What to you look for in turf sprints?

[Todaysracingdigest]

With Belmont opening their meet on Friday, April 28, it is time for an influx of turf sprints!

I first look at trainer and jockey stats to see how they have done in the past with turf sprints. Then I look if the horse has any turf sprint experience.

One of my favorite angles are turf routers who try a turf sprint for the first time. They seem to run well a majority of the time (Remember Bobby's Kitten?)

[johnhannibalsmith]

I look for fast dirt horses since very few run anything like a turf race.

[ReplayRandall]

With Belmont opening their meet on Friday, April 28, it is time for an influx of turf sprints!

I first look at trainer and jockey stats to see how they have done in the past with turf sprints. Then I look if the horse has any turf sprint experience.

One of my favorite angles are turf routers who try a turf sprint for the first time. They seem to run well a majority of the time (Remember Bobby's Kitten?)
Don't look at the horse, look at the trainer stats for turf sprints. Take top 3 trainers and look for best value or just dutch them....

[Murph]

Gate speed in a dash and a pace controller in the sprints. Under 6F I just go with the one who looks most like a qtr horse, E speed type. In sprints, prices on E/P types who can lead OR press at will seem good to me. E/P's seem to win a fair share.

[classhandicapper]

I usually look for a food stand or bathroom.

[Murph]

I usually look for a food stand or bathroom.
Does this comment mean you are not interested in handicapping turf sprints?

[Baron Star Gregg]

Fastest closing fraction at the distance.

[Lose The Juice]

Freud.

[thaskalos]

Don't look at the horse, look at the trainer stats for turf sprints. Take top 3 trainers and look for best value or just dutch them....

Who does the running...the TRAINER, or the HORSE? :confused:

[Lose The Juice]

Who enters the horse in the race?

[thaskalos]

Who enters the horse in the race?

Ten trainers enter their horses in the race...and only one wins. If the other nine trainers were that smart...wouldn't they find a better spot for their horses?

[Lose The Juice]

Ever hear of Mack Miller? I suspect not.

[thaskalos]

Which one...the rapper...or the cross-country skier?

[dansan]

Speed and nothing but speed its a sprint!

[Lose The Juice]

The author of Catcher In The Ryegrass. :eek:

[cj]

The Belmont sprints are unique at 6f with wide sweeping turns. You have to monitor how fast the course is playing. General rules are fine, but they get you in trouble more often than not. Rails and run up also vary the course quite a bit.

[letswastemoney]

It's my worst kind of race to handicap.

Sounds lazy, but I usually just skip the turf sprints and look for something that suits my eye better.

[Lose The Juice]

Wesley Ward.

[JustRalph]

Don't think they are the same

I can't remember the distances Belmont runs, but horses that win at 5f are completely different than 5.5's and 6f horses are completely different from the 5 and 5.5's

[EasyGoer89]

Who does the running...the TRAINER, or the HORSE? :confused:

Shhhh.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

1. Turf breeding is important. Once.

2. Horses can usually last longer on the grass than the dirt.

3. Fast horses on the dirt are usually running a more stressful pace than turf sprinters. More often a fast dirt horse switching to the turf is safe to bet. Sprints are too short for turf breeding to be a big factor, and besides great turf horses usually do the "slow early, fast late" and a sprint may not give them the best chance to show their best pace/style.

4. Speed and pace are important no mater what the surface.

5. Especially at BEL and SAR, depending on rain and watering and the depth of the grass, the track can favor a particular style.

6. Class in turf racing is a critical factor no matter what the distance.

[ReplayRandall]

Who does the running...the TRAINER, or the HORSE? :confused:
:lol: It's obvious you don't know your way around turf sprint races.....To make your bankroll last longer, pour molasses on what's left of it, it'll burn slower..:faint:

[thaskalos]

:lol: It's obvious you don't know your way around turf sprint races.....To make your bankroll last longer, pour molasses on what's left of it, it'll burn slower..:faint:

Judging by your latest handicapping exhibition here...perhaps you should be more concerned about your OWN bankroll. :rip:

[ReplayRandall]

Judging by your latest handicapping exhibition here...perhaps you should be more concerned about your OWN bankroll. :rip:
Sometimes, it's better to cease trying to beat a dead proposition(AQU-Main), with ever shrinking small fields and wait for better opportunities at Belmont. An 18 unit loss isn't much, but a 60 unit loss would tend to piss me off a bit. I believe there's someone currently posting daily picks and is -64 units as we speak. I wonder if that person feels the aggravation yet, or doesn't make real bets and is just making monopoly money wagers......Glad to have you as a friend Gus, it's entertaining throwing crap back and forth with you......:ThmbUp:

[plainolebill]

At Santa Anita a good rider is pretty important, especially in larger fields.

