Davidowitz on the "bounce" [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Turfday

06-05-2006, 12:45 PM

With horses racing LESS often, especially the good to great ones, and modern veterinary care for them so much better and improved, then from say 20 years ago, horses aren't BOUNCING nearly as often and if some do, it's more subtle.

Twenty five years ago, there was more credence to the "bounce" theory. Horses raced more often and they didn't get the kind of care, and feed and "supplements" available today.

Not only that, the term bounce became an all too GENERIC word for any kind of sub-par performance from a horse that was well bet, had good form and didn't run to expectations. Instead of being flat for the race, he "bounced." It's a cute, simply and catchy term used to describe any sort of regression....even if it wasn't actually caused by a previous new top figure.
What if a horse grabbed a quarter out of the gate? What if he was sandwiched by two horses coming out of the gate? No matter, he "bounced."

So I pose this simple question to the very wise and sharp posters on this board:

What makes perfect sense is that a horse coming off a big TOP figure doesn't run that big TOP in his next start. The bounce believers live for this day. Because they can sum up in one word WHY and WHAT the regression was caused by.

A pragmatic handicapper will look upon the next start as a different set of circumstances......a likely move up in class (off a big last race), a different pace scenario, perhaps a different distance and different racing surface. Maybe a different jockey as well. Usually too many other variables to pinpoint the exact reason.

And for the reasons in the above paragraph, yes, I do believe horses sometimes "bounce" off a big top figure, but to simply pigeon-hole the reason was BECAUSE it ran a top figure and only for that, is just plain not looking at all the facts.

Valuist

06-05-2006, 01:00 PM

I agree with both of you but I don't believe the Sheet-heads and TGraphites are going away from the bounce thinking. I have a friend who became a T-Graphite a few years ago. Now you can't mention a horse coming off a win or big fig w/out him interrupting, "but what about a bounce". I finally said, why dont we just look for horses coming off 20 length losses because we know they can't bounce. It took him a minute or two to realize I was being facetious.

Bottom line: horses in good form off good races (yes, even driving finishes) are much better bets than those in poor form.

Tom

06-05-2006, 01:25 PM

Barbaro bounced?
Correct me if I am off base here, but don't you have to actually RUN a race before you can bounce? Barbaro could not have bounced in the first 20 yards!

I also think a lot of bounces are nothing more than the horse not getting the same good trip everytime, and quite often, just bad figures.
Using CJ's, I see a lot Beyer bounces that were more slow paced related than fitness. I see the same thing in the HTR DFIGs, a new fig that incorporates pace - speed figs that measure only final time cannot paint the same picture those that recognize pace do.

OTM Al

06-05-2006, 01:50 PM

I've always felt that the term "bounce" has been well overused and applied in cases where it isn't relevant just because the horse didn't do as well today as he did in his last race. The only time I would look for a true bounce is if the horse is running back quickly, say 2 or less weeks, and had a very tough race last time out. The bounce is supposed to be related to the fact that the horse ran so hard last time out that he is not fully recovered today and so cannot run back to that previous level, at least the way I understand its initial usage in the literature. Lets consider a famous "bounce" and why I think anyone that calls it that is dead wrong.

Smarty Jones, 2004 Belmont Stakes:
Blasted the field in the Preakness, gets a 118 BSF, his all time top by 10 points. Runs 3 weeks later and finishes a tiring 2nd with a BSF of 100 for his only career loss. On paper, it looks like a bounce, but I would say hooey! :)

His Preakness wasn't very trying at all. There was basically no way he loses that race against that competiton unless he dumps Elliot into the infield and goes off to have a beer and even then he still might have had time to recover. His Belmont was by far the toughest race he ever ran. He puts away the early frontrunner Purge who ends up so far back he may still be running. Next, front runner Rock Hard Ten comes at him. Smarty dials it up and puts him in the rearview. Then the inexplicable happens and Bailey comes rolling up early on Eddington. He gets dusted too. Little Birdstone comes waltzing along, picks up the pieces and wins by 1 length. So Smarty puts down 3 speed duels, 2 with eventual grade 1 winners, and then is only beaten a length by another who will continue to win another grade 1 event. The next horse is 8 lengths back. Its completely insane to call that a bounce. The horse ran a great race, was forced to exert a ton of energy (how many could have repelled the second duel let alone a 3rd even in peak form) and still smoked the rest of the field. Bounce? Horse probably ran the best race of his life.

