trainer patterns

[Que]

smf,

What do you mean by, "Sorry, fellas. You can't write a program for trainer patterns?" I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but this doesn't make any sense to me. IMHO, there's no better method to eliminate false favorites or to find excellent longshots than by using trainer patterns. As food for thought, I'll redboard yesterday's (Jan. 18th) 9th Race @ Aqueduct just as an example. The race was won by the #1, Lauren's Lad, trained by Gary Contessa and ridden by Norberto Arroyo Jr.--paying $13.20 to win. Now, I didn't play this race, but by using my "trainer program" I did come across this interesting pattern. This pattern could have been used to make a very strong argument for playing Lauren's Lad, or any future Contessa horse with this same pattern.

To start, I had Lauren's Lad with respectable pace and class ratings, but nothing that would have placed him on top. However a trainer screen, using data prior to yesterday's race, revealed the following:

- Overall (last three years), Gary Contessa's record is (1370-167-188-184 ROI: 0.717|0.762|0.767). Certainly, a record that is not too spectacular. However;

-- when changing to jockey Norberto Arroyo Jr his record improves to (55 14-9-5 ROI: 1.74),

-- with Mud Calks-on his record improves to (395 68-60-54 ROI: 0.94),

-- and with Mud Calks-on & changing riders to Norberto Arroyo Jr his record is (13 5-1-2 ROI: 1.94). Note. This last figure I had to manually compute, but my trainer program did uncover the prior two statistics.

My point is, that without a computer program to screen almost two million records, facts like this would be almost impossible to find. In my opinion, "trainer programs" are like chess computers... i.e. it's the level of depth, or "moves," that represent the value of the program. For example, a very simple program (i.e. one level of depth) would tell you that Gary Contessa has an overall ROI of 0.717. This is not exactly, the most useful data, but it at least tells you that you can't blindly bet all of Contessa's entries and expect to make any money--in fact, it tells you that you would quickly go broke if you tried to so. However, a more advanced program (i.e. two levels of depth) tells you that if blindly bet all Contessa's entries with mud calks-on, you could improve your ROI to 0.94. Although this is still a loss, you are now getting very close to showing a profit. In addition, if you just limited your selections to Gary Contessa's entries with either Norberto Arroyo Jr, Jerry Bailey, Joe Bravo, Jorge Chavez, Pat Day, Travis Dunkleberger, Patrick Husbands, Charles Lopez, etc. with the mount then you would have recorded a fairly positive ROI. Moreover, these jockeys aren't exactly unknowns. But more importantly, if you had limited your selections to Gary Contessa's entrys with Mud Calks-on and changing rider to Norberto Arroyo Jr (i.e. three levels of depth) your record would have improved to (13 5-1-2 ROI: 1.94)--which is now (14 6-1-2 ROI: 2.27).

IMHO, you can measure the value of a trainer program by the level of depth it considers. A poor trainer program will only go one level of depth, a good trainer program may go two or three levels of depth, but a superb trainer program will search multiple levels of depth, i.e. looking at how a trainer brings a horse up to today's race--maybe going back as many as three or four races. To minimize CPU time, search sets can be limited to those that have proven effective in the past for various trainers. For example, searching Gary Contessa horse's wearing blinkers on the first Tuesday following a full moon is probably not an effective query. I'm not saying that my trainer program can currently do all this, but it's all very possible. Obviously, you could never expect to develop a computer program capable of beating a Chess Grand Master by only looking one or two moves ahead, but a computer program has beaten the reigning Chess Grand Master by looking at many, many moves ahead (i.e. by examining multiple levels of depth). In addition, the latest "Grand Master" chess programs contain histories of all officially recorded chess matches (although I’m not sure at what level). The program then uses this database as aid in determining it’s next move/selection. Furthermore, I honestly believe that within the next five to ten years, the best handicappers will all be made of silicon and will contain a similar database to achieve their selections.

Anyway, you certainly can't believe that I came up with the above pattern by keeping hand written notes or by thumbing through a spiral notebook. This pattern can now be easily "flagged" and I will certainly take a hard look at any horse fitting similar circumstances. Of course, only time will tell if this pattern remains profitable in the future, but I’d rather take my chances betting horses fitting this pattern, than for example by betting a Gary Contessa horse that won it's previous race and is now being entered in a Stakes/Graded Stakes event--where his record (23 0-4-4 ROI: 0.00), or by betting one of his horse's entered in a sprint and being shortened up by a furlong or less--where his record is (46 1-7-11 ROI: 0.08).