[Murph]

The Belmont sprints are unique at 6f with wide sweeping turns. You have to monitor how fast the course is playing. General rules are fine, but they get you in trouble more often than not. Rails and run up also vary the course quite a bit.In general, for NYRA turf sprints, do EP types show any advantage or maintain a fair win % by your records? I can only deal with minutiae on a race by race basis.

[classhandicapper]

Does this comment mean you are not interested in handicapping turf sprints?

I'm not interested in betting them.

I'm sure if I made a huge effort to understand them better, I would slowly accumulate insights and get better at them. But as of now I don't think I have any special insights that would allow me to confidently conclude I have good value on some horse I like. I look at all the stakes level turf sprints and they usually baffle me.

[pandy]

In general, for NYRA turf sprints, do EP types show any advantage or maintain a fair win % by your records? I can only deal with minutiae on a race by race basis.


EP does very well in turf sprints in general, so it's still important even though turf is more tiring than dirt. It is definitely a viable handicapping tool in Belmont turf sprints.

My general feeling regarding the Belmont turf sprints, they are tougher to handicap than dirt sprints. Consequently, I usually only bet a Belmont turf sprint when I feel I'm getting exceptional value, usually a longshot that has a solid chance. These are not good races for betting favorites, or any horse below double digit odds. EP, turf pedigrees, turf speed figures, and trainer proficiency on the turf are all useful tools in these races.

I've had a few big scores in turf sprints at Belmont so I can't knock them, even though they can be quite puzzling, but to me they are mainly a vehicle for just that type of bet, the bombs away longshot.

[Lose The Juice]

Mike SantaMaria pickups and John Barchi claims. :p

[Elliott Sidewater]

Horses who have shipped to today's track from a track that does not have a turf course, specifically for today's race. if they bring the out of town jockey along, so much the better.

I just read pandy's reply and it's excellent advice.

[Lose The Juice]

Anything out of the dam To Marquet, and to a lesser extent, most Generazio horses, period.

[cj]

In general, for NYRA turf sprints, do EP types show any advantage or maintain a fair win % by your records? I can only deal with minutiae on a race by race basis.

At Belmont on the inner, horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 25% of the time. A Horse in the top three early wins about 54% of the races. On the outer, it is 24% and 57%.

At Saratoga horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 27% of the time. A horse in the top 3 wins 53% of the races.

[Murph]

EP does very well in turf sprints in general, so it's still important even though turf is more tiring than dirt. It is definitely a viable handicapping tool in Belmont turf sprints.

My general feeling regarding the Belmont turf sprints, they are tougher to handicap than dirt sprints. Consequently, I usually only bet a Belmont turf sprint when I feel I'm getting exceptional value, usually a longshot that has a solid chance. These are not good races for betting favorites, or any horse below double digit odds. EP, turf pedigrees, turf speed figures, and trainer proficiency on the turf are all useful tools in these races.

I've had a few big scores in turf sprints at Belmont so I can't knock them, even though they can be quite puzzling, but to me they are mainly a vehicle for just that type of bet, the bombs away longshot.

Excellent info, thank you. Both pieces will help me with projection ratings I am new to using but beginning to really enjoy.

At Belmont on the inner, horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 25% of the time. A Horse in the top three early wins about 54% of the races. On the outer, it is 24% and 57%.

At Saratoga horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 27% of the time. A horse in the top 3 wins 53% of the races.You see, I had perceived SAR as having a less speed favoring turf surface than Belmont, not equal or more! Very interesting. I won't have a current data set until they both run next meeting.

[Cratos]

With Belmont opening their meet on Friday, April 28, it is time for an influx of turf sprints!

I first look at trainer and jockey stats to see how they have done in the past with turf sprints. Then I look if the horse has any turf sprint experience.

One of my favorite angles are turf routers who try a turf sprint for the first time. They seem to run well a majority of the time (Remember Bobby's Kitten?)

Belmont’s Inner Turf Course for 6F have about 2/3 or 64% of its 6F race distance in the straight-a-away compared to its Widener Turf Course being slightly less at 60%.

However, both courses have long runs to the turn from the start in the 6F sprint race with the Inner Turf Course run to the turn being over ¼ mile or nearly 1.452 feet; the Widener Turf Course run from the start to the turn is about 1-3/4 furlongs or nearly 1,160 feet, but it has a slightly more liberal turning radius than the Inner Turf Course.

