Workouts

[Tom]

Looked at HOL workouts November 9th - every one was H handily.
Same day, Aqueduct, every one was B breezing.
:confused:

Do they tend to work harder on the Left Coast?

Are B and H the same thing, just called something different?
Anyone have any insights into works here and there?


Maybe they have to work faster there because they are three hours behind us?:D

[cj]

Bruno De Julio covered this in his book, but I forget what he said. I'll look it up later if noone beats me to it.

[46zilzal]

When you compare how horses are trainined around the world, you often see just how silly it is to use workouts as a major handicapping tool.

[RXB]

I appreciate tracks where the clockers actually differentiate between a breeze and a handy work. You'd be amazed at how much emphasis some people put on fast workouts, and if they're listed as H at tracks where B notations are given out frequently, a lot of times people will sucker onto the horse with the faster H workouts.

Case in point: the #8 horse at Crc in Saturday's last race. No good reason for that horse to be even money, but he had a couple of bullet H works, so the public loaded up.

[46zilzal]

So many people TRUST the clockers posted data as being CONSISTENT...when you go out there and sit with the clocker, you take ALL workouts with a BIG grain of salt

[Tom]

CJ - thanks, I'm reading that one now - should hit that part today or tomorrow!

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.clockerbob.com/chapter6.html
Laziness!

[BIG RED]

When you compare how horses are trainined around the world, you often see just how silly it is to use workouts as a major handicapping tool.

I don't use workouts as a single tool, but I do give horses more oomph in mdns races. I don't look at H or B or g or dogs or times or bullets. What I do use from the works is how long and how many prior to race. Just a tool, though.

[JackS]

A 48b/h is not the same as a 48bg/hg. I pay little attention works not from the gate. In the 48 sec example, I deduct 1 sec from a gate work thus the 48 becomes a 47 which differentiates and highlights it from the routine b/h.
My main track is CRC which is very slow comparative to most tracks so, your workouts at your main track may be below a standard 48.
I also note a prefference between hg and bg although I still use 1 second for both. Prefer the breezing work in case of ties.
The above is used in MSW/MCL only and personally I seldom pay any attention to times of works in older or experienced horses.

[rrbauer]

The preponderance of workouts in California are termed "handily". The preponderance of workouts at other major venues are termed "breezing". I think that it's better to get tuned in to what workout regimens individual trainers use and to the patterns of works that individual horses show and not put much into the clockers' "h" and "b" designations.

[JackS]

RR-Here in Florida both designations are used. Since (h) signifys a hand ride and the horse was being urged to run faster, the horse in the same race that ran a (b) in the same time should be preffered.

[midnight]

I'm more interested in the pattern of the horse's workouts, e.g. distance of each, days between, furlongs-per-day, etc., than I am the times.

[JackS]

mn-Everything is part of a puzzle. I look at those factors too.

[kenwoodallpromos]

A horse is a horse of course; but a racehorse is an individual.

[offtrack]

I will use works for horses with a racing record, as an indicator of trainer intent.

And bullet works at Saratoga are a big indicator, of course.

But works for unraced horses can surpressed, at the request of the trainer. So unless you are getting workout information from a private clocker you are not getting the entire picture for debut/unraced horses.

[JackS]

OT- As with many things in handicapping, we are left to make our own assumptions as to the worth of any information. Everything works sometimes and nothing works all the time. Playing into maiden races with lightly raced and FTS'ers, we are left to interpert workouts to the best of our ability. Other info is available such as jock/trainer stats, breeding etc. for those who wish to ignore workouts or to include wo's into other stats. .

[46zilzal]

I'm more interested in the pattern of the horse's workouts, e.g. distance of each, days between, furlongs-per-day, etc., than I am the times.
Bravo

[Zaf]

The only workouts that are important are the ones that are not published or the ones on a private farm :lol: :lol: :lol:

ZAFONIC

[speedking]

I'm more interested in the pattern of the horse's workouts, e.g. distance of each, days between, furlongs-per-day, etc., than I am the times.

I favor the same approach. Distance and days between. The exception for me is a horse with a quick time at Fair Hills or Payson Park, both rather slow surfaces. I do take a good look at these types. Love to see a horse ship into GP for a workout while training at Payson also.

speedking

[Perilous]

I wouldn't depend too much on the works, most aren't correct anyways.

