Going with the "No Works" angle

[Rob_in_MN]

I regularly play the cheaper claiming tracks - Penn, CT, DED, EVD and HOO. Lately I've seen quite a few horses coming in with no posted works. Delta this Wed. is a good example.

My obvious inclinations are to examine the trainer's overall performance with maidens and realize that the trainer most likely has indeed worked the horse in a private session.

I have had great success with the 1 work angle. Usually I find that if a MSW has a single work that is above average for his class pars the trainer intention is the horse is ready to roll. The angle works very well at CT in particular.

But...any thoughts from the board on straight maidens posting no works?

[ratpack]

I guess it is a state by state factor because I know in Calif you must have 3 official Published works before your horse can run in a Mdn race. I am not sure about layoff horse.

[andicap]

Do you keep class pars for workouts? I've never heard of that before. Or do you mean the works themselves are faster than the class pars for a race?

In NY, timing (how often, not how fast) and lengths of the works are most important. Sometimes the speed is a good sign but you've got to know trainer. Some work 'em fast, some work 'em slow.

A few can work them on farms away from the track but you've got to know who they are. Mostly, horses are showing several works in maidens or off layoffs and you hate to see long gaps in the works.

Before the Form started publishing 8 or 9 workouts trainers could give a horse a fast work ad then 4 or 5 slow ones to hide the fast bullets from the public.
Harder to do now.

[ratpack]

Remember 15 years ago, a horse must a have 3f blow-out 3 to 5 days before a race. Things sure have changed.

I do not keep these kind of records but I read about a method some time ago for those who access to charts and back PP and are willing to put in the work.

Check the PP of a horse that wins, then go back and note date and times of all the works before that win.

What that is suppose to tell you is a pattern of trainer intent. If you see a trainer working a horse at a fast 3F 3 days before a win, or a slow 5F before a win etc.

There may even be some yearly books out on your local circuit.

[Valuist]

Are you talking about strictly first time starters or any maidens?

[ratpack]

Are you talking about strictly first time starters or any maidens?

I believe it is FTS in Calif.

[JackS]

I agree with andicap. Spacing between recent works for FTS would be more important to me than the speed of works and often even the "bullets".
I suppose bullett works may be as effective or even more effective than a string of recently and closley interveled works, but doubt that they have the same value since bullett works are so obvious to everyone.
I have the feeling that the cheapest claimers are often not worked because of the inability of many of these horses to put together the equivilent of two races without the possibility of breaking down or using up any form they may be presently in. A very good sign with these horses is a recent work which at least indicates a degree of health and firmness and also a degree of confidence by the trainer.

[pmd62ndst]

Statistically Speaking:

Average Horse wins 12.2%.
Average Horse with no works in three months: 11.5%
Average Horse with at least one bullet in last three months: 15.8%
Average Horse with all bad workouts in last three months: 9.5%

Average Maiden wins 11.8%
Average Maiden with no works in three months: 10.3%
Average Maiden with at least one bullet in last three months: 15.9%
Average Maiden with all poor workouts in last three months: 7.6%

Average FTS wins 8.6%
Average FTS with no works in three months: 4.8%
Average FTS with at least one bullet in last three months: 13.8%
Average FTS with all poor workouts in last three months: 1.5%

- This study reviewed 808,692 entries over the past 23 months.
- One bullet in last three months required at least 10 others worked out that day. (1 out of 2 doesn't count)
- Bad Workout means coming in the bottom 10% of the workouts for a particular day with at least 10 others worked out that day.

To me, poor workouts are worse then no workouts.

PMD

[BillW]

PMD,

Does your data include the total population or just the horses that show works in the last 3 months?

[JackS]

PMD- Thanks for the stats. For me an acceptible workout would be one that finished in the top 50% for that day rather than one based on time.
Fast works are nice and must be considered.

[Rob_in_MN]

"Do you keep class pars for workouts? I've never heard of that before. Or do you mean the works themselves are faster than the class pars for a race?"

I chart workout performances for 3 distances for all maiden races on a day's card - 3f, 4f, and 5f. If I don't - I feel like I'm just really missing something. Keep in mind I'm usually playing MSW23k, Mdn10 or Md 5k races.

Generally speaking I'm able to tell that at CT any work under 49.1 going 4f is a quick drill for a MSW and that a 50.1 is relatively keen speed for a Mdn 10k. Not all that scientific in approach.

Penn is just as consistent even though they clock about 3/5th's of a seconds faster per 6f. Obviously there are the occassional head scratchers when a horse with no gate works who's gone 4f in 54.1/53.1/55 in his last 3 drills gets the lead and wires. The consistency of the 4f drills is usually the best indicator for me.