The turning radii of both courses are the Inner Turf Course at 450 feet and the Widener Turf Course at 543 feet.

[reckless]

At Belmont on the inner, horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 25% of the time. A Horse in the top three early wins about 54% of the races. On the outer, it is 24% and 57%.

At Saratoga horses that lead early (after opening quarter) win 27% of the time. A horse in the top 3 wins 53% of the races.

Thank you, cj. Very good information.

[reckless]

Belmont’s Inner Turf Course for 6F have about 2/3 or 64% of its 6F race distance in the straight-a-away compared to its Widener Turf Course being slightly less at 60%.

However, both courses have long runs to the turn from the start in the 6F sprint race with the Inner Turf Course run to the turn being over ¼ mile or nearly 1.452 feet; the Widener Turf Course run from the start to the turn is about 1-3/4 furlongs or nearly 1,160 feet, but it has a slightly more liberal turning radius than the Inner Turf Course.

The turning radii of both courses are the Inner Turf Course at 450 feet and the Widener Turf Course at 543 feet.

Thank you, Cratos. Very good information.

[JohnGalt1]

I first determine class/ability.

Second is form/condition. Either a recent race or good workouts, the final workout within 14 days.

Third, speed. I use the fastest turf sprint in the pp's. If possible I do not use SA's 6 1/2 for other tracks, or other track's sprint races when going to SA.

How many 5f and 5.5 f monster sprinters couldn't handle the Breeder's cups at SA?

[Tom]

Who does the running...the TRAINER, or the HORSE? :confused:

Right question, wrong adverb.

[Lose The Juice]

ADVERB?

But, yeah, what possible significance might a mere trainer have? :eek:

[rsetup]

Thank you, Cratos. Very good information.

How? Why?

[NorCalGreg]

Fastest closing fraction at the distance.

Serious? ....in a turf sprint?

[AndyC]

Serious? ....in a turf sprint?

Why not? If 54 or 57% of horses running 1-2-3 at first call win, then it also means that 46 or 43% of those who aren't also win. It just may be that fastest finishers provide a higher ROI than those with the best speed. I am not saying they do or don't but I am sure not going to decrease the universe of bettable horses because of a stat.

[jay68802]

1. Breeding for turf, in sprints, turf breeding is not as important of a factor than it is in routes, but is a factor.

2. Pace figure combined with final fraction ability.

3. Running style match up.

4. Jockey

5. Trainer

[jay68802]

Lets have some fun today, Race #5 at Gulfstream.

[classhandicapper]

Why not? If 54 or 57% of horses running 1-2-3 at first call win, then it also means that 46 or 43% of those who aren't also win. It just may be that fastest finishers provide a higher ROI than those with the best speed. I am not saying they do or don't but I am sure not going to decrease the universe of bettable horses because of a stat.

I keep pre race and post race profiles by distance and surface for the major tracks around the country. The very short turf sprints (less than 6F) tend to have more early speed in them than other races, but the race developments (based on top 3 finishers) are still more speed favoring than the typical race.

Like you said, that does not mean you can't win closing, but even when there's a lot of speed in the race your chances of closing are better at longer distances. To fall apart relative to the norm, those races have to be extra loaded with speed.

[AndyC]

I keep pre race and post race profiles by distance and surface for the major tracks around the country. The very short turf sprints (less than 6F) tend to have more early speed in them than other races, but the race developments (based on top 3 finishers) are still more speed favoring than the typical race.

Like you said, that does not mean you can't win closing, but even when there's a lot of speed in the race your chances of closing are better at longer distances. To fall apart relative to the norm, those races have to be extra loaded with speed.

I get all that but if all of the speed is overbet based on statistical profiles I would be a fool not to bet closers.

[jay68802]

Race #5 Gulfstream Park

#1 Hidden Mystery: First time starter, Bred well for both the turf and distance. Trainer is solid, jockey wins 13% on the turf. Shows two nice work outs, but see a 13 day gap between his last two works.

#2 Mare Irish Dancer: Has failed 6 times at MSW, probable pace of this race says that she would have to improve. Trainer is not that good, either is the jockey. Does have 1 speed figure that would win, but that was at a different track, distance, and with another trainer. Declining speed figures, not inspiring.

#3 Little Christina: Breeding is solid, so is the trainer and jockey. Contested a strong pace and finished well in first try on the turf. Speed figure was earned and is highest in the field. Back in 14 days, can be a good sign but might regress.