You work horses all the time and don't publish them, you can tell how fast they are going by just being on them.
At Churchill for example, its dark when the track opens, they don't have lights at certain parts of the track..so they usually make up works when they don't see them.
Foggy days, all the works are made up..when you can't see 5 feet infront of you, you can't see the poles nor the horses.
Horses that don't have a name, will be clocked, but everything will be dismissed until they get a name(then if they get a name right before they run, works will be made up again).
If you have a horse that is really fast, and you can't slow it down..but don't want a bullet..you keep it in the 3 path off the rail..thus slowing your tme down by a few seconds.
Works as in distances will be wrong as well...for example you might have went ___ distance and the trainer said to only get ___ distance-which makes a difference because you don't know how far the horse actually worked.
Horse names, they just say a name...no one pays attention to if that is actually the horse.. It happens..you get a horse that had a bullet..horse gets claimed..and they can't run fast enough to beat the ambulance.
Thus, I wouldn't put much weight into works. Some trainers have the rider whipping and driving..others want the riders to keep their feet in the dash.

[JackS]

Just a question for those who do use works in maiden races (or any other time for that matter)- Does anyone incorporate a variant as a time adjustment?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Some SoCal and NY tracks' websites list average workout times for the day and distance so you could use that as a variant.

I like to know how the track was for a workout, but only adjust or really take note if the time is unusually slow or fast.

[TOOZ]

First timers with a decent work at today's distance or greater than today's distance. I will bet a horse who worked 6 in 1:14 going 5 1/2 today than the horse that works 3 in 35. I like the stamina angle.

[Rob_in_MN]

As somebody who only plays the minor league tracks, workouts play an important role in roughly a quarter of the races I handicap which are either
MSW, MCL or N2L/N3L. I would never feel prepared if I didn't take a close look at the chronological drills leading up to a race.

There are some great angles off of works in 'wheel backs' where a horse worked decently, showed speed in a race and stopped badly. If the horse shows an improved drill then that's certainly a factor I'll mark down and play - especially with added factors of blinkers moves or FTL.

I started using DRF's Formulator about 18 months ago which gives me the ability to sort works in-between races chronologically. I'm sure there are many similar applications on the market others can tout with similar features.

Having said all that though, I think the biggest non-factor in drills is the 3f drill. I'd much rather see two consistent 48.1's from the gate then a 34.3 3f drill. 3f drills really don't prove any indication of fitness.

[Zaf]

I am still sticking to my:

1) 3 very solid 5F works at a nearby farm (not reported to public)

2) that 59:2 5F W.O. missed by the clockers in the A.M.

:cool: :cool: :cool:

ZAFONIC

[GaryG]

If a maiden shows a sharply improved work and is adding blinkers today you can be pretty sure that blinkers were worn for the fast work. Handicappers Report (available now thru brisnet) is a useful tool at some tracks. It is not as good as it was in the days of Siegel and Selvin though.

[jotb]

Hello all:

It would be great to know when a horse works 5f in 59 who the rider was. Many times a jock is not aboard for the work instead you have a 135lb exercise rider.

It would be nice to know the exact time in the morning when the horse worked. Most of your quicker works come early morning and right after the first break. Track maintance plays a role here.

It would be helpful if we were informed if the horse worked in company with the names of the other horses especially if a 2yo firster was working against an older horse.

Another piece of info that would be useful to know is what the horse galloped out in.

Joe

[Skanoochies]

I have found one of the best tools over the years, for workouts, particularly maidens, is not how fast, but who with. For instance a 3yo maiden works a fastest of 50 for the distance on a certain day. Who else worked that day? Mostly 2 and three yo maidens? Another in the same race was 12th out of 60 on another day. But of the 48 slower than him, were there some speedy sprinter ,or allowance types? I have had some great hits using this method to compare works.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Somehow a bullet work- best of 4 or even 10 does not impress me!

[plainolebill]

I've made a few bets over the years strictly off of workout info but context is the important piece: 1:11 2/5 is an eye popping work for a mcl but pretty humdrum for a horse in Baffert's barn. I also look for patterns: Like Wildcat Heir, he ran a big race Aug 4th, comes back to work Aug 20th, then took a 6 week vacation. Not a good sign.

