions nullifies their value doesn't it?

Unless you could watch them, I don't see any real value.

[DeltaLover]

I know that there are several methods for evaluating workout speeds. I know of three methods myself. The question here is assuming one could compare them successfully? What would they mean? Never knowing the barns intentions nullifies their value doesn't it?

In my opinion, workout timings are next to meaningless.. What counts more, is the regularity of the workout tab and the existence (or not) of gaps in them..

[PhantomOnTour]

What if they included splits and gallop out times?

[whodoyoulike]

Unless you could watch them, I don't see any real value.

Good point!

Now why don't the track(s) show a live feed and maybe indicate who is working out?

If it's too expensive then just show the workouts, we can figure it out.

[horses4courses]

Unless you could watch them, I don't see any real value.

Absolutely right.

A horse can have a workout on the same track, same day, as another
horse where he can run slower and actually be more impressive.
Some horses are ridden much harder, others restrained in order to run easy.
The times do not tell the entire story.

[Augenj]

I know that there are several methods for evaluating workout speeds. I know of three methods myself. The question here is assuming one could compare them successfully? What would they mean? Never knowing the barns intentions nullifies their value doesn't it?
This doesn't sound like what you're looking for but it might trigger some thought.

You can use average workout rankings back any number of workouts to get a "rating" for each horse. Let's say you want to use the last 3 workouts for your calculations. Sum up the last 3 rankings for the horse (X). Then sum up the last 3 total ranked horses (Y). Divide X by Y and subtract the result from 1.0 to get the best on top.

The win per cent over hundreds of races is low but the ROI is pretty decent. It all depends on the track and type of race - maidens, non-maidens. I use an enhanced version of this as one of 10 factors to calculate a horse's overall rating.

[Tom]

The workout rating in HTR is one of the most powerful ones they have.
Not as a stand alone, but when combined with other factors. It is in several of my most productive spot plays.

[ReplayRandall]

The workout rating in HTR is one of the most powerful ones they have.
Not as a stand alone, but when combined with other factors. It is in several of my most productive spot plays.

Tom, are you a "Razor" devotee?......Powerful angle.

[Fingal]

In my opinion, workout timings are next to meaningless.. What counts more, is the regularity of the workout tab and the existence (or not) of gaps in them..

Times can be very misleading. Take for example Get Happy Mister who won the San Simeon Hcp. at Santa Anita this year. Not only is he a Colorado bred, but his last work before the race while being on the turf was 6f in 1:19. Now that has to be awful close to the threshold for having a timed work. Horse paid 27 bucks.

I used to feel gaps in works was important, especially when it came to no work since raced but when I read one interview with Doug O'Neill it changed my mind. As he put it why work a horse just to work them ? Good work, good race, they'll keep their form with a strong gallop.

There's a few trainers out in S Cal that follow that line of thinking, I'm sure on other circuits there are some trainers that think the same. And for lesser circuits some barns may not have the type of horses that can stand up to works between races.

Or those gaps on any circuit may be because the clockers missed a work.
It happens.

[Tom]

Tom, are you a "Razor" devotee?......Powerful angle.

Razor Rulz!

[pandy]

Has anyone ever done any record keeping or testing off workouts? For instance, do horses with a recent work in last 7 days win more often than horses that don't have a recent workout? Do horses that have a recent bullet workout win more often?

Although it's true that if you don't see the work, you don't know if it was good or not, it still gives you an idea of what the trainer is trying to do in terms of conditioning.

Also with older horses, if the horse is working regularly it's a good sign, the horse is sound.

I have had several big scores because of workouts. You have to use common sense. As an example, some years ago Ron McAnally had a first time starter, I can't remember her name right now, but she was working fast. But his stats on firsters was something like 0 for 68. However, the works were unusually fast for a horse from his barn, a sign that the horse was indeed fast, since he doesn't work his maidens fast. I had bet the horse and gave it out and then luckily they interviewed him on TVG and Ron said that although he never wins with firsters, "I can tell you that this one can run." I doubled my bet and she won easily at $46.