I take a horse's previous races as a stochastic progression. When they are young, there is drift upward in stats like speed figures for most as they are improving and often running new tops. At maturity they tend to level out giving performances that vary around a fairly fixed unknown true level that can be estimated by a mean of previous races. If they still are running past peak, then they tend to decline. However any given day, one can consider there being a potentially wide distribution about their true ability level they will actually run to. It can happen that on a certain day, Mr. Horse is feeling pretty darn good, the race sets up just right, and he gets a dream trip and boom, he hits a new top. He drew extremely well out of the distribution around his true level in statistical terms. Statistically though, the likelihood of a repeat would require just as good a draw the next time out. Can it happen? Yes. Will it? Probably not....unless of course that wasn't such a good draw and the horse actually physically improved that much, thus calling for a reevaluation of his true level....Bayesian updating for you stats junkies out there.

So the moral of my rambling is that yes, I do believe in bounces, but no they do not occur nearly as often as many think they do. Most often we are not seeing a bounce but rather a reversion to the mean, to the horse's true ability level. That is why what I really look for in studying PPs is not the peaks and valleys of a horse's form (though they can show the variance the horse is capable of) but rather the consistancies contained therein.

kenwoodallpromos

06-05-2006, 02:10 PM

What is the commonly accepted defintion of "bounce" and how bad does a performance have to be to be a "bounce"?

Stevie Belmont

06-05-2006, 02:45 PM

Bounce is overly used and missed used. Barbaro's Derby was an easy, non taxing effort. So a bounce is impossible in my book. Horses that worked hard in a win, those are horses that might suffer next out, if not giving the proper recovery time. I don't even know why they would bring that word up, when we know what happened.

robert99

06-05-2006, 02:56 PM

When you reach the top of a hill (peak performance) the only way is down, by definition. If a horse has a strong constitution, energy storage levels allowed to rebuild, feeds well, stiffness allowed to ease and muscle strength to build, then there is no reason why an uninjured horse cannot run well after a peak performance.

Some trainers are good at knowing when a horse is ready to come back - others are not. Any definition has to be based on the percentages that do badly next race against those that do well or much the same as earlier. Badly has to be defined as some percentage below the normal variation in horse performance, race to race.

CryingForTheHorses

06-05-2006, 03:06 PM

What is the commonly accepted defintion of "bounce" and how bad does a performance have to be to be a "bounce"?

Bounce= TRAINER Malfunction

Valuist

06-05-2006, 03:08 PM

I think trainers have helped perpetrate this nonsense. Trainers are well known for having excuses and there's no more of a broad based excuse than a bounce. It used to be "he didn't like the track", or "the track was too cuppy today." Now the trainer has another choice to tell his/her owners.

The Judge

06-05-2006, 04:11 PM

The first person I heard use the term was Davidowitz so I guess he is qualified to talk about it.

Turfday I have a question for you. What if I make the statement that the nmumber 4 horse "The Champion" will not win the race .My opinion is that he has won 6 races in a row his final fraction's are getting higher(slower) and there are 2 horses coming into form one of which will win at good odds. The gate opens and "The Camp" falls to his knees and is never in the race one of my horses win am I correct in my analysis?

Turfday

06-05-2006, 04:43 PM

Anybody that watched the Preakness and thought Barbaro BOUNCED should be committed.

It's easy to remember, easy to say........nowadays it's nothing more than an overused CATCH ALL for any number of things even not related to expending energy that some trainers and less pragmatic handicappers feel free to use.