[cnollfan]

If a maiden shows a sharply improved work and is adding blinkers today you can be pretty sure that blinkers were worn for the fast work.


I agree. Blinkers on + gate work = strong intent. I use it in races for lower-level winners too, like N2L claiming.

Many years ago at AkSarBen, if the clocker thought the horse looked good in a workout he called it "handily." The rest were "breezing." It's not how anyone else used the words, but lots of longshot winners in Nebraska had "handily" workouts in those days.

[JackS]

When dealing with the cheapest of the cheap such as a very minor track and claimers 2-3k, the absolute givaway are the horses who have had a work since last raced, The work time is insignificant it's the work itself. Horses of this calibre often don't work because of their physical instabilities. The trainer would rather chance a breadown during a race (which is often a work in itself ), than losing the horse with a breakdown during a workout.
When playing at a track with the above circumstances, accept as contenders only those horses who have had a recent race or workout and you should be correct over 90% of the time.

[Tom]

Somehow a bullet work- best of 4 or even 10 does not impress me!

I was hoping to find some hidden works - say the best of the day was 46.1, then one had 46.2 and the third best was 47.4, something like that. After two weeks, I found a headache and not much more. Another one bites the dust.

[Fastracehorse]

CJ - thanks, I'm reading that one now - should hit that part today or tomorrow!

Always you are engaging in print.

I think you like a good book as much as a good bomb :D

fffastt

[kenwoodallpromos]

Here's a bullet 1 of 1 today at Pleasanton!

NIPSY'S CLASSIC (CA) 35.00 h 1/1

[vtbob]

First of all, you have to realize that when a workout has been rated as "Handily" or "Breezing" it’s really just someone’s opinion. You’ll find workouts over the same track and distance in which a Breezing workout was faster than one rated Handily - if you look hard enough.

How then, can you compare workouts? How does a workout rated H over 3 furlongs in 32.8 seconds compare with one rated B over 5 furlongs in 56.2 seconds? How much effect does starting from the gate have? What about running with Dogs up?

In order to help answer these questions, we launched a study of all the workouts listed in the past performance charts for more than 6000 races run during 2004. This gave us nearly 750,000 workout lines at many different tracks. Of course, since the past performances generally list the last ten or so workouts for each horse, a good percentage of the workouts you see in today’s charts will be repeated the next time the same horse runs. After eliminating these duplications we still had more than 310,000 individual workouts to analyze.

In order to analyze these workouts, we broke them down by distance and by the categories you generally see in the past performances: Breezing (B) or Handily (H), from the Gate (g), or around Dogs (d). Since track surfaces vary considerably in off-track conditions, we further restricted our analysis to fast tracks (ft). Next we found the fastest workout at each track, distance and category, and calculated the average of these "fastest" workouts for each distance and category.

Ignoring workouts from the gate or around dogs for the moment, we used the average of the fastest workouts at each distance to create models of workout time versus distance for workouts rated B and H. These models looked like this:

Time = Constant + C1 x F + C2 x F2 + C3 x F3



where F is the workout distance in furlongs and C1, C2, C3, and the Constant were calculated using third order regression analysis. Workout Ratings were established by comparing the actual workout times with the model, and biasing the result so that “very good’ workouts would score in the vicinity of 100Workouts starting from a gate were slower by 0.2 to nearly 1 second. However, since the time lost starting from a gate should be the same, regardless of distance worked, our model uses an average value, 0.678 seconds.

The effects of running with dogs up are more difficult to interpret. First of all, out of more than 311,000 workouts, there were less than 6,500 run with dogs up. Second, as you would expect, most of these were not run on fast tracks. Finally, dogs really cost a horse to lose time only when going around a turn, so individual track configurations come in to play. Our model includes a time loss of 0.5 seconds for workouts of 4f or less, and 1 second for longer workouts. However, we do not consider these numbers to be very reliable, and suggest that you ignore workouts run with dogs up, unless you are quite familiar with the track involved.

Finally, the vast majority of the workouts analyzed were run on fast (ft) tracks. As such, our model is based only on fast tracks. You should consider the ratings given to workouts on other than fast tracks suspect and ignore them unless you are quite familiar with the track involved.