#4 Giant Mongolian: Trainer angle to play here and a solid jockey. Breeding is on the turf side, but the distance might be a little short. Solid work out after first race is nice to see. May be closer to the pace or on the pace here.

#5 Mercurial Miss: Failed against MC in last race, poor breeding, trainer and jockey. Will be part of the pace, but the pace of this race will be to fast.

#6 Twotimingdancer: Like the #2, has failed at MSW to many times. Trainer and jockey are ok. Has the highest speed figure at the distance and a improving speed figure pattern. Has ran well with the likely pace and has been able to finish well also.

#7 Charming Hostest: Will add to the pace. Coming out of longer races might hold on for third. not much else good to say about this horse.

I see the 5 and 7 on the early lead, with the 2,3, and 4 pressing, followed by the 1 and 6. With the 3 as the favorite and a chance of a declining speed figure, i would play the 6 on top at 5/2 or higher and use the 4 also.

[NorCalGreg]

Why not? If 54 or 57% of horses running 1-2-3 at first call win, then it also means that 46 or 43% of those who aren't also win. It just may be that fastest finishers provide a higher ROI than those with the best speed. I am not saying they do or don't but I am sure not going to decrease the universe of bettable horses because of a stat.

The question is "what do you look for in turf sprints"?

BSG's single response was "Fastest closing fraction"...which I thought was interesting since early speed rules everything in racing. Maybe he had more info to add, other than "I don't know if they do or they don't".

I don't either....that's why I asked.

[classhandicapper]

I get all that but if all of the speed is overbet based on statistical profiles I would be a fool not to bet closers.

No doubt.

It's an interesting dilemma at times. Typically I begin searching for things correlated with picking more winners but sometimes those things are over bet.

[JohnGalt1]

Lets have some fun today, Race #5 at Gulfstream.


I handicapped the 5th today.

The 6 has a 99 88/187 TPR. I will play 20/40 wp at 5-2 or higher.

The 3 has a 101 86/187 TPR, but lost ground in last race.

The third fastest horse is the 3 with a 181 TPR, but is off a lay off.

[whodoyoulike]

Whether it's a sprint or route, I always consider the running styles.

How many for each and where the contenders will be at the half and top of the stretch. But, the other points of call are also important but secondary because it determines the race shape for me.

For turf sprints, I expect it to usually be a fast final time so a consideration is the race's contentiousness especially from the top of the stretch, the horse's stamina and whether it will fade.

[cj]

Here is a chart I made for the common distances at Belmont, all three courses, showing the percentage of leaders after the opening 1/4 mile that win, and the percentage of race where the winner was 1-2-3 after a 1/4 mile.

[cj]

Think I mixed up outer and inner turf labels! :bang:

[whodoyoulike]

Interesting.

Do you compile similar for the other two following points of call?

[cj]

Interesting.

Do you compile similar for the other two following points of call?

I can, I'll start with Belmont in the morning.

[Cratos]

How? Why?

You asked in your response: “How? Why?” and that is a good inquiry because horse race handicapping is primary about the “conditional” not the “random” probability of winning.

Yes, taken together you can calculate simple random percentages, but they will invariably lead you to the “poorhouse” because each race is an independent event made up many times with different contesting horses.

Therefore, in analyzing the race which is the “How” in your response, the handicapper would want to know “How” will his/her horse run in today’s race and that comes from an evaluation of such measurable factors as turn size, %race in turn, distance to turn, environmental conditions, and their effect on the horse’s ability to perform; and that is the “Why” in your response.

We both know and understanding that wagering on horse racing is essentially a zero-sum game and to win we need to know and understand something about the race that many of the other bettors have overlooked

[AndyC]

The question is "what do you look for in turf sprints"?

BSG's single response was "Fastest closing fraction"...which I thought was interesting since early speed rules everything in racing. Maybe he had more info to add, other than "I don't know if they do or they don't".

I don't either....that's why I asked.

When I played I kept records of every turf course in the US. What I would look at for one track might differ from I look for at another another track. So by asking a generic question would you expect a specific answer? Fastest closing fraction is a powerful indicator and shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

[NorCalGreg]

When I played I kept records of every turf course in the US. What I would look at for one track might differ from I look for at another another track. So by asking a generic question would you expect a specific answer? Fastest closing fraction is a powerful indicator and shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

damn.....you are one irritating poster

Summarily dismiss THIS

[ReplayRandall]

damn.....you are one irritating poster

Summarily dismiss THIS
You just figured this out??..:pound::rant::pound:

[NorCalGreg]

You just figured this out??..:pound::rant::pound:

LOL...I'm unable to respond because I got a warning for my previous post....which isn't as bad as the full-blown demerit. I can't afford to get banned.