[eqitec]

I am currently doing a study of the 2013-2014 Saratoga meetings. Out of 525 races in the study thus far, 10.3% of winners had a 4F breeze on dirt 6 days before their wins.

[Dave Schwartz]

Has anyone ever done any record keeping or testing off workouts? For instance, do horses with a recent work in last 7 days win more often than horses that don't have a recent workout? Do horses that have a recent bullet workout win more often?

Pandy,

I have. There is validity to recent workouts. Percentages & Probabilities, page 89.

However, the difference in IVs is pretty slight. High point is 5-7 days, and tops at only 1.11, with the bottom being no work in 30 days at 0.82. Seems like not being worth the effort.

Because some tracks demand a workout for a horse returning from layoff and others do not, the statistics are skewed unless they are track-specific.


However...

When one uses a universal parallel time chart and looks at "Best Workout in 45 Days," one finds that horses ranked 1st perform well enough to actually be profitable at high odds.


However #2...

In my handicapping experience, even that factor is "correlational rather than causational," and, in practice, consistently points one to the wrong horses.


However #3...

The exception comes in young horses, races with FTS, and lightly-raced horses, where the 45-day best workout blossoms into a factor that can actually be used to handicap.

In fact, FTS that rank #1 for BW45 and go off at (I believe it is) 12/1 or higher have shown to be flat bet profitable.

[pandy]

Thanks Dave. That makes sense.

[JohnGalt1]

[QUOTE=Fingal]Times can be very misleading. Take for example Get Happy Mister who won the San Simeon Hcp. at Santa Anita this year. Not only is he a Colorado bred, but his last work before the race while being on the turf was 6f in 1:19. Now that has to be awful close to the threshold for having a timed work. Horse paid 27 bucks.


Unless the work out is very fast, slow workouts like this can mean a 135+ lb. exercise rider, so I don't downgrade the time.

I'd rather see slow than no workouts.

[classhandicapper]

I never did a formal study like Dave, but my experience from handicapping thousands of races is similar. Improving workouts can signal a solid or improved performance, but especially for FTS and lightly raced horses.

[Capper Al]

This doesn't sound like what you're looking for but it might trigger some thought.

You can use average workout rankings back any number of workouts to get a "rating" for each horse. Let's say you want to use the last 3 workouts for your calculations. Sum up the last 3 rankings for the horse (X). Then sum up the last 3 total ranked horses (Y). Divide X by Y and subtract the result from 1.0 to get the best on top.

The win per cent over hundreds of races is low but the ROI is pretty decent. It all depends on the track and type of race - maidens, non-maidens. I use an enhanced version of this as one of 10 factors to calculate a horse's overall rating.

I don't understand this.

[Capper Al]

The workout rating in HTR is one of the most powerful ones they have.
Not as a stand alone, but when combined with other factors. It is in several of my most productive spot plays.

I agree with other factors. I don't know HTR's workout ratings, but I'm guessing it probably is a conversion of feet per second at distance.

[Capper Al]

Has anyone ever done any record keeping or testing off workouts? For instance, do horses with a recent work in last 7 days win more often than horses that don't have a recent workout? Do horses that have a recent bullet workout win more often?

Although it's true that if you don't see the work, you don't know if it was good or not, it still gives you an idea of what the trainer is trying to do in terms of conditioning.

Also with older horses, if the horse is working regularly it's a good sign, the horse is sound.

I have had several big scores because of workouts. You have to use common sense. As an example, some years ago Ron McAnally had a first time starter, I can't remember her name right now, but she was working fast. But his stats on firsters was something like 0 for 68. However, the works were unusually fast for a horse from his barn, a sign that the horse was indeed fast, since he doesn't work his maidens fast. I had bet the horse and gave it out and then luckily they interviewed him on TVG and Ron said that although he never wins with firsters, "I can tell you that this one can run." I doubled my bet and she won easily at $46.

I did study workouts before and am about again with my program rewrite.

[Capper Al]

Pandy,

I have. There is validity to recent workouts. Percentages & Probabilities, page 89.