The results of this analysis, a numerical "grade" for a specific workout, were incorporated into a PC program, "Workout Ratings," which is available at http://sports-bet-advantage.com.

[Loserdave]

I generally don't use workouts too much. I much prefer to base my opinion on what they actually do in races. I do like a maiden that works on a regular basis(say once a week for 6 weeks or more) before a first start or if there is a gap between starts. It doesn't always work, but it seems to be a better pattern than a horse who only has a few irregularly spaced workouts. I don't pay that much attention to times. I like a workout between races for a horse that was eased in his last race.

[FUGITIVE77]

I agree, I've ignored workouts for 23 years and have been successful, if you have ever seen the clockers in action(timing several at the same time) or listened to the trainers as they instruct the riders, then you know why. It is said that 50% of the posted workouts in my state of Illinois are incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out, end of story.

[46zilzal]

I agree, I've ignored workouts for 23 years and have been successful, if you have ever seen the clockers in action(timing several at the same time) or listened to the trainers as they instruct the riders, then you know why.
another enlightened one!

[andicap]

FThe results of this analysis, a numerical "grade" for a specific workout, were incorporated into a PC program, "Workout Ratings," which is available at http://sports-bet-advantage.com.

[/size]

PA,
I liked how slyly this guy worked in a free ad for his software program.

[JackS]

Fugitive-Success and failure can be counted in many ways. If you do not use works in maiden races especially FTS'ers, that leaves only breeding, trainer and jock. If this is enough to maintain your success, theres no reason to change.
A few of my bigger scores have come with maidens and have come from analyzing workouts. For these reasons I also see no reason to change.

[GaryG]

Fugitive-Success and failure can be counted in many ways. If you do not use works in maiden races especially FTS'ers, that leaves only breeding, trainer and jock. If this is enough to maintain your success, theres no reason to change.
A few of my bigger scores have come with maidens and have come from analyzing workouts. For these reasons I also see no reason to change.

Jack, I could not agree more. Workout patterns are a strong clue to trainer intent with first timers. Not the times so much but the general pattern. Most trainers are creatures of habit without realizing it. This type of analysis has helped me make many good plays in maiden races, especially state breds in Illinois and Louisiana.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA,
I liked how slyly this guy worked in a free ad for his software program.

Yeah...but his font is so small, nobody saw it....lol

[classhandicapper]

I like workouts in company. Some trainers like to work out their lightly raced 2 and 3 YOs in company to see how good they are. Sometimes you can get a clue about the talent of one based on how the other one has been running. One guy that does that a lot is Todd Pletcher.

[cnollfan]

I like workouts in company. Some trainers like to work out their lightly raced 2 and 3 YOs in company to see how good they are. Sometimes you can get a clue about the talent of one based on how the other one has been running. One guy that does that a lot is Todd Pletcher.

Agree. And while it's tough to get a good price on Pletcher, sometimes you can find one on a horse that he is moving aggressively up in class. These horses have often had the opportunity to outwork a talented stablemate so the class jump isn't quite the crapshoot it would be from another outfit.

[FUGITIVE77]

There is a lot more to FTS than trainer, jockey, and breeding. How about EQUIPMENT, conditions of the race, time of year, track, breeder, owner, and more. If you want to be successful with maiden races you must keep your own trainer records . Knowing a trainer is 17% with FTS is nice but not worth all that much. You must go dig and break it down further. I don't use workouts because most are not accurate in my state and there are over 40 training tracks within 100 miles of our main tracks where trainers workout away from the clockers.

Good luck

[BIG RED]

I'm more interested in the pattern of the horse's workouts, e.g. distance of each, days between, furlongs-per-day, etc., than I am the times.

This is what I meant to say, thx midnight :D

[linrom1]

Workouts do matter. That's a forensic clue that many overlooked bombs show. Because public overlooks these types anyway, they don't bother checking out recent works for these longshots. Learned that the hardway

[boxcar]

Workouts do matter. That's a forensic clue that many overlooked bombs show. Because public overlooks these types anyway, they don't bother checking out recent works for these longshots. Learned that the hardway

You're spot on, Linrom, they do matter! Trainers don't send their horses out for works just for the fun of it. They do so for a purpose. They key is trying to discover the reason, and this can only be done in context of horses' recent races. Those races are very much related to the works.