I love the analogy from McShell......"trainer malfunction."

dav4463

06-05-2006, 04:50 PM

CryingForTheHorses

06-05-2006, 05:32 PM

Every horse is going to bounce eventually. Once a horse runs his top figure, he will either continue to improve or bounce. Cheaper horses will bounce more often because they do not continue to improve with every race. If a horse has improved his figure two or three races in a row, chances are he will bounce in one of his next two or three races. It's just logic. It's not really a bounce, it's just that no horse will start low and improve each and every race. I still see no reason to not back horse simply because he just ran his best figure. If he fits the race today, he can improve again. If he faces much tougher company and doesn't fit the running style, chances are he will bounce. It's not a bounce because he just ran his best, it is a bounce because he faces a tougher situation.

Guys that claim for 5k and run back for 16k are goofballs, Pure greed and looking at dollar signs intead of his horse. You can get your horse the best he can be for "His class". As long as he dominates in a certain class, Leave him there and he will always give you his best..IT takes a good trainer to notice before and after problems to fix them before the next race.Excuse like the above mentioned are just that.IF you have your horse ready for his class..HE will win.

The Judge

06-05-2006, 06:09 PM

chickenhead

06-05-2006, 06:25 PM

I'm saying whether he fell to his knees or not on this day he was going to lose the race. Others would say ,those that bet on him, " if " he hadn't fell to his knees he would have won (bad racing luck). Yet I predicted his loss before the gates opened I gave an "added analysis" of how he would lose.

you can still hold your opinion, so long as you realize it was not validated by the race. I think that's the point, when something like that happens (horse falling down, etc.) there really can be no validation, win or lose, unless you actually figured the horse would fall down.

Tom

06-05-2006, 06:38 PM

Guys that claim for 5k and run back for 16k are goofballs, Pure greed and looking at dollar signs intead of his horse. You can get your horse the best he can be for "His class". As long as he dominates in a certain class, Leave him there and he will always give you his best..IT takes a good trainer to notice before and after problems to fix them before the next race.Excuse like the above mentioned are just that.IF you have your horse ready for his class..HE will win.

Tom,
I had one at HOL on the 1st - Kelly Carson, went from $14,000 ar PRM to $50,000 HOIL and won easily. Paid $6.

Tom

06-05-2006, 06:40 PM

I'm saying whether he fell to his knees or not on this day he was going to lose the race. Others would say ,those that bet on him, " if " he hadn't fell to his knees he would have won (bad racing luck). Yet I predicted his loss before the gates opened I gave an "added analysis" of how he would lose.

That has nothing to do with bouncing. The bounce is a racing condition. The horse did not race. Whatever your feeling, you can never prove he would not win, and no one can ever prove he would. HE DID NOT RACE.

And I believe it was Ragozin who defines and first used he term bounce as a pattern on the Sheets.

TurfRuler

06-05-2006, 07:49 PM

Every horse that I have played to win (on paper) has bounced out of the money.

kenwoodallpromos

06-05-2006, 08:25 PM

Tom S-
"As long as he dominates in a certain class, Leave him there and he will always give you his best"
What is the absolute or best way to tell what class/purse level is a horse's best potential? Does a good finish in a troubled race, or closing big, mean the horse has bigger potential?
Robert99- is staying fit or not "bouncing" a matter of knowing when the horse's energy is back to 100% and post-race training to get the horse back to 100% energy?
i would like to know with every runner what their totally fit "peaking" potential is and how much "bounce" they will have in the current race.
How about rating a horse on potenial Beyer # for then particular race, and expected Beyer based on fitness and expected pace and trip?
If anyone comes up with one number for that, PM me! Thanks!

bigmack

06-05-2006, 09:06 PM

I sat with Davidowitz years ago in a press box and in the time we spent he explained the import of viewing the pp's in reverse order so to ask the question why is this hoss positioned in this race today.

Anyone playing enough knows that "bounce" occurs though it's level of reliability is "to cover".

kev

06-05-2006, 09:51 PM

This from Jerry Brown on his site about this subject.
"So anyway, about 15-20 years ago I was sitting in my living room, watching a Stanley Cup game and minding my own business, when the phone rang. It was some guy named Steve Davidowitz, whom I had never heard of, and he started screaming in my ear. He was down in Florida and someone had shown him our sheets, and all our theories were wrong, wrong, wrong. At length, and loud.