I need another dollar played so I could get the $25 freebie at Horse Tourney....so I played in the $2 beginner game---and LOST!

But I did get the $25 credit 💉

I really don't play turf races....but do know speed is boss...that's why BSG's response was a little surprising. Especially turf sprints

[CincyHorseplayer]

After having much of the attitude of dread toward turf sprints as many of you share much to my surprise the last few years I have learned that handicapping them like turf routes the same basic skill sets win. Don't be put off by the distances. You don't want a horse stranded by his running style nor a frontrunner who is not at least a top 3 closer. I too think Belmont's turf sprints are unique and frustrate me many times. But places like Gulfstream and Keeneland in 5 and 5.5 sprints have proved consistently bettor friendly. My opinion of course.

[cj]

Image fixed here.

[Lose The Juice]

Anything out of the dam To Marquet, and to a lesser extent, most Generazio horses, period.

Disco Partner just blasted home in 34.31 to win his seasonal, 7f on turf, first start for Clement, 5 wide around the field.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Disco Partner just blasted home in 34.31 to win his seasonal, 7f on turf, first start for Clement, 5 wide around the field.

Dude that was impressive! I am rarely wowed. That was bigtime!

[ultracapper]

1. Turf breeding is important. Once.

2. Horses can usually last longer on the grass than the dirt.

3. Fast horses on the dirt are usually running a more stressful pace than turf sprinters. More often a fast dirt horse switching to the turf is safe to bet. Sprints are too short for turf breeding to be a big factor, and besides great turf horses usually do the "slow early, fast late" and a sprint may not give them the best chance to show their best pace/style.

4. Speed and pace are important no mater what the surface.

5. Especially at BEL and SAR, depending on rain and watering and the depth of the grass, the track can favor a particular style.

6. Class in turf racing is a critical factor no matter what the distance.

Absolutely. The absolute first place to start when handicapping any turf race.

[Lose The Juice]

So turf firsters never win, right?

Chad Brown and Christophe Clement (among untold others) would be amused to learn of this factoid.

"Class," meanwhile, is a rather nebulous concept, to put it mildly.

[ultracapper]

So turf firsters never win, right?

Chad Brown and Christophe Clement (among untold others) would be amused to learn of this factoid.

"Class," meanwhile, is a rather nebulous concept, to put it mildly.

Oh gosh, you got me, darn. I'm sure Clement and Brown would be stunned into orbit if they heard there are exceptions to every rule.

Great post bud. You're just piling them up like firewood.


Everybody, FTS win, so therefore throw out every handicapping rule you've ever learned. Lose the Juice has spoken.

[ultracapper]

So, Lose the Juice, where should we start? And remember, there better not be any exceptions to the rule.

[Lose The Juice]

Perhaps you can share some insights along the lines of "bet horses that is GOOD, and don't bet horse'S that is bad!"

That seems to sum it up succinctly, right?

[whodoyoulike]

So turf firsters never win, right?

Chad Brown and Christophe Clement (among untold others) would be amused to learn of this factoid.

"Class," meanwhile, is a rather nebulous concept, to put it mildly.

Hopefully, you should be able to know it when you see it.

[ultracapper]

Perhaps you can share some insights along the lines of "bet horses that is GOOD, and don't bet horse'S that is bad!"

That seems to sum it up succinctly, right?

And we're all certain you can succinctly explain how you determine which horse is Good, and which horse is Bad.

[Lose The Juice]

First of all, who is this "we?"

Secondly, the post you purported to address was pointedly sarcastic, a fact that flew way over your head.

Finally, if you will read up in the thread, you will see that I have given rather specific details about betting turf sprints, none having anything to do with "class", however you might define that in the racing context. :bang:

Was Monzante an auto-bet in low claimers because he'd once won a G1?

"Class" in an MSW or a NW1.... what? Yearling prices? :rolleyes:

[Baron Star Gregg]

LOL...I'm unable to respond because I got a warning for my previous post....which isn't as bad as the full-blown demerit. I can't afford to get banned.

I need another dollar played so I could get the $25 freebie at Horse Tourney....so I played in the $2 beginner game---and LOST!