Just my two cents.... regards,

Que.

[smf]

Que,

Interesting points. When I get back in later tonite, I'll reply. Kinda lengthy but (imho) worthy.

[smf]

Que,

Thanks for your patience. I know we'll disagree on this one and I'll come up w/ examples of my own. First off, I believe that what you are describing in the Contessa/ Arroya situation is a trainer "stat", not pattern (but we're on the same page). You're getting your data from a measurable situation that can be broken down by %'s using commercially available data.

Here's where a "pattern" player will have an advantage over a "stat" player, imho. When this trainer/ jock move was just getting to be successful, who would you think w/ get a jump on the angle/ move/ pattern--a guy that cuts and pastes the pp's into a binder (ala Litfin), and sees this "pattern" right away (i.e, daily) when it's fresh, or a guy who allows the computer to search the pattern and only flag the said pattern when a few winners have come and gone?

The same can be said of when the pattern goes cold. The pattern player can see imediately when things go south. The computer/ program will take longer to recognize this. The things that are seen on pp's (or workout patterns which definitely cannot be "mechanically judged") or things seen in the paddock/ parade are usually short lived gems. I think that's why there are so few successful trainer players nowdays.

For my own redboard examples...Fri at the Pha 2nd race, Scott Lake had a 2nd off claim that looked pretty good speedwise although I'm no "speed" capper. But there were 2 items in the pp and workout line that flagged a "pass" on the runner. The negative bit of info on the workout of the runner could (partially) be uncovered by knowing who his stablemates are. One other item involved the condition books that are available to Lake and a race he passed up to run in favor of Friday.

My honest opinion is that this collection of info in this case is better managed by someone who is thinking on their feet, has their own personal detailed patterns/ info that goes beyond commercially available info. It takes someone who has some experience in that Lake w/ not pass over a race (2nd off claim) earlier in the winter with a healthy horse for a win, but would have earlier in the year. (thus, I saved a bad bet whereas a trainer "stat" guy m/h pulled the trigger on the bet w/ his info spanning over months/ years).

Case#2...I have to disagree w/ anyone's stats on trainers and blinkers. Reason why is that for 2 years while TRN was in business (and the days they still send a signal, which is off and on), I taped both the post parades and races for claiming races. In the parade you c/ tell what type of blinker cup the runner was wearing. Many times you'd see a more open (or closed) cup than what the runner wore for the claimed-from trainer. That indicated to me that the trainer had THAT PARTICULAR change in mind when he dropped the claim slip. I don't need a computer program to tell me this info--I just need to pay attention. You won't get hundreds or thousands of samples to input.

The same goes for wraps, shadow rolls (big time), and tongue ties). None of which is commercially provided for todays race! To log this info into a database is a non- value added procedure. My books of winners pp's with notes tells me what I need to know and is "real time".

Another example comes to mind.... Que, I think you have some of the best, and most expansive data/ info of anyone around and I think everyone agrees w/ that. However I think back to last summer when I was in the war room for the only time in the past year. You mentioned you were betting on a Barry Germany trained/ Rosenda Parra horse in a LS turf race and I mentioned I was passing on that horse b/c of the connections. Your position (which I always respect and hold in high regard) was that the owner (parra) had substantial earnings and you had the detailed stats to prove it (as in turf routes, or somesuch--I can't remember).

That one floored me b/c the trainer is a real dunce. Around horses the guy is totally lost and leaves the track 5 minutes after his horse crosses the finish line. His record has always been pretty bad and he's currently 0 for 23 at the FG meet. He used to pad his record at Retama and a few state bred races at LS where his stock w/ tower over the others. (Imo, the owner is claiming LS, FG runners for breeding purposes b/c most Parra claimed runners here have been fillies& mares...)

Anyways, the week after we "talked" in the war room I began to look at claiming trainers around the country and sure enuff, Ro Parra had horses with some heavy hitters like Capuano (Md) and one of the Canani's (So Cal). That was where Parra's earnings had come from. As for Barry Germany, I noticed that one of his runners (cannonsburg) went to Maryland and won almost immediately for Capuano. No telling how many times that will happen in the future.