However, the difference in IVs is pretty slight. High point is 5-7 days, and tops at only 1.11, with the bottom being no work in 30 days at 0.82. Seems like not being worth the effort.

Because some tracks demand a workout for a horse returning from layoff and others do not, the statistics are skewed unless they are track-specific.


However...

When one uses a universal parallel time chart and looks at "Best Workout in 45 Days," one finds that horses ranked 1st perform well enough to actually be profitable at high odds.


However #2...

In my handicapping experience, even that factor is "correlational rather than causational," and, in practice, consistently points one to the wrong horses.


However #3...

The exception comes in young horses, races with FTS, and lightly-raced horses, where the 45-day best workout blossoms into a factor that can actually be used to handicap.

In fact, FTS that rank #1 for BW45 and go off at (I believe it is) 12/1 or higher have shown to be flat bet profitable.

I scored some nice hits with parellel charts on workouts.

[Capper Al]

I never did a formal study like Dave, but my experience from handicapping thousands of races is similar. Improving workouts can signal a solid or improved performance, but especially for FTS and lightly raced horses.

Isn't this the truth about any figure in horse racing. It is never the best number or the best average number, it's how the racing game reflects that number.

[Dave Schwartz]

This doesn't sound like what you're looking for but it might trigger some thought.

You can use average workout rankings back any number of workouts to get a "rating" for each horse. Let's say you want to use the last 3 workouts for your calculations. Sum up the last 3 rankings for the horse (X). Then sum up the last 3 total ranked horses (Y). Divide X by Y and subtract the result from 1.0 to get the best on top.

The win per cent over hundreds of races is low but the ROI is pretty decent. It all depends on the track and type of race - maidens, non-maidens. I use an enhanced version of this as one of 10 factors to calculate a horse's overall rating.


Very interesting idea. Theoretically one could do this with many other things as well.

I could see scanning the back pacelines for each horse creating (say) a 3-race average and then the next race looking for patterns.

Very smart.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Augenj]

I don't understand this.Me either (joking). In the past performances in the "WORKS" line, the last item on the line are 2 numbers separated by a slash, let's say 4/16. The 4 is this horse's "rank" in the number of horses (16) that had workouts that day at that distance, or "total ranked". I got these names from my data provider so sorry for the confusion. In the example:

X = the sum of this horse's "ranks" over the last 3 workouts.
Y = the sum of the "total ranked" over the last 3 workouts.
Divide Y into X to get this horse's rating to compare against other horse's ratings. Usually it will be less than 1.0.

Trouble is that the lowest decimal value is actually the best rating so to reverse it we subtract this horse's rating from 1.0 to compare against other horse's ratings. The results should always be less than or equal to 1.0 with the highest rating on top.

[Augenj]

Very interesting idea. Theoretically one could do this with many other things as well.

I could see scanning the back pacelines for each horse creating (say) a 3-race average and then the next race looking for patterns.

Very smart.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Thanks. Not smart but sometimes I make enough mistakes to learn a tiny bit. :)

[Capper Al]

Me either (joking). In the past performances in the "WORKS" line, the last item on the line are 2 numbers separated by a slash, let's say 4/16. The 4 is this horse's "rank" in the number of horses (16) that had workouts that day at that distance, or "total ranked". I got these names from my data provider so sorry for the confusion. In the example:

X = the sum of this horse's "ranks" over the last 3 workouts.
Y = the sum of the "total ranked" over the last 3 workouts.
Divide Y into X to get this horse's rating to compare against other horse's ratings. Usually it will be less than 1.0.

Trouble is that the lowest decimal value is actually the best rating so to reverse it we subtract this horse's rating from 1.0 to compare against other horse's ratings. The results should always be less than or equal to 1.0 with the highest rating on top.

Okay. I got it now. Thanks.

[Capper Al]

Pandy,

I have. There is validity to recent workouts. Percentages & Probabilities, page 89.

However, the difference in IVs is pretty slight. High point is 5-7 days, and tops at only 1.11, with the bottom being no work in 30 days at 0.82. Seems like not being worth the effort.