But I did get the $25 credit 💉

I really don't play turf races....but do know speed is boss...that's why BSG's response was a little surprising. Especially turf sprints

First let me say that I do not normally play New York tracks. With that out of the way I'll say that I had nothing but problems with turf sprints playing pedigree, class, race shape, trainer angles etc. until I remembered a conversation I had with our trainer when he talked about a patient ride being just as important short as it is long on the grass. I was surprised too. I have since achieved a comfortable level of success with turf sprints by examining the final fraction under similar conditions with all of the usual caveats. It's worth the time to look into it.

[kingfin66]

With Belmont opening their meet on Friday, April 28, it is time for an influx of turf sprints!

I first look at trainer and jockey stats to see how they have done in the past with turf sprints. Then I look if the horse has any turf sprint experience.

One of my favorite angles are turf routers who try a turf sprint for the first time. They seem to run well a majority of the time (Remember Bobby's Kitten?)

I an not sure if you are referring to Belmont turf sprints specifically or turf sprints in general. The structure of Belmont turf sprints are very different from every other track since you see them on the turf course and inner turf course and at 6 furlongs and 7 furlongs.

I don't think that you can generalize how to handicap turf sprints in general as some here have done. They all play differently and are subject to track biases.

Here is an example. I looked at 5f turf sprints at Tampa for the 5/1/16 - 4/30/17. The predominant factor in the information that I looked at (Betmix Angler) shows that 50 % of all turf sprints are won by horses ranked first in turf earnings (11/22 with a 1.91 ROI). This sparked my curiosity so I looked at the previous year as well and the result held in that turf earnings were the best factor (16/34 with a 1.69 ROI).

At Gulfstream, 5 furlong turf sprints are run much more often. The top factor is best speed last 3 races, but the win % and ROI are much lower (83/310 with a 0.945 ROI).

Looking at all 5 furlong turf sprints for all tracks during the past month, the best factor is Avg. Speed Last 3 Races. The results for this factor are 21/56 with an ROI of 1.20.

This is interesting stuff and I love playing around with it. From the work you can develop various spot plays isolating in on track, distance, surface all the way down to class and age of the horses in the race.

[Lose The Juice]

At NYRA tracks over the last 5 years, regardless of the configuration of any particular oval, the workings of that elusive quality designated as "class" (n2x eligible Portmagee beat the stuffing out of turf sprint SW Fair Point in today's sprint stake, but I digress...), or the alignment of the planets, the facts are relatively straightforward.

Turf sprint wins, by trainer:

Clement 66
Rice 63
Chad 45

It's then down somewhat to Bruce Brown, at 36 (probably many if not most in NY-bred thingies), then to George Weaver at 29, Bill Mott at 26, Gary Contessa at 25, and Mike Maker at 24.

Clement and Chad Brown have notoriously high win percentages in these races; Rice and most of the others, less so.

[kingfin66]

At NYRA tracks over the last 5 years, regardless of the configuration of any particular oval, the workings of that elusive quality designated as "class" (n2x eligible Portmagee beat the stuffing out of turf sprint SW Fair Point in today's sprint stake, but I digress...), or the alignment of the planets, the facts are relatively straightforward.

Turf sprint wins, by trainer:

Clement 66
Rice 63
Chad 45

It's then down somewhat to Bruce Brown, at 36 (probably many if not most in NY-bred thingies), then to George Weaver at 29, Bill Mott at 26, Gary Contessa at 25, and Mike Maker at 24.

Clement and Chad Brown have notoriously high win percentages in these races; Rice and most of the others, less so.

My numbers aren't quite the same as yours in terms of wins (they are close), but what you say is true. I have Clement at 55 wins with a robust 23.8 % win percentage and 1.127 ROI. Although he is good in turf sprints, he is really strong at Saratoga with a 26.2 win percent and 1.339 ROI.

Good stuff Lose the Juice!

[ReplayRandall]

Don't look at the horse, look at the trainer stats for turf sprints. Take top 3 trainers and look for best value or just dutch them....

At NYRA tracks over the last 5 years, regardless of the configuration of any particular oval, the workings of that elusive quality designated as "class" (n2x eligible Portmagee beat the stuffing out of turf sprint SW Fair Point in today's sprint stake, but I digress...), or the alignment of the planets, the facts are relatively straightforward.

Turf sprint wins, by trainer:

Clement 66
Rice 63
Chad 45

It's then down somewhat to Bruce Brown, at 36 (probably many if not most in NY-bred thingies), then to George Weaver at 29, Bill Mott at 26, Gary Contessa at 25, and Mike Maker at 24.