So, there's an example of you having excellent info, but a person w/ knowledge of their track will have an advantage. That's one reason I respectfully disagree w/ your assesment that in 5-10 yrs the most successful cappers w/ "all be made of silicon". As long as races are run by living creatures with individual quirks (along w/ those of their human connections), I doubt that will come to pass. We'll see.

One more example....Two trainers at LRL have won 3 of the first 4 private buys/ trainer changes there with thier new horses. Those "patterns " have likely run their course, Que. The wins came within 40 days of each other and there isn't an endless stream of runners that will come thru w/ this pattern. A "pattern" player will catch the 2nd and 3rd win (at good prices) where a "stat" player will have missed the train, and at worst throw $$ at the subsequent losers.

I think we could both give a few more dozen reasons why patterns can/ cannot be programmed and utilized long term. My sincere best wishes to you and others who try. I'm pulling for you.

Out of respect to you (and others that may be offended) I'm doing away w/ the "sign off", but still in firm belief of my opinion on the subject. Good luck!

[ridersup]

In this discussion I would have to come down on the side of the pattern player. Trainer stats are nice to have as an assist to handicapping but how the stats are earned seem to me to be a little more important.

Cold stats as you can all attest to are not worth much. Everyday if you use Bris Ultimate PP's each race will have several trainers that have positive ROI's relating to some facet of the horse that is entered. Yet often times the race is won by a trainer that has negative stats and leaves us all scratching their heads.

TSN recently published a list of Jockey-Trainer combinations with the top 4 combinations averaging about a 50% win rate. In tracking those combos for the past 3 or 4 days there were 7 that were entered at various tracks. Only one of the 7 won and paid a whopping $5.80. Not exactly a bonanza here.

But consider the case of two trainers at Tampa Bay. Don Rice is the perennial leading trainer and Gary Patrick usually wins 1 or 2 races during the meet out of 100 starts. At the end of the meet both trainers head to Ellis Park. Lo and behold Gary Patrick becomes the leading trainer at Ellis Park and Don Rice can't get a smell. Gary brings in 4 or 5 horses at $50 mutuels and Rice looks like he is spinning his wheels. Funny thing is Gary Patrick has done this every year. Loses at Tampa, wins at Detroit, when it was still in existence, leading trainer at Hoosier Park, at Ellis, and I think he went out west one year to some small track and became leading trainer. On the other hand it seems Don Rice was not exactly spinning his wheels he was claiming some quality KY horses which he brought back to Tampa. If you know Rice's pattern you would know that he runs most of his horses back in shape and thats what he is doing with with the cheap claims he made in the 5 to 10 k range. However he made 3 claims of 25K horses for the same owner who just so happens to have a farm in Ocala. These three horses have come back and 2 of them won at nice prices and 1 came in second and filled out a huge perfecta.
All horses showed a layoff pattern since the claim in August at Ellis park so do you suppose that maybe they shipped the horses to the farm in Ocala for some unpublished works. Gee I don't know but I bet money on the fact that they did. Incidently the owner touted everybody off the horses saying they needed one over the track. Yeah right.

Now if you can program a computer to spit out this kind of info more power to you but I think I'll stick to sniffing out these patterns the good old fashion way.

[ranchwest]

I see no reason why a handicapper cannot follow the astute observations that BOTH of you have offered.

Computers can cover more information in the past performances than any person will ever be able to cover, from more angles. Used properly, computers might even help in finding patterns early.

There are a lot of things that are not in the past performances, as smf suggested.

After Karl recently suggested some reading material on physicality, I read it and, while I knew a lot of it, I found some things in there that I didn't know. I spent a couple of days watching Mountaineer on YouBet.com. While I normally bet win tickets, sometimes it is fun to pick tri's and super's when just watching. I was coming close on super's just off of physicality.

My first home track was Delta Downs. Now, that was a place for observation if ever there was one.

As most of you know, jockeys seldom say anything, even at a small track like Delta. One night, in the last race, I was standing at the rail and every jockey in the race told the few railbirds outside on that cool night to bet on the 4. Well, I knew immediately that the race was fixed and the 4 would NOT win. I guessed the wrong horse, but I was right on the 4 being a loser. There was nothing about a fix in the pp's.

So, both computer users and thinkers have room for improvement.

[BIG HIT]

Hi guys I love trainer pattern one reason I bought propace software and believe is way to go.And probably even better for those who have database.As propace works for me.Trainer stats are only good if spacific track and meet if any of you have been reading horseplayer mag.Has shown the difference between overall stats and those not.