In some cases, therefore, the times of the works are important, but in other situations workout patterns, as Big Red suggested, become more important.

Of course, the question can then be raised as to the problems FTS present, since we don't have any races to use an interpretive framework for workouts.
Indeed, in the absence of such races, this becomes problematic. How I personally handled such situations was that I required a minimum of three workout angles in a horse's chart to be indicative of strong trainer intentions, and demanded odds no lower than 10-1 on such horses, since I considered them to be riskier betting propostions.

Boxcar

[Rob_in_MN]

Fugitive makes a great point about trying to examine workouts from 40 different tracks and find some commonality. Unless you are willing to take into account variant for works or manually adjust it's difficult to compare.

I found that I was getting my clock cleaned in maidens and N2L races at the 3 or 4 circuits I play regularly and also came to the realization that out of all the races run everyday around the country the maidens consistently PAY if you do your homework.

After 3 years of tuning my own workout charts you get to know the trainer angles that are meaningful - i.e. Todd Beattie at Penn National never lets a horse go to post with positive intentions without at least 3 5f drills under 1.03

An interesting angle that also comes across alot at the low level claiming tracks I play is the "1 work angle". Three trainers at CT are great at this, working their horses once at at BOW or similar training track and coming in at big prices.

[JackS]

One thing we should all agree with concerning works is that at the very least the trainer is showing some interest in the horse. If the trainer has no interest, I have no interest.

[FUGITIVE77]

On workouts, horses are individuals, and some trainers work each horse as such, that is DIFFERENTLY. Some mornings I enjoy heading down to Hawthorne for a little coffee and watch the horses run through their workouts. What's nice these days is that many of the trainers will be watching the works from the comfort of the clubhouse or grandstands while giving the barn or riders orders on THEIR CELL PHONES. Eavesdropping on these conversations can be quite insightful. Recently, I was listening to King Richard bark orders, working one slow til the eight pole another fast for the first 4f (actually a 6f work). I came to decifer for many trainers a 4f work can be concealed in a 5f or 6f work and more. Interesting, three of five of the horses I heard the King work out never made it into the Racing Form PPs. Or anywhere else. Sit for a while a listen to these conversations and you will come to the same conclusion, that PUBLISHED workout times are at best 50% wrong that is if they are published at all! There are some trainers in my state who will only show the minimum required workouts. Just think if they go to such lengths to hide published works what else are they doing!

[mcikey01]

Sheeesh!!! now we have to be aware of "fractional" workouts, whose going to time them and reliably, other than the trainer or professional clockers, and who's going to model and grade them !!!..... Besides, who's going to be foolish enough to publish the results and immediately de-value the "hidden" information..(probably, someone who is either a compulsive person, or trying to advance the art of handicapping or looking far a hard way to make an easy buck) and who's going to validate the data with a companion analysis, so the public doesn't get "taken".

I nominate thise night ramble for exhibition in the American Museum of Handicapping Minutae

[andicap]

It depends on the circuit and the trainer. In NY, I don't believe the major conditioners who have a billion babies in their barns are going to a lot of trouble to hide their works. Those like Pletcher, Zito, etc. Sure, the times might be misleading on some but not the patterns (although the clockers probably miss a few.) On the smaller circuits or with the marginal trainers who depend on cashing a bet to earn their keep, I would agree.


On workouts, horses are individuals, and some trainers work each horse as such, that is DIFFERENTLY. Some mornings I enjoy heading down to Hawthorne for a little coffee and watch the horses run through their workouts. What's nice these days is that many of the trainers will be watching the works from the comfort of the clubhouse or grandstands while giving the barn or riders orders on THEIR CELL PHONES. Eavesdropping on these conversations can be quite insightful. Recently, I was listening to King Richard bark orders, working one slow til the eight pole another fast for the first 4f (actually a 6f work). I came to decifer for many trainers a 4f work can be concealed in a 5f or 6f work and more. Interesting, three of five of the horses I heard the King work out never made it into the Racing Form PPs. Or anywhere else. Sit for a while a listen to these conversations and you will come to the same conclusion, that PUBLISHED workout times are at best 50% wrong that is if they are published at all! There are some trainers in my state who will only show the minimum required workouts. Just think if they go to such lengths to hide published works what else are they doing!