Question re claimed horses & subsequent higher speed ratings

[Bill Cullen]

Question: Has anyone had any success using speed ratings to measure a trainer's success with a newly accquired horse (whether through a claim or otherwise)?

I often notice that a horse which shows at least 10 past performances, and that has had a new trainer for it's last two or three races, if one of those races shows a higher speed rating than the races before the trainer obtained the horse, then this horse tends to do better in today's race than would be otherwise expected.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks,

Bill Cullen

[kenwoodallpromos]

I also have just noticed occasionally what you said, but usually after the race to see why the horse won.
Sometimes I also see better trips account for some Byers improvement, but your theory deserves a close look.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
I also have just noticed occasionally what you said, but usually after the race to see why the horse won.
Sometimes I also see better trips account for some Byers improvement, but your theory deserves a close look.

You know it could be the case that the improved Beyers with a new trainer are just a function of the trainer recognizing peaking form in a horse, but even so, he or she has taken the initiative to claim and/or accquire the horse.

Regardless of the reason, it's a testable proposition:

If a horse has at least ten races in its past performances AND has had a new trainer for its last two or three races AND the horse posted a higher Beyer in at least one of its last two or three races for its new trainer compared to the previous seven or eight races before the new trainer had the horse, then the horse meeting these conditions should win a disproportionate number of its races it's entered in. I would want to see a minimum sample of at least several hundred races with an impact value greater than 1.5. A good ROI goes without saying.

I think that having a new trainer with a good win percentage (at least 17%) would also be helpful. It might help to rule out trainers who just "luck in" getting a new horse without any original insight or beneficial training techniques on their part.

Bill C

[Tom]

The new trainer may have a new key ot the horse, allowing him to run back to previous numbers or even set new tops. Some things that could be done are worming the horse, fixing a tooth problem, minor surgery for breathing problems, al lthe way up to drugs, electrictiy, blood doping, etc. The new connections thought they could improve the horse, so higher figs are to be expected if they are correct.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Tom
The new trainer may have a new key ot the horse, allowing him to run back to previous numbers or even set new tops. Some things that could be done are worming the horse, fixing a tooth problem, minor surgery for breathing problems, al lthe way up to drugs, electrictiy, blood doping, etc. The new connections thought they could improve the horse, so higher figs are to be expected if they are correct.

Undoubtedly all you say is correct. The key question is: can the improvement aid us in our handicapping?

Bill C

[Tom]

Originally posted by Bill Cullen
Undoubtedly all you say is correct. The key question is: can the improvement aid us in our handicapping?

Bill C

If you look at a specific trainer and see what his horses do after a claim, you might be onto something. Do they run new tops, do they run to back figures, etc. Might be interesting to look at.

[Fastracehorse]

IMHO,

Talent at recognizing a sharp horse/Vet work/drugs - are my top 3 reasons why horses top out with the barn switch.

fffastt

[Valuist]

I've seen guys like Dutrow and Amoss add 10-15 pts improvement in the first race in their barn. Likewise I expect similar regression when a horse gets claimed away from them. I'm sure Mullins numbers are similar. Shuman at the 2003 GP meet was adding at least that much improvement. Better oats and water, I guess:rolleyes:

[chickenhead]

I like the negative aspect more than the positive....amazing how quickly a good horse falls apart....that first race off the claim to a crappy barn can be night and day....

have noticed Mullins rarely has too much improvement with maidens he claims...not sure why that is.

[Valuist]

Chickenhead-

Definitely. And the public still bets the horse like it was in the Dutrow/Amoss/Mullins barn, at least in their first race. Great go-against.

[Bill Cullen]

3rd at Delaware - #5
6th at Delaware - #4
9th at Delaware - #1

2nd at Mountaineer - #8
8th at Mountaineer - #2
10th at Mountaineer - #4

9th at Suffolk - #10
10th at Suffolk - #5

7th at Great Lakes - #4

[kenwoodallpromos]

Is that the only criteria in those picks? if so it may be about the right number.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
Is that the only criteria in those picks? if so it may be about the right number.

Yes, just the criteria I stated above.

Bill C

[chickenhead]

I guess what I am not too sure about your above method is, it seems to me that generally the lion's share of any improvement will show up in the first race, or possibly the second, for new trainer.

In your method you wait to see if a horse has run better two or three times for the new trainer, at which point the betting public will bet it based on it's last two or three races...I'm not sure you will find any value there.

Regarding first off the claim...thanks to DRF everyone can see that some of these trainers like Mitchell or Mulins in CA, 1st off the claim they are terrific, and these horses get bet down more or less accordingly, often bet down too much.

You can still catch some good prices if the horse really doesn't seem to figure...they can and do still win with them on that first big class jump off the claim where the horse looks totally outclassed. They don't win better than 30% by misplacing horses too often.

Perhaps a good place to look for value would be with the smaller trainers...when I see some small barn that is 2 of 5 for 40% off the claim...if I'm not familiar with them I don't know how solid that number is, did they catch a lucky break, or do they achieve 40% year in and year out with small numbers of horses....under the radar?

Maybe something to think about, maybe not.

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I guess what I am not too sure about your above method is, it seems to me that generally the lion's share of any improvement will show up in the first race, or possibly the second, for new trainer.

In your method you wait to see if a horse has run better two or three times for the new trainer, at which point the betting public will bet it based on it's last two or three races...I'm not sure you will find any value there.