[Que]

smf,

Thanks for your reply. It was probably one of the most worthwhile posts I've read in a long time. Anyway, I don't think we really disagree on that much. However, I would like to respond to some of your comments, not to argue my case (since I totally respect your opinion, especially knowing that this is your livelihood). First, I don’t see any difference between someone who “cuts & pastes” winner’s past performances or someone who stores them in a computer. I’m sure the former method is more hands-on and entails more cerebral input (which may be more efficient if you only play several tracks), while the later method is probably more efficient if you play/follow multiple tracks across the country. Also, whether you decide to set your criteria regarding what constitutes a pattern as one or multiple winners is something that is easily programmable. Second, I totally agree with your comment about seeing things in the paddock/post parade that “cannot be mechanically judged.” My dream would be to one day have a library of video of clips of horses in both the paddock & post parade—and then compare the clips to the horse’s/trainer’s historical results. (With digital cameras nowadays this should be entirely possible.) And obviously, the more you know about equipment, or what Trilles Parker calls the “signposts of fitness and form,” the better the handicapper you will be. Unfortunately, my day job doesn’t allow me to do this, so I have to concentrate my efforts elsewhere. Also your comment about knowing the “Condition Book” is both interesting and I’m sure accurate. Since some tracks do publish their conditions books electronically, I’m sure a program of some kind could be developed to take advantage of this—although it would take a lot of work, and would require knowledge from an expert to accurately program/evaluate it to determine if it’s providing any useful information. (I’m sure that no commercially available trainer programs are even attempting or planning to do this.) You also mentioned how this information is “better managed with someone thinking on their feet,” can’t disagree with you here either. However, I do have some experience with computer (AI) programming & the financial markets, and you shouldn’t underestimate the capabilities of sophisticated computer programs. It’s no coincidence that some of the largest financial firms in the world trade billions of dollars using mechanical/computer-generated trading systems. Also, I readily agree with you about how lacking the commercially available information is regarding equipment, i.e. blinkers, shoes, etc.. Another recent thread on this board discussed this extensively. Also, I vaguely remember our war room chat last year. Although I can’t remember the specifics of our conversation, and I can’t remember the state of my “trainer program” at that time, my current trainer “program” does break out stats by owner. Although it is very possible that at that time I lumped the stats together, the program would now flag the information as a “negative” trainer/owner pattern. (Regarding the war room, it’s too bad more people don’t take advantage of this real time method to chat about the races and handicapping, I have very much enjoyed my chats with yourself, melman, hdcper, observer, whitehos, and others.) Also I know you have mentioned Collison’s book on this board before, and based on your recommendations I’ve read/ programmed virtually everything mentioned in it, e.g. claimed from stats, first/second time off claims, seasonal patterns, filly & mares stats, etc.) Regarding whether in five to ten years the best handicappers will be human or silicon, I guess only time will tell. Also, I don’t disagree that a “person with knowledge of their track will (still) have an advantage,” especially with the dearth of today’s commercially available information--which is probably not much different than what was available when Seabiscuit was a maiden. And although I believe that someone who is an expert on certain tracks, like yourself, can probably maintain a healthier ROI playing several picks a day at the tracks they specialize at; I also think that “future” computer-generated programs playing multiple tracks with multiple picks at each track, with trainer patterns as just one if its inputs (albeit an important input), will obtain higher overall total profits—if anything, this will simply be a result of their shear volume, even if they have a lower overall ROI. Finally, your sign-off doesn’t offend me in any way, I was just curious about the reasoning behind it since I knew that trainer “patterns” are a large part of your handicapping methodology. Anyway, thanks for your informative response, and since you already explained your points very clearly and the fact that our opinions are not really that far apart, don’t feel obligated to respond to this post.

Regards,

Que.

[Bob Harris]

I use to "poo-poo" trainer data of any kind, primarily because of the Sartin school of thought that I came out of. All that changed last year when I had the good fortune to play alongside Ed Bain for a couple of days. I don't know whether to classify his data as "stats" or "patterns" but he bets serious money on them and what really got my attention was that a couple of his winners were so ugly they wouldn't register on any pace program.

While I don't currently have any plans to incorporate trainer info into my handicapping, I must acknowledge that in the right hands it does have some value.