Because some tracks demand a workout for a horse returning from layoff and others do not, the statistics are skewed unless they are track-specific.


However...

When one uses a universal parallel time chart and looks at "Best Workout in 45 Days," one finds that horses ranked 1st perform well enough to actually be profitable at high odds.


However #2...

In my handicapping experience, even that factor is "correlational rather than causational," and, in practice, consistently points one to the wrong horses.


However #3...

The exception comes in young horses, races with FTS, and lightly-raced horses, where the 45-day best workout blossoms into a factor that can actually be used to handicap.

In fact, FTS that rank #1 for BW45 and go off at (I believe it is) 12/1 or higher have shown to be flat bet profitable.

Reviewed P&P 2012 section on workouts. Always a good resource.

[Dave Schwartz]

Thank you, Al.

Looking back on the factor choices in our database, they could be improved quite a bit.

I think the chapter on recency surprised me a lot with some of the changes, or at least perceived changes from the "old days."

For example, 5 "times on track" (i.e. races + works) in a month used to be a good thing. Now the stats for that 5th trip have dropped.

Another example was "furlongs raced+worked in" 14 days, 21 days, 28 days. Used to be considered a good thing if a horse raced and/or worked a furlong a day. Not so any more.

[Tom]

I agree with other factors. I don't know HTR's workout ratings, but I'm guessing it probably is a conversion of feet per second at distance.

No, more than just simple speed.

[Capper Al]

No, more than just simple speed.

Funny, more than speed is going into my rewrite numbers also. I could be reinventing the wheel.

[pandy]

Another test I've love to do is comparing first time starters who come out of the 2yo in training sales against yearling purchases. For instance, in the second at Belmont today, Miracle Girl worked 2 furlongs in 21.1 at the OBSMARCH sale and was purchased for $220,000. All of the other fillies in the race are either homebreds or were purchased as yearlings.

I picked Miracle Girl, partly because of the 21.1 and partly because I feel she has the best works in the field. Her potential may be on turf but I think she has a shot at a price today. Kathy put her son Michael up on this horse and she usually puts him on live horses.

Horses that are purchased as yearlings are purchased mainly based on pedigree but there's no proof they can run.

[raybo]

I've never cared a hoot how fast a horse worked. The reason? Some trainers never work fast, and trainer "intent" is what works are about, IMO. My own belief is that workouts should be considered in conjunction with race performance, to help determine form cycle. I like to "think like a trainer", starting with the most distant race, analyzing what part of the horse's "game" was weak or missing. Then look at the works (or race if no works available) after that race to see if the trainer had that weakness or weaknesses in mind with the type of works (or the type of race) that he put the horse through. Then in the next race analyze how successful the trainer's previous efforts were to that performance, and what weaknesses were displayed in that performance, then move to the works (or race) after that race and repeat the above.

When you work your way up to the horse's last race, and any works after that race, you should have a pretty good idea of the horse's current form cycle, and of the trainer's intent in entering him/her in today's race ("conditioning race" or "earnings race").

After a little practice all this can be done in a couple of minutes, or less, especially if you can automate some of it.

[pandy]

With horses that have raced, but with firsters, it's a different ballgame. I know many players don't bet firsters. A first time starter that works fast for a trainer that normally works them slow is a good sign, regardless of the trainer's stats.

A lot of longshot first time starters win for trainers that have bad first time starter stats. If a horse is faster than the other horses in the race, the trainer isn't going to make it slower.

[raybo]

With horses that have raced, but with firsters, it's a different ballgame. I know many players don't bet firsters. A first time starter that works fast for a trainer that normally works them slow is a good sign, regardless of the trainer's stats.

A lot of longshot first time starters win for trainers that have bad first time starter stats. If a horse is faster than the other horses in the race, the trainer isn't going to make it slower.

I don't do FTS much, as a matter of fact, if there are 20% or more of a field that have no starts, or no "qualified" races (sprints for a sprint race, routes for a route race, dirt for a dirt race, turf for a turf race) from which to grade the animal, my program tells me to pass, and I do, because my record keeping tells me that these races are a net loss, for me.