Clement and Chad Brown have notoriously high win percentages in these races; Rice and most of the others, less so.
Since I knew someone would validate what I stated, way back in post #3, I don't really have anything to add....

[cj]

Last two years, turf sprints, NYRA circuit

Chad Brown, 86 starts, 17 wins, 20%, $1.35 ROI per $2

(26%, $1.82 ROI for all NYRA starters last two years)

Linda Rice, 141 starts, 23 wins, 16%, $1.49 ROI

(23%, $1.82 ROI overall)

Christophe Clement, 123 starts, 31 wins, 25%, $2.52 ROI

(19%, $1.69 ROI overall)

I think I'll pass on the first two.

[classhandicapper]

Last two years, turf sprints, NYRA circuit

Chad Brown, 86 starts, 17 wins, 20%, $1.35 ROI per $2

(26%, $1.82 ROI for all NYRA starters last two years)

Linda Rice, 141 starts, 23 wins, 16%, $1.49 ROI

(23%, $1.82 ROI overall)

Christophe Clement, 123 starts, 31 wins, 25%, $2.52 ROI

(19%, $1.69 ROI overall)

I think I'll pass on the first two.


There was a period where Linda Rice was deadly in those turf sprints. Its not unusual for a trainer to develop a reputation in some area and then subsequently get over bet when they stop winning at the same rate in those races. It often pays to be a contrarian.

[cj]

There was a period where Linda Rice was deadly in those turf sprints. Its not unusual for a trainer to develop a reputation in some area and then subsequently get over bet when they stop winning at the same rate in those races. It often pays to be a contrarian.

I remember it well. That was the inspiration in doing the research. I knew she wasn't doing nearly as well lately. Nothing is ever as simple as bet the best three trainers in this game.

[no breathalyzer]

I look for bs inaccurate times posted or discrepancies between trakus and the track clocker and decide which one is correct... seriously not even thru day two of work and 2 races not even remotely close to each other for the posted times

[kingfin66]

Last two years, turf sprints, NYRA circuit

Chad Brown, 86 starts, 17 wins, 20%, $1.35 ROI per $2

(26%, $1.82 ROI for all NYRA starters last two years)

Linda Rice, 141 starts, 23 wins, 16%, $1.49 ROI

(23%, $1.82 ROI overall)

Christophe Clement, 123 starts, 31 wins, 25%, $2.52 ROI

(19%, $1.69 ROI overall)

I think I'll pass on the first two.

I am curious as to why our numbers are so different. I will try to re-verify mine this evening if I have time. You picked up the 5.5 furlongs sprints at Saratoga, right? I am assuming so since you said the NYRA circuit.

[cj]

I look for bs inaccurate times posted or discrepancies between trakus and the track clocker and decide which one is correct... seriously not even thru day two of work and 2 races not even remotely close to each other for the posted times

Friday and Saturday had some pretty ridiculous times for the inner turf 6f races. Trakus is almost surely correct. Maybe there is some value to knowing this, but I know speed figure makers are going to figure it out pretty quickly so the numbers will be pretty accurate.

[jefftune]

Why not? If 54 or 57% of horses running 1-2-3 at first call win, then it also means that 46 or 43% of those who aren't also win. It just may be that fastest finishers provide a higher ROI than those with the best speed. I am not saying they do or don't but I am sure not going to decrease the universe of bettable horses because of a stat.

Fastest finishers on the turf is probably my favorite thoroughbred betting angle period. You come up with some nice longshot winners. Bettors love to play speed - when they zig you gotta zag.

[Cratos]

At NYRA tracks over the last 5 years, regardless of the configuration of any particular oval, the workings of that elusive quality designated as "class" (n2x eligible Portmagee beat the stuffing out of turf sprint SW Fair Point in today's sprint stake, but I digress...), or the alignment of the planets, the facts are relatively straightforward.

Turf sprint wins, by trainer:

Clement 66
Rice 63
Chad 45

It's then down somewhat to Bruce Brown, at 36 (probably many if not most in NY-bred thingies), then to George Weaver at 29, Bill Mott at 26, Gary Contessa at 25, and Mike Maker at 24.

Clement and Chad Brown have notoriously high win percentages in these races; Rice and most of the others, less so.

I don’t doubt the accuracy of your data, but I do have concern about its statistical significance. What you have presented is a RV about Chad Brown and Christophe Clement turf sprint race win impact at Belmont as an answer to the thread’s question: “What to look for in turf race sprints?”