[karlskorner]

Trainer "stats" and "patterns" are a great tool, only if they can answer one question.

WHY is this horse in THIS race ?

If you can answer the question, you can reduce your "contenders" to 2, possibly 3.

Karl

[ranchwest]

Karl,

Can you share with us some of the things that you feel comprise the primary reasons why you would feel that a horse is in a race? Can you at least give us enough information to use as examples of the sort of thing you are talking about?

[karlskorner]

Ranchwest;

I wish I could give you a direct answer, but I can't. I have no set rules. I think it was Canuck who accused me of "flying by the seat of my paints" a month or so back.

In a 8 to 10 horse field I usually can eliminate immediately 3 to 4 horses for one reason or another, which leaves me with 1/2 oif the field to ponder. The morning of the race I pull my chart book and transfer to the PP's any info I might have posted, compare the conditions of his last race to today's conditions, read and try to understand the comments and than ask myself "Why" is this animal in this race. A visit to the paddock is important, not only to "look" at the animal, check the shoe board, but to look around for the trainer ( is he here, or playing poker back at the barn ) are the owners here, are they drsssed for a picture, are his people being extra careful in saddling the horse, trying to keep him calm, has the trainer 'cracked" his front legs to loosen him up, are the trainer and jock in a huddle or just passing the time of day. Did the jock work the animal or is he talking to the outrider and just bidding his time and probably 100 more questions before I have an opinion.

Sometimes I am right, when I am wrong it is because I didn't answer the question "WHY"

Karl

[ranchwest]

Karl,

Thanks. That does clarify generally the sorts of things you were talking about.

I see what you mean. I know I've gone so far as to notice when a jockey disposes of his cigarette. At some tracks, they can smoke in the paddock, but not on the track. If they're still smoking when they're up on the horse, I consider that a very bad sign.

[JimG]

Smf and Que:

Thank you for this dialogue. You both are obvious professionals and guys like me can learn alot from both of you and your varying methods. Obviously, more than one way to skin a cat.


Jim

[Show Me the Wire]

A blatant example of why is the horse in this race. Monarchos is in for a prep tightening him for the Donn, Mongoose is in it for the purse and possibly so is Proper Man. Watch your Pennies and Regal Shivers are in trying to earn a check.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[karlskorner]

Show me the wire;

Monarchos was "not interested" in the paddock, certainly was 'not interested" at the gate (broke slowly) and Trainer Ward would have loved to win this race. The public liked him at 1 to 2.
There could be some surprises in the Donn.

Karl

[Show Me the Wire]

Karrlskorner:

I am sure Ward would have loved to win the race, but, and this is a very big but, the primary reason Monarchos ran was to prep for the Donn. If Monarchos would have been tons the best and could have won without too much effort, Ward may have sent for the purse. Monarchos was not tons the best, Mongoose is just as fast, and Ward was not going to use up his prize horse, to beat Mongoose, for a minor award and have nothing left for the Donn.

Monarchos may not have been interested, but he strode out nicely and pretty effortlessly when asked for his run.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[ranchwest]

While I had a good day Saturday, I must admit to going with Proper Man. At least I wasn't on the 1-2 phoney.

[Bruddah]

Please educate me further with your comment about " cracking" the horses legs so he can run faster. I have never heard of this and would appreciate more information and examples. By the way, this a great thread. Thank you all.

[Show Me the Wire]

Ranchwest:

Nothing wrong with your logic. I used Proper Man too. Not as fast as Mongoose, but a contender for the purse.

The question I tried to answer, by example, is "What is this horse doing in this race?" I picked an obvious one to illustrate trainer intent. The answer to the question: Monarchos in for a prep for a later race, Mongoose for the purse, Proper Man for the purse, Regal Shivers and Watch your Pennies for a check.

After answering that specific question for each entrant, the next question can Monarchos still win even though this is a prep for him. The answer to that specific question is only if he is so much better than the horses trying for the purse.

In this race he is not. Mongoose is just is fast.

Regards,
Show Me The Wire

[cj]

How do you define "fast"? In my book, Mongoose is no better than an allowance horse, while Monarchos is a two time Grade I winner. I understand your logic, and did bet against Monarchos, but I fail to see how you can say Mongoose is just as fast.

CJ

[LurkingBettor]

Nice posts by smf and que. You guys should get together and write a book on the subject. I'd be the first in line to buy.