[Capper Al]

With horses that have raced, but with firsters, it's a different ballgame. I know many players don't bet firsters. A first time starter that works fast for a trainer that normally works them slow is a good sign, regardless of the trainer's stats.

A lot of longshot first time starters win for trainers that have bad first time starter stats. If a horse is faster than the other horses in the race, the trainer isn't going to make it slower.

Especially firsters, since they run their race their own way and are pretty much uncontrollable.

[ubercapper]

Not exactly about the topic of the thread but since it's about workouts I wanted to let everyone know that Equibase has added new data elements to the workout pages.

The main page for viewing workouts is http://www.equibase.com/static/workout/index.html?SAP=TN

New elements include Trainer Name (from last race, or if horse is entered for upcoming race) and summary for most recent race (date, track, race type, finish position) with link to the chart for that race.

[Capper Al]

Not exactly about the topic of the thread but since it's about workouts I wanted to let everyone know that Equibase has added new data elements to the workout pages.

The main page for viewing workouts is http://www.equibase.com/static/workout/index.html?SAP=TN

New elements include Trainer Name (from last race, or if horse is entered for upcoming race) and summary for most recent race (date, track, race type, finish position) with link to the chart for that race.

Interesting. Thanks

[Longshot]

EquiSim has speed ratings for workouts. I use them in maiden races with first time starters and my hit rate is one of the highest of all races I bet.I find that the second workout back is the tip off in a lot of cases.Early in a meet like Oaklawn with lots of horses coming off long layoffs they are also very helpful.
I never use 3F works only 4F,5F and 6F works.

[pandy]

EquiSim has speed ratings for workouts. I use them in maiden races with first time starters and my hit rate is one of the highest of all races I bet.I find that the second workout back is the tip off in a lot of cases.Early in a meet like Oaklawn with lots of horses coming off long layoffs they are also very helpful.
I never use 3F works only 4F,5F and 6F works.


Great post, good information.

[whodoyoulike]

Not exactly about the topic of the thread but since it's about workouts I wanted to let everyone know that Equibase has added new data elements to the workout pages.

The main page for viewing workouts is http://www.equibase.com/static/workout/index.html?SAP=TN

New elements include Trainer Name (from last race, or if horse is entered for upcoming race) and summary for most recent race (date, track, race type, finish position) with link to the chart for that race.

I'm amazed how much info is available on the internet etc., but .....

how do you access this Equibase workout info option?

When I pull up the Equibase website I see:

1) PPs
2) Selections
3) Reports
4) Entries
5) Results
6) Stats
7) Horsemen
8) More


Is it part of a subscription service?

Thanks,

[Tom]

Free - it is here.

http://www.equibase.com/static/workout/

Look under Entries, then under Other, third column, fist option.

[whodoyoulike]

Thanks Tom. I should explore the Equibase, DRF and other websites more. I just go to the options which I'm familiar.

[pandy]

With horses that have raced, but with firsters, it's a different ballgame. I know many players don't bet firsters. A first time starter that works fast for a trainer that normally works them slow is a good sign, regardless of the trainer's stats.

A lot of longshot first time starters win for trainers that have bad first time starter stats. If a horse is faster than the other horses in the race, the trainer isn't going to make it slower.


Not redboarding, I did not have this horse, but case in point about trainer stats with firsters, Lucky Lurie just won at first asking, 12-1 ML, went off as the favorite and trainer Mark Hennig was 2% with firsters from a large sampling, but the NYBRED filly, who is by new sire Girolamo (A P Indy), was a "clocker's special" hot horse based on the workouts.

[Capper Al]

Not redboarding, I did not have this horse, but case in point about trainer stats with firsters, Lucky Lurie just won at first asking, 12-1 ML, went off as the favorite and trainer Mark Hennig was 2% with firsters from a large sampling, but the NYBRED filly, who is by new sire Girolamo (A P Indy), was a "clocker's special" hot horse based on the workouts.

Thanks for the update. NY tracks frequently surprise me with the crowd knowing something that someone just handicapping off the form wouldn't know.