Yes, trainers do have a causal relationship with the winning outcome of a turf sprint race at Belmont and probably at any other NA racetrack, but the calculation of that statistical significance is not just a RV.

To begin with, you probably want to determine sample size, but if you only have a small sample to a whole population, your sample size should at least be of a size that could meet the significance level, given the expected effects.

To do this, you would select a confidence level and this confidence level would describe the uncertainty of your sampling method.

There are a lot more applied statistical concepts needed here to arrive at a robust usable metric for wagering, but I will leave it here.

[cj]

I am curious as to why our numbers are so different. I will try to re-verify mine this evening if I have time. You picked up the 5.5 furlongs sprints at Saratoga, right? I am assuming so since you said the NYRA circuit.

I used Formulater with the following:

Surface: Turf
Distance: Sprints ( < 1 mile )
Track: Today's Circuit

I didn't check all the horses but I saw in the list some from AQU, BEL, and SAR.

EDIT

I just went back and checked. I did the last five years and included the same as the above. Even over that time Rice's results aren't very good.

422 starts, 62 wins, 15% wins, $1.55 ROI (per $2)

The main thing I see is that she gets over bet. It is even worse at Saratoga where she is 13 for her last 99 for a 1.36 ROI. Last three years she is 5 for 46 at Saratoga with a woeful 0.75 ROI.

[Lose The Juice]

Pretty funny that my first post on the thread, IIRC, was about turf *breeding* (Freud), yet some people are falling all over themselves to show that a flat-bet on all Linda Rice turf sprintnoids is something less than a great strategy, a point I made myself further up in the thread. Who in god's name flat-bets on any trainer? I didn't even do this with Bruce Johnstone when he had horses for Villa Blanca and his first umpteen firsters (one with front bandages, yet) won.


If the big boys show up with some marathon-bred, a cheapo by Noonmark or Maybry's Boy or some such, or a plodding cutback, you toss the horse. These are not difficult principles.

[Todaysracingdigest]

Lots of informative angles! Let's have a successful meet!

[ultracapper]

Who in God's name flat bets any ANGLE? But when I said class was a STARTING POINT, we went round in circles on that. May as well spin LRice for awhile.

[Lose The Juice]

And daughter of the (late?) Clyde Rice, pinhooker par excellence, and winner with umpteen unfashionably bred firsters, including Wood Native, who then almost beat Affirmed in his 2nd start.

[Maximillion]

She really appears to be struggling at Laurel.

[kingfin66]

Last two years, turf sprints, NYRA circuit

Chad Brown, 86 starts, 17 wins, 20%, $1.35 ROI per $2

(26%, $1.82 ROI for all NYRA starters last two years)

Linda Rice, 141 starts, 23 wins, 16%, $1.49 ROI

(23%, $1.82 ROI overall)

Christophe Clement, 123 starts, 31 wins, 25%, $2.52 ROI

(19%, $1.69 ROI overall)

I think I'll pass on the first two.

I double checked my numbers and came out much closer to yours than I did last night.

Clement, 134 starts, 34 wins, 25.4%, $2.52 ROI

At Saratoga I have him at 10/34 29.4% $3.02, or as I like to call it, way more than enough to bet him in this situation!

[thespaah]

With Belmont opening their meet on Friday, April 28, it is time for an influx of turf sprints!

I first look at trainer and jockey stats to see how they have done in the past with turf sprints. Then I look if the horse has any turf sprint experience.

One of my favorite angles are turf routers who try a turf sprint for the first time. They seem to run well a majority of the time (Remember Bobby's Kitten?)

I look for races where there are two or three speedballs.
Then toss those from the top and put those breaking from the outside that come from JUST off the pace on the top of my exotics. I have heard many trainers state this "speed is inside my horse so the rider can see what the speed is doing"...That HAS to mean something good. So I go with their expertise.
This angle works rather well.
One thing. If the turf course has not had any rain on it for several days, closers and stalkers are pretty much dead in the water. Speed kills on hard turf surfaces.

[Lose The Juice]

Disco Partner just blasted home in 34.31 to win his seasonal, 7f on turf, first start for Clement, 5 wide around the field.

1:05.67 track record coming back off that.

[Lose The Juice]

105:39 by Trakus, final quarter 21.87. Tripped out, but numbers still amazing.

[Robert Fischer]

I look to survive.

Hopefully can eliminate a 1/3 of the field.

I emphasize chalk more than I emphasize opinions, when weighting the wagers.

Once in while, I'll have some standout horses at a price, but the above scenario happens quite a bit when stringing together multis.