Thanks for the info.

LB

[smf]

LB,

Thanks for the nice comment but no book from me, that's for certain. 99% of what I do isn't original.

There are players here tho that do apply original ideas/ processes. I enjoy reading their thoughts and views.

[Que]

LB,

Thanks for the compliment too. But I agree with smf, i.e. at least in my case, I already have enough trouble balancing my time between my day job, my handicapping, and my family. Anyway, I believe that by the time you read it in a book it would probably be too late to take advantage of--not always the case of course, but it would happen often enough to make me concerned that I'd be giving out bad information. I also consider myself more of an "at home" researcher/bettor. I know there are other people on this board, i.e. smf, karlskorner, smtw, observer, just to name a few, that are the real experts at looking at a horse and judging trainer intent. I just cull the data looking for useful nuggets of information that will improve my handicapping. And believe it or not, I still consider myself primarily a pace handicapper--albeit using my trainer stats to save my butt and to make sense of things that pace handicapping can never explain, i.e. sudden form reversals, etc. However, I am now starting to take a very hard look at class evaluations as one of my primary means of selection, i.e. who the horse beat/lost to & what have those horse's done since that race. Of course, I still check my trainer stats; but that's more for the purpose of making a go/no-go decision than as a primary means of selection--but at the same time, I have no qualms about eliminating a horse (especially favorites) based on trainer stats alone. But, I do on occasion take a few flyers on something that stands-out in my trainer stats regardless of the horse's past performances, but that's more of an exception than a rule. Anyway, that's what great about this game--you never stop learning.

regards,

Que.

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
How do you define "fast"? In my book, Mongoose is no better than an allowance horse, while Monarchos is a two time Grade I winner. I understand your logic, and did bet against Monarchos, but I fail to see how you can say Mongoose is just as fast.

CJ

If you throw out the Derby win, Monarchos ran Beyers in the low 100's when in form. Mongoose and the Parade horse had each hit 100's, but as tops. I always consider "within 10 points" to be about equal, so these two, if they were ready to move ahead, could be as fast as Monarchos typically is, but then you have to conside that Monarhos' 100's last should be higher now, due to growth and maturity. The big question then, is Monarchos fit and ready? At 1-2, then answer, to me, was irrelavent - I would not bet anything at 1-2, ever, period, good night, end of story. If I could have gotten 5-1 or better on Mongoose, I would have bet him, but I still though he was an underlay so I passed. I thought him the better of the two lesser contenders since he topped in November and then had a brief freshening-a horse ready to move foreward. The other horse has been off a while and I thought he would need a race or two. I think I agree with Karl, Monarchos may be a good horse to bet against in the Donn, depending who shows up and where they are in thier form cycles. But low 100's is on par for classified allowance horses not stakes horses. The fact that Monarcos won graded races at three may not translate to stakes for older. We shall see...(unless you use Ubet ~G~)
Tom

[Show Me the Wire]

cjmilkowski:

I do not know if I understand your question. According to TG both Monarchos and Mongoose ran zeros. However, Mongoose's development to the zero seemed to be better than Monarchos' sudden explosion. As Tom pointed out you can see the same in the Beyers. Thanks Tom for running with the ball.

cjmilkowski, I think you stated the crux of the matter. you believe Mongoose is an allowance horse and apparently Bond agrees with you. He had his horse fit for an allowance win. Additionally, Bond's horse was pretty fit before taking time off for a freshining.

On the other hand Ward believes his charge is a stakes horse and is preparing him for a stakes attempt. Ward agrees with you, that he has a better animal. Incedently, I believe Monarchos was a tired horse prior to his layoff and he needed the layoff to recuperate.

So put yourself in Bond's and Ward's shoes. If you believe you have a stakes quality animal are you going to use him up for a smaller purse? Probably not. If you believe you have a quality allowance horse are you going to use him to win a decent allowance purse? Probably yes.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[karlskorner]

Bruddah;

Cracking front legs

Unless you are in your teens or early 20's, squat down a couple of times, hear that snap crackle and pop, now stand up, feels pretty good doesn't it ? Same joint with a horse. I don't think I said "it will make him run faster", but when you see a trainer stand along side and pick up each foreleg and give it a tug, he is just trying to make the horse feel better.

Or better yet sit on a chair, pull up each leg by the knee, God that feels good.