I appreciate all the insight from the board. I like the angle for charting specifically maiden races and then going back and looking at the PP's for the winner's worktab. It's also great to see the statistical angles.

[JackS]

Distinctions between no gate and bg, hg probably should be made. I've been using a flat 1sec. decrease in time for both. My preference would be breezing from the gate vs. handily from the gate since horses riden handily are being urged.
A tie breaker between the two would be bg.

[46zilzal]

Just because they are NOT published does NOT mean the animal is not being exercised regularly

[Steve 'StatMan']

Just because they are NOT published does NOT mean the animal is not being exercised regularly

Exactly! Horses can work elsewhere. Horses can be unintentionally misidentified (exercise rider doesn't know name, says wrong name, wrong name relayed from the 'gapper' to the clockers, wrong spelling of name entered into database), or are missed because so many horses are working out, and they don't have to wait for an available clocker.

I've heard of one instance where a workout was listed for a horse who had died a few days before the alleged workout. (The horse had died in a training accident at a private training track).

Often when a horse is missing the 'required' workout upon entry, the stewards may ask the trainer, who may recall the information, or at least will tell them a horse 'worked' in a time (real, estimated or imagined). The information is announced over the P.A. System (no help to off-track bettors where there is no sound) and maybe flashed on the T.V. screen once or twice if the bettors are lucky.

Didn't Seattle Slew slip in under the public's radar because the workouts were under a different name (Seattle Sue)? Let me know if I'm right or wrong on that point.

[JackS]

Historically pretty lax everywhere. The larger stables have their own training tracks off in the boondocks or at the ranch.
Calif. has tightened up in recent years but don't know how tight. Not sure if anything has changed for the rest of the country.
Until there is a revolution, we'll have to go with what we know and normally thats the printed info in the Form.

[Suff]

Just because they are NOT published does NOT mean the animal is not being exercised regularly

absolutely..and very common. Particuraly at smaller tracks with no serious clocker community. Exercise riders are supposed to report in, but many trainers specifically tell them not to.

Also.. Most tracks require ten (10) gate works to start a firster there. I know New York does. If You see a firster with two published 3 furlongs.. You can add in 10 gate works that frequently turn into unpublished works.

I know at NYRA the gate crew takes notes about each one so they are aware of any special requirements or situations that may come up when they race for the first or 2nd time. I'm sure every track is a little different , but without a doubt the Animal has seen the gate and the track alot more than the Form indicates

[toetoe]

Rob,
I'm with Andicap. Regularity is more crucial than raw times. I'll betcha the ones with bullets in last three months are overbet. So it seems we should demand @ least $20 horses to get ahead. So often the fast worker, if a claimer, is being advertised and may be over the top. As to the blowouts, the only trainer I know who used to be automatic with fast-blowout horses is Allen Jerkens. Even then, once the clockers missed a fast blowout, and the horse won.

[Storm Cadet]

Keep in mind that some horses NEVER show works...Dilligent Gambler NEVER works out...only does enough to stay fit through daily gallops because of his knee...wanna bet against a horse that shows NO WORKS??? Be my guest so I can finally get a decent price on my boy! ;)

[Light]

Posted By pmd62ndst

Average Horse wins 12.2%.
Average Horse with no works in three months: 11.5%
Average Horse with at least one bullet in last three months: 15.8%
Average Horse with all bad workouts in last three months: 9.5%

Average Maiden wins 11.8%
Average Maiden with no works in three months: 10.3%
Average Maiden with at least one bullet in last three months: 15.9%
Average Maiden with all poor workouts in last three months: 7.6%

Average FTS wins 8.6%
Average FTS with no works in three months: 4.8%
Average FTS with at least one bullet in last three months: 13.8%
Average FTS with all poor workouts in last three months: 1.5%



No offense,but the stats relating to a 3 month period are IMO totally useless. When I look at a FTS,I am basically going to pay attention to his last week or two of workouts. What he was and did 3 months ago most probabaly doesnt exist today and is irrelevant.

My personal experience is to bet any 1ster that either has a high percentage sire,grandsire or dam sire or a fast work. My definition of a FW is any distance 4f and up that is in the top 25% category.Purchase price and/or stud fee paid is my 3rd consideration.Trainer % w/1sters rounds out my analysis of FTS's.

[Tom]

There are a few "swimming pools" around FL that horses train in, but none of these are ever reported because they are off track. Knowing which trainers have access to these is a help for those gaps in works.

[Turfday]

Lots of good information and takes in this thread. I wanted to add something not brought up.