I never spoke to him again or met him face to face until a couple of years ago at the DRF Expo, where I reminded him of the conversation, and we quickly got into an argument about something else. Might have been rebates, not sure, but not about handicapping. I cut it short, never spoke to him again. And I'm going to mostly leave his piece alone, because a) he doesn't know or understand enough about what I or other sheet people believe to have a conversation about this stuff, and b) I've had this conversation too many times before.

Steve, have you actually seen our data recently? We don't say horses are sure to bounce-- the very existence of the Thoro-Patterns should indicate we think it is a question of percentages, probability. It's why I coined the term "bounce CANDIDATE".

1-- We predicted publicly that Barbaro was very likely to be seriously set back by his Derby effort based on a study of 31 horses. It was a question of probablity.

2-- On the question of what causes horses to break down-- it is very unlikely that Steve or anyone out there reading this has had a close working relationship with as many trainers as I have, and some of them were very good. Many agree with me in general terms, and you don't need to take my word for it-- just look at the current trend of spacing races further apart. "

GMB@BP

06-06-2006, 03:56 PM

just called him up and started yelling at him???????

seems far fetched to me. not impossible but...

robert99

06-06-2006, 04:25 PM

Tom S-
"Robert99- is staying fit or not "bouncing" a matter of knowing when the horse's energy is back to 100% and post-race training to get the horse back to 100% energy?
i would like to know with every runner what their totally fit "peaking" potential is and how much "bounce" they will have in the current race.
How about rating a horse on potenial Beyer # for then particular race, and expected Beyer based on fitness and expected pace and trip?
If anyone comes up with one number for that, PM me! Thanks!

K,
Energy reserves build up again in about 5 days if the horse continues to feed well.
It is the hidden aches and pains that take longer to heal after the stiffness has eased. Once the horse is "bouncing" again, in the original sense of the word, it is back to normal - if not, it will run below form.

The second question to me is what pace analysis is all about. In UK we often find that horses win subsequent races with a lower overall time/ speed rating. The "speed" time rating perhaps should have been called "stamina rating" as it is keeping going well over 3 furlongs rather than 2, off a slow early pace, that can win the race.

skate

06-06-2006, 05:07 PM

just keeping up with the jumble, gees

Dave

06-06-2006, 05:07 PM

after the PREAKNESS i saw some of the posts at TG that
BARBARO "BOUNCED"...thought it came across as a little
"cold hearted" from the "hardcore" sheets players but
i always felt they are more prone to reduce a horse to
a "number" disregarding pace,track conditions or pedigree.

PLEASE do not lump all Sheet players in w/the nutty proclamations of jerry brown.
he wants to >> sell << that as a bounce because every word out of his mouth is designed to push his version of the green sheet.
anyone w/any common sense can see that we never got the opportunity to find out if he would bounce, as he broke down in the race.

anyway, it doesn't matter much, as one race isn't proving anyone's theories one way or the other -- it's a statistical question, and one that has no use in isolation from the odds board.
when a Sheet player tells you that he doesn't like a horse off a big effort, what they usually mean is that they don't like the inevitably short price as against that horse's chances of repeating that effort.
those horses are not value, and can often produce value by playing against them, but there is no Sheet player w/a crystal ball who has perfect foreknowledge of how a particular horse will run on any given day.
if anyone tries to tell you differently, they are either trying to bullshit you, or bullshit themselves.

to use the preakness as illustration, many Sheet players gave barbaro a pretty high probability of a bounce off a big derby #, and that didn't look good at 3/5, whereas bernadini also had a fair chance at a bounce off a big effort, but was made the prerace play by len friedman, who is basically frontman for The Sheets.
I won't speak for len, but I'm pretty sure he liked the horse in that race because he acknowledges a certain chance that the horse would pair his last effort, and that chance looked good at that price.
if bernie had been the one at 3/5, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been len's key.