Karl

[Bruddah]

Makes sense and I have seen many trainers do as you described. Just didn't know the term. Learn something new everyday in this game. Thank You.

[karlskorner]

Show me the wire;

To quote John Ward from the Miami Herald about Monarchos

"I got what I wanted out of the race, it fits nicely into our scheme for him, and I like where we are with him at this time"

What else could you expect him to say "he beat 2 horses didn't he" The Donn's almost 3 weeks away, I have been wrong before (my first marriage) but, unless there is a big improvement I don't think he is going to make it.

cjmilkowski

The fact that Monarchos has 2 Grade 1's on his record is history, passe, long gone, horseracing is tomorrow not yesterday.

Karl

[cj]

I agree with what everything that was said...my only question was about calling that horse "as Fast" as Monarchos. He may have been faster Saturday, but Monarchos was not in the race to get the win. I was just what wondering what was used for comparison. It was explained that the winner was within 10 Beyer points, and that Tom considered that equal. I do not necessarily agree with that, but now I know where he was coming from. I think we all agree that Monarchos was a definite bet against, and to go further, I'll bet against again next time because that wasn't much of a prep. Tiznow was a great example of two tough tries prepping for a bigger target, not one lackluster effort before the big dance. We all heard this song and dance from Ward last year with Beautiful Pleasure, much to the delight of my wallet!

cj

ps karlskorner...if the past didn't matter, DRF, BRIS, etc would be long out of business.

[Tom]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Bruddah;

Cracking front legs

Unless you are in your teens or early 20's, squat down a couple of times, hear that snap crackle and pop, now stand up, feels pretty good doesn't it ? Same joint with a horse. I don't think I said "it will make him run faster", but when you see a trainer stand along side and pick up each foreleg and give it a tug, he is just trying to make the horse feel better.

Or better yet sit on a chair, pull up each leg by the knee, God that feels good.

Karl

I gotta try this.
Squat down a couple times (1,2,3,)
Listen for snap, crackle, pop(Ok, I hear it...great!)
Now stand up.
Now stand up.
Now stand up. Uh, a little help here? Anyone?.....
Aaauuuurrrrggggggg!
~G~
Tom

[Show Me the Wire]

Karlskorner:

I would like to clarify. I am not saying Monarchos will win the Donn. I personally was not impressed by his prep race. I just commented his stride was right and it was pretty effortless. Only noting that he did not seem off physically.

cjmilkowski:

My statement just as fast is based on both earning a TG speed figure of zero. I guess it depends on the data you use.

To me that means both horses are equally fast. Mongoose was not faster, just better prepared and fired awinning effort. I have a hunch Mongoose did not run another zero, but something less.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Que]

Not to beat a dead horse, but did anyone checkout Sunday's 9th race at Aqueduct. The winner was a first-time starter named Tempest Gladiator, trained by Gary Contessa, ridden by Norberto Arroyo Jr, and you guessed it... wearing Mud Calks. Since the horse hadn't done much in the mornings, I don't know how anyone could have picked him on works alone. But since he paid $12.80, some of you must be paying attention :). Also, does this count as redboarding, since I specifically mentioned this pattern the day prior (see my first post that started this whole threat)? However, Contessa did lose the 7th race with Pete's Trust under the same conditions, except that one had front wraps where his record is only (233 34-41-23 ROI: 0.71)--but, I think I posted something on front wraps last week. These damn programs... (lol)

Que.

[Que]

opps... that last post was meant to read "thread" not "threat." That just goes to show you what redoing your pace figs can do to your brain (lol)...

Que.

[Que]

Oh... I forget to mention Saturday's 7th race at Aqueduct, which was won by St. Dehere that paid $25.80. St. Dehere was also trained by Gary Contessa, ridden by Norberto Arroyo Jr, and yet again wearing Mud Calks (but St. Dehere was also wearing front wraps, so nothings perfect). That brings Contessa's record to (16 8-1-2) with the mud calks/Norberto Arroyo Jr angle, and two of those wins (in three attempts), which paid $12.80 & $25.80, came after my 18th Jan example. (And I assure you, that I didn't know the results of that race when I made my initial post). Anyway, in my opinion, there's no better argument about the value of trainer patterns than that.

Que.

[Que]

And add Snoopy Blues ($4.60) in today's 5th race at Aqueduct... record now stands at (17 9-1-2)... Que.