We all can surmise that there is an obvious flaw in depending on workouts ...be it workout times or even the spacing of workouts as empirical information.

I have a full-time clocker who works for me and has for many years. I can rely and depend on him as well as the users of the workout report we sell which provides his insights.

Workouts are only one small piece of the puzzle. There are too many ways a workout can get screwed up...a horse misidentified, a horse not timed, a horse not timed correctly. A big, heavy exercise boy, or a small, light exercise girl. A trainer wants four furlongs, the workout actually goes five....or three...because the rider screwed up. On occasion, a workout will get screwed up because of TROUBLE...because of traffic on the track in the morning, or a runoff horse, a horse that bolts, another horse drifting in. You name it. What if the head clocker is out sick for a week or two and a different clocker is doing the work?

And then there's the gallop out on the workout. Some handicappers like to watch the gallop out after a race and think it's important. Wouldn't it be the same for a workout? How much energy a horse has left after the workout with a good, strong gallop out?

Here's also something to consider, especially in the winter months. We've had steady rain in Southern California for about two weeks. Because of that, there have been a real paucity of workouts in this time period...just some hard to gauge works "around the dogs" in the middle of track. The rest of the horses are either walking or galloping.

This is immediately going to cause a gap in workouts for any given horse during this time frame. Four or five weeks from now, many horses will be entered and thus show a gap in activity. But in this case, it could simply been caused by bad weather. Will handicappers remember that? Or will they be suspicious that something is wrong? This happens all over the country in inclement weather.

At least in Southern California, there are some horses who you will rarely get a clue on from workouts. One example is winning trainer Doug O'Neill. Try figuring out the workout pattern on his horses.

Too many handicappers try to make workouts an OBJECTIVE piece of the handicapping puzzle and feel there is a real way to QUANTIFY them... e.g. workout times, number of furlongs worked, number of workouts, spacing of workouts.

I believe this is a somewhat foolhardy approach for the above reasons I cited. I like to look at workout patterns and then consider who the trainer is. Then I use something better than an objective analysis...it's called intuition.

[toetoe]

Hear, hear, Mr. Selvin. Or Turf, if I may be so bold.

[ElKabong]

I pay little to zero atention to published works. Maidens included. I just returned home from a farm in SE Dallas county watching horses work, something I do once as month or so. You'll never see the times posted anywhere even tho they clock every horse they wish to.

The owner sez he keeps most his horses there at the farm & when a work is required by Tx rules, he ships to the track for the purpose of getting one recorded. The times are bogus, they aren't worked very hard.

I just don't buy into workouts as a handicapping tool. Used to. Not anymore.

[Light]

We all know trainers work there horses out clandestinely occasionally. The movie Seabiscuit portrayed this as well. The question is what does the poor but suspicious handicapper do? IMO You cant be right about every workout situation .So unless you have insider information,all you can do is take things on face value and be right where you started at the begining of this thread. However,I'm sure the odds are in the favor of horses that show works vs.those that do not. Maybe the horse DOES have an ailment preventing him from working out. Not everything is a conspiracy.

[JackS]

My personal feeling is that workouts can be used as "qualifiers" with most horses at most class levels when returning from a layoff, but handicapping based only on actual races run.
An exception might be very high priced horses who routinly are rested for extended periods and are returning to their appropiate class level to race today. Layoffs and workouts with this type of high quality horse could be meaningless.
The other end of "high class" is "low class". Horses at the very cheapest levels should at a minimum, have a workout or two or three to even be considered as a possible bet after a layoff. This not only proves some degree of soundness but also shows a degree of trainer interest in that he at least ordered someone to prepare this horse for a return to racing.
Finally maiden FTS'ers- The same logic that applied to the cheapies can usually be applied here. Sometimes a first-time starter is the only logical bet that can be made due to the very poor level of horses with previous starts who are not apt to be competitive once again. The one exception could be the only ,or one of the two only horses returning from a layoff who have actually been working-out .In this case, times of works are not important but number of works are.
Nothing works all of the time, but everything works some of the time.
Some of the time at the right price may be good enough.

[pmd62ndst]

No offense,but the stats relating to a 3 month period are IMO totally useless.

I think that my statistical study has shown a >little< value? *laugh*

The one thing that stood out from my study is that bad workouts are worse then no published workouts. In poker terms, if you're bluffing, don't show your hand.

I set the 3 month cutoff because I didn't want to include workouts from a couple years ago and I had to set the cutoff at somepoint. I found the last workout to be more variable then the workouts in the three months previous to the race.

Also, my findings showed me that those with bullet workouts did tend to be overbet, especially first time starters.

Just food for thought.

PMD