the problem w/debating 'bounce theory' is that it's pretty specific Sheet lingo that has since been co-opted by the general public, and it now is a sort of amorphous catch all phrase that is interpreted differently by different people.
w/o any common definition, it becomes fairly pointless to try to debate a concept.
years ago, when davidowitz, et al were betting horses on a 'class' level established in the prior race, Ragozin and Friedman were taking a somewhat contrarian position that many horses could actually run well off a poor race, and poorly off a big race.
they held this opinion based specifically on observations of a great many of their Sheets, but since then 'bouncing' has been carried over into the general handicapping lexicon w/o porting over the actual #'s that it's based on.

edit: I should probably clarify that there were other differences and handicapping considerations between bernadini and barbaro --- the Sheets weren't identical, but I think price became the gist of it.

Valuist

06-06-2006, 05:07 PM

just called him up and started yelling at him???????

seems far fetched to me. not impossible but...

I agree. I've e-mailed Davidowitz before and he responded, which he didn't have to. I agree it seems a bit far fetched.

Dave

06-06-2006, 05:12 PM

maybe you should e-mail and give him the heads up on all the smack talk over there.

xfile

06-06-2006, 05:17 PM

Guys that claim for 5k and run back for 16k are goofballs, Pure greed and looking at dollar signs intead of his horse. You can get your horse the best he can be for "His class". As long as he dominates in a certain class, Leave him there and he will always give you his best..IT takes a good trainer to notice before and after problems to fix them before the next race.Excuse like the above mentioned are just that.IF you have your horse ready for his class..HE will win.

Mc - you seem like a knowledgable guy in all your posts I have read in the last year. Can I be so bold as to ask who do you recommend as a trainer for claiming horses at your circuit?......thank you! :cool:

CryingForTheHorses

06-06-2006, 07:15 PM

Mc - you seem like a knowledgable guy in all your posts I have read in the last year. Can I be so bold as to ask who do you recommend as a trainer for claiming horses at your circuit?......thank you! :cool:

Im a trainer also but just a very small guy..But honest!..I myself am based at Calder. 6 starts for the new season and I am 2-3-1..

jotb

06-06-2006, 08:35 PM

Barbaro bounced?

I also think a lot of bounces are nothing more than the horse not getting the same good trip everytime, and quite often, just bad figures.
Using CJ's, I see a lot Beyer bounces that were more slow paced related than fitness. I see the same thing in the HTR DFIGs, a new fig that incorporates pace - speed figs that measure only final time cannot paint the same picture those that recognize pace do.

I agree with this somewhat Tom. Excellent speed figures most of the time are what I call "inflated" and yes that is due to trips, pace and front running horses. I've also witness where a horse runs a top fig beyond the previous top fig and this can be cause by not finding the true track variant for that day or another race that was completely out of the norm. We all know as handicappers that horses run in form cycles and some maintain the upward cycle longer than others and at smaller tracks horses will go in and out of form cycles from race to race. For me Tom, a true bounce (dramatic fig) usually comes when a low percentile trainer claims off a guy that wins with a very high win percentage and this becomes even noticeable after the new trainer has the horse after a month or two.

Best regards,
Joe

Tom

06-06-2006, 08:53 PM

Joe, good point - some trainers can knock a horse off form by looking at it!
There have been guys at FL that coud claim Secretariat and lose next out! I always keep of tracck of claim backs - sometimes the good trainer will take one back after a few, then put the horse back on track.

kenwoodallpromos

06-06-2006, 11:09 PM

Hiring McShchell_Racing and Tom would be a good move...

rastajenk

06-07-2006, 10:30 AM

Bounce is overly used and missed used. Barbaro's Derby was an easy, non taxing effort.

:D Sez who? Of course we'll never know now, but the notion that a visually impressive big win will have "left something in the tank" is one of the most worthless angles out there. For other recent examples, look at Lost in the Fog last year, or Borrego. And dozens of others on any given day. Barbaro made it look easy because the others were ill-prepared or ill-equipped to go 10f. But that doesn't make his effort any less taxing.