Regarding first off the claim...thanks to DRF everyone can see that some of these trainers like Mitchell or Mulins in CA, 1st off the claim they are terrific, and these horses get bet down more or less accordingly, often bet down too much.

You can still catch some good prices if the horse really doesn't seem to figure...they can and do still win with them on that first big class jump off the claim where the horse looks totally outclassed. They don't win better than 30% by misplacing horses too often.

Perhaps a good place to look for value would be with the smaller trainers...when I see some small barn that is 2 of 5 for 40% off the claim...if I'm not familiar with them I don't know how solid that number is, did they catch a lucky break, or do they achieve 40% year in and year out with small numbers of horses....under the radar?

Maybe something to think about, maybe not.

You bring up some good points.

Personally, I'd like to see just one Beyer that's better than the previous nine, but not so much that nothing's left on the table.

I consider it a good sign when a horse claimed out of a race scores a new high Beyer compared to the horse's previous ten Beyers. The horse is making his new trainer look smart. Then again, I would not be so pleased to see a new lifetime high made either.

Bill C

[Fastracehorse]

Be careful with the Beyer fig though.

The printed # in the form often does not reflect the horse's true ability. Actually, one has to adjust for a host of reasons.

I would look at the win as a crucial factor too.

Afterall, winning is the bottom-line. And it's not difficult to believe that a winning horse off of the claim, did win with the utmost of ease - but registered a modest Beyer.

And the aforementioned types may pounce again at a decent mutuel.

GL,

fffastt

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Be careful with the Beyer fig though.

The printed # in the form often does not reflect the horse's true ability. Actually, one has to adjust for a host of reasons.

I would look at the win as a crucial factor too.

Afterall, winning is the bottom-line. And it's not difficult to believe that a winning horse off of the claim, did win with the utmost of ease - but registered a modest Beyer.

And the aforementioned types may pounce again at a decent mutuel.

GL,

fffastt

I agree with everything you said. The win is the thing after all from the trainer's perspective.

Bill C

[Derek2U]

Good point & I agree ~~98%.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I really just looked at your 3 winners, but most of your entries were midlevel odds who ran with the pack and held position. Maybe they need a race or 2.
The winners seemed to be 7 to 9f, inheriting the lead from tiring horses; I assume they are consistently ITM.

[Bill Cullen]

3rd at Saratoga - #1A, #4

1st at Suffolk - #4
10th at Suffolk - #8

9th at Arlington - #1

7th at Del Mar - #3

[andicap]

A number of trainers claim horses after reading The Sheets. In fact Jerry Brown and maybe Len Friedman have consulting businesses for this use and Friedman and Ragozin used to (maybe they still do) claim horses based on their methodology looking for "forging" horses who had excellent going forward lines.

I agree with CH that two or three races after a trainer claims a horse is too late -- unless the trainer needed more time with the horse. SOme trainers also don't crack down on a claimed animal until the 2nd or 3rd time. OR an excellent claiming trainer could have had bad luck in the horse's first race or the horse threw in a random bad race. (I LOVE betting horses with otherwise good credentials off of bad races.)

[Bill Cullen]

Originally posted by andicap
I agree with CH that two or three races after a trainer claims a horse is too late -- unless the trainer needed more time with the horse. SOme trainers also don't crack down on a claimed animal until the 2nd or 3rd time. OR an excellent claiming trainer could have had bad luck in the horse's first race or the horse threw in a random bad race. (I LOVE betting horses with otherwise good credentials off of bad races.)

Every situation is different. Sometimes it's too late, sometimes it isn't. The important thing is to get in the habit of looking at these kinds of horses and judge them within their own context.

Bill C

[Valuist]

I try to separate trainers who I think are just plain good, and those that could be tinkering with "extra help". If a horse gets claimed off a good horseman, I don't think the horse will go south right away. Claim off one of the magic men, and the form deteriorates almost immediately.

[chickenhead]

some good examples from Del Mar today.

in the 1st, the 5 horse Jazz Ya.

Goes from Juan Garcia to Mullins...
1st race runs back to career high beyer at 23-1, runs 3rd.
2nd race wins at 9.40-1 with Beyer improvement of 16 points to 83.
3rd race runs 84 beyer wins at 4.30-1.

Interestingly, did he run so much better because of some magic juice, or because Mullins was smart enough to move him onto the Turf?

in the 4th, the 6 horse Fair Millielillie

Goes from Lage to Oneill....
1st race breaks from 11 hole going 5.5 on the turf, runs a low 39 beyer for 9th place at 9.30-1.
2nd race wins with lifetime beyer improvement of 33 points (82), pays 44.90-1.
3rd race runs second by 1 length with beyer of 82 at 23.90-1.


yup, I'd say you can find some good odds with careful selection methods. I think andi hit the nail on the head too, find a good reason why the horse didn't improve in that first or second race, and you can hit some real nice scores.

[Bill Cullen]

1st at Monmouth - #6

5th at Monmouth - #5

2nd at Arlington - #2

8th at Arlington - #3

5th at Pimlico - #7

[fmhealth]

Valuist, your point is especially well taken with Tom Amoss. When he uses RAZO, 1st off a claim they've been hitting at about a 63% win rate recently.

Last week, I believe it was Thursday. First off claim with Razo. Seven horse field. Wins & pays $6-7.00 with a per. coming back at $140.00. Saturday, virtually the same set of circumstances, they run 3rd. It's been a very profitable angle this meet.