Valuist

06-07-2006, 11:05 AM

Davidowitz did respond on that other board. And like GMB@BP and myself thought, Davidowitz' explanation was far different from Brown's. Brown's credibility is taking a beating on this. I wonder how long before he deletes Davidowitz' rebuttal?

Dave

06-07-2006, 09:49 PM

I didn't realize brown had any credibility.
I've seen this same act for years.

as far as the 'easy, non taxing derby' bit, we had a whole thread about that over at The Sheets board.
I don't understand why some people watch a horse pull away in the final furlong and immediately forget about the prior 9.
fyi -- the amount a horse wins by is determined just as much by the horses he beats as it is by his own effort.
how is that final time for 10f 'easy'?
what do the beaten lengths have anything to do w/it?

if he runs in 1:59 flat, beating the field by 16, is that 'easy and non-taxing'?

NYPlayer

06-17-2006, 01:18 PM

I had no idea of Len Friedman's pick in the Preak, but the payolla was anything but paltry. I did go to the Derby seminar, where Len picked Barbaro and called him the "classic" Sheet play, and gave SNS a "B" rating. I proceeded to bet SNS (I thought the odds were generous enough, and I liked the strong pattern of early 3yo tops without any reaction), and if he had been 2nd to Barbaro, I would have had the exacta.

Going in to the Preak, I was convinced that Brother Derek would bounce, and equally certain that Barbaro would not repeat the zero, but I allowed for the fact that at least there was a chance he could win it with a 3 or 4. I also thought SNS would make some kind of recovery from his Derby bounce. Bernadini looked suspicous. I didn't have any strong opinion, and wound up betting Like Now. I just figured that there was reason to be involved considering the negative chances of the top two favorites. Of course, had I known Len picked Bernadini.....

The more I use the Sheets, the more I trust them. The methodology is sound, and I've used it to predict bounces, although horses like Anew fool me. Luckily there doesn't seem to be too many like him around.

Just before the Preak, I read Brad Free's DRF chat were he said that he didn't believe in the bounce theory, extolled the virtues of Brother Derek based on his trip, and thought Barbaro was next to unbeatable. All I can say is - What stupidity! I sort Of feel like I'm back in 1965, where everyone is still debating class versus speed. If ever there was a triple crown series that repudiated trip handicapping, this was it.

There's little doubt in my mind that Barbaro's big race in the Derby contributed significantly to his accident in the Preakness, and that it was not a freak, random event. Not every horse may react quite as strongly, but I'd say at least 90% will have a reaction of some kind.

GMB@BP

06-17-2006, 02:49 PM

well, they say that buzzards bay is a lock to bounce today, but neglect to mention the monster move forward in the figure was done wire to wire and that aint happening today with love of money in there.

Dave

06-17-2006, 10:03 PM

who are 'they'?

Valuist

06-18-2006, 10:05 AM

Not to redboard but I cannot imagine how anybody could bet Buzzards Bay at 6-5. He didn't figure to beat Love of Money out of the gate and if he isn't on the lead, he has to be right on a modest pace. His record was not nearly as strong as either Brass Hat or Perfect Drift.

the little guy

06-18-2006, 10:26 AM

There's little doubt in my mind that Barbaro's big race in the Derby contributed significantly to his accident in the Preakness, and that it was not a freak, random event. Not every horse may react quite as strongly, but I'd say at least 90% will have a reaction of some kind.

Sigh.

GMB@BP

06-18-2006, 11:03 AM

probably get hammered for this but......

horse runs bad as analyzed by a sheets player he "bounced" off a good effort

horse runs bad to the rest of the world, he could have come off perfect trips, had a bad trip, had caught nice pace setups, now got a bad one, could have caught weaker horses then today, etc etc.

the fact is that the sheet players wont consider options listed in the second paragraph,

barbaro broke down in the derby cause he bounced, there is zero chance that he took a bad step, none. pretty amazing. no wonder why the followers of this religion never lose, you cant with opinions like that.

isnt it a easy out to say "bounce" for every bad effort, ya know, almost lazy

06-18-2006, 11:13 AM

The Judge

06-18-2006, 11:17 AM

If a horse breaks down , if a horse goes to its knees and finishes the race, if a horse has bad racing luck none of these things can be considered a bounce. The only thing that can be considered a "bounce" is if the horse gets a clean trip ,has racing luck (nothing goes wrong) finishes the race and loses.

Whose rules are those? Certainly not the "bounce" people. I still say "they" can say the horse "bounced" and not be incorrect. The primary point being today "Champion" will not win the race. To have to gurantee "Champion" a safe trip, clean trip , an un-eventful race is too much to ask before they can be correct "the horse will not win today he should bounce."

We can look at any race after the fact and find a reason why the horse lost, its a horse race he bumped the fence so no bounce, the jock lost the whip so no bounce, he broke 3rd he always breaks first so no bounce, he got caught in traffic so no bounce, on and on.

I don't know if a horse will bounce or not I don't care. If he a price I'm betting that he won't bounce . Not all horses bounce even if they should. If its a price I betting he won't "bounce".

Tom

06-18-2006, 11:31 AM

Yes, I'm sure that cause Brother Derek to basically stomp on his leg. That makes sense, thanks.

Yup, that leg just "bounced" right in front of BD! :lol:

The proper use of the term bounce in this case, is "This is your landlord - your rent check bounced!" :bang:

Tom

06-18-2006, 11:34 AM

[QUOTE=

I don't know if a horse will bounce or not I don't care. If he a price I'm betting that he won't bounce . Not all horses bounce even if they should. If its a price I betting he won't "bounce".[/QUOTE]

Amen, brother! The choir sings.
I can count on one hand the number of rel bounces I actually came across live.
There have been so many big fig horses that did not boucne , I couldn't remeber them all so I have a stack of losing tics on other horses piled up on my desk, in case I ever need to count them up!

Dave

06-18-2006, 12:30 PM

ok, first of all, horses bounce and win, as well as don't bounce and lose.
how they finish relative to the field has a lot to do w/the aforementioned field.

secondly, while many Sheet players expected a reaction from barbaro, this bit about the broken ankle constituting a bounce is really being promoted by one person (who's a nut).
as a whole, those type of horses DO seem to suffer a lot of injuries, but on a case by case basis it would be ridiculous to pretend to divine the actual reason for each injury -- it's more of a statistical issue, if it's even an issue at all.

while it's true that conventional handicappers might find 'legit' reasons for horses to run poorly, the flip side is also true --- conventional handicappers will have no shortage of excuses for horses that were simply unlikely to run well that day.
whether the track was greasey, he got a clod of dirt in the eye, bumped by another horse, or whatever.
how do you actually know what's deterministic and what's bullshit excuse?

the way I handicap, horses that are due to run well will often run through these excuses, so you never even hear about them, while horses due to run poorly will spit it out for the first triviality that they run past.
I don't pretend to know why I'm wrong every time, but I can't count how many times I thought some 'lock' would run poorly and when it did all the conventional handicappers scrambled to retrofit their excuses.

that's the difference in attitude.
I think it starts out innocently enough --- handicappers new to the game who are simply trying to learn from their mistakes, but it seems to evolve once the handicapper learns so much that he becomes all seeing and all knowing.
it turns into a defense mechanism for explaining away the fact that they might have actually been wrong.

kev

06-18-2006, 01:17 PM

BD didn't stomp on his leg in the first place. That's some BS they PIM came up with. Some show was showing frame by frame and BD didn't do it.

The Judge

06-18-2006, 01:45 PM

I would rather drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log before I defend Jerry Brown. Yes, I do admit that it seems strange or at least on the very fringe of any reasoning that if a horse breaks down that it "bound".

Fringe or not I can't say that its wrong because the horse that looked unbeatable lost as they predicted. Now if someone shot the horse dead right before he was to cross the finish line 5 lengths ahead of the field would that be a "bounce"? In Jerry's world yes, in my world I'm not sure in most people's world Jerry and I are both nuts. Maybe its a matter of degree.

I concede nothing.

Dave

06-18-2006, 02:45 PM

I would rather drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log before I defend Jerry Brown.

ahahahahaha.....!!

barbaro is a convenient illustration of what I was talking about.
I'll never know whether barbaro was bouncing, or not, nor do I need to know --- it's only relevant on a statistical scale, and this is why they give us an odds board.
meanwhile, there are a bunch of people running around who seem to know that it was a misstep.....oops, wait --- change that excuse to brother derek.....wait, did that actually happen.......*insert new excuse here*.
I think the cultists of handicapping will swallow anything passed off as gospel from the priests on high because it's human nature to need structure and to 'know' rather than accept the idea of randomness and chaos -- that's why there's a big friendly grandad w/santa's beard living in the clouds.
before the race, they 'know' some horse will win, and when he doesn't, they 'know' exactly why, whether it was brother derek, a misstep, or they can pin their neighbor as a witch.

while we're talking about this race, let me contrast bernadini ---- another horse I had pegged to bounce.
I liked sns in the race, because of this,but len friedman (frontman for The Sheets) had bernie pegged as his play because he gave him maybe a 10-20%(?) chance to repeat his last, and the odds made that a good play.
no horse is doomed to bounce beforehand, and afterwards there are only excuses, but as another poster mentioned, there are good and bad plays in the long run based on the prices.

06-18-2006, 03:32 PM

BD didn't stomp on his leg in the first place. That's some BS they PIM came up with. Some show was showing frame by frame and BD didn't do it.

Maybe so, maybe not, inconclusive really. Just like claiming the horse "bounced" after running 200 yards.

Horses usually run big figures when they get easy trips, not hard ones. Barbaro actually had a very easy trip in the Derby. Big figure wins with tough trips are where I would look for bounces, but even then, like some guys have said earlier, if the price is right, I'm betting the horse.

the little guy

06-18-2006, 03:34 PM

Define your broad term, or umbrella, CONVENTIONAL HANDICAPPERS.

For my money there are no more dogmatic players than sheet advocates.

Dave

06-18-2006, 03:51 PM

Define your broad term, or umbrella, CONVENTIONAL HANDICAPPERS.

For my money there are no more dogmatic players than sheet advocates.

conventional handicappers are those whose primary approach is just using the form, program, or green sheet, and don't base most of their decisions on some more esoteric source, like The Sheets -- it's basically an umbrella term for the majority, or mainstream, or whatever you want to call it.

the little guy

06-18-2006, 04:26 PM

Thanks for the definition.

Since many serious horseplayers, even those of us not using the sheets, but gathering our information through a variety of sources other than any of those you mentioned, for example intuitive analysis involving past performances ( often including at least reliable speed figures ) and race watching, have strong and informed opinions contrary to the entire concept of bounce, I would like to suggest that there is a substantial argument against the entire theory.

My problem with the concept of bounce, and generally as it applies to sheet players, is that there are often many circumstances that lead to a strong performance, circumstances that may well not exist in their following race ( or races ). And while an intuitive analysis of a given race, most notably including understanding both past and future race dynamics, can easily uncover the answers, your run of the mill sheet player does not even consider these factors and simply tosses certain horses into an imaginary " bounce box ". I simply refuse to accept this theory from any source ( in this case Ragozin ) who dismisses any notion that proposes pace plays a part in any race.

Like I said before, many sheet players are overly dogmatic, while the well rounded and serious player is willing to accept a great many variables ( which certainly may, and in my opinion should, at least include sound speed figures ).

PaceAdvantage

06-18-2006, 04:59 PM

BD didn't stomp on his leg in the first place. That's some BS they PIM came up with. Some show was showing frame by frame and BD didn't do it.

It's quite possible somebody did it...look at the tape again....either Bro Der or Greeley's Legacy...they were both right up Barbaro's ass the instant before he took that bad step. Tight quarters all around. I looked at every angle, frame by frame, and it's a tough call either way. However, there were a MESS of legs in the picture right before the bad step, and it certainly figures that contact was made.

NYPlayer

06-19-2006, 10:05 PM

It's quite possible somebody did it...look at the tape again....either Bro Der or Greeley's Legacy...they were both right up Barbaro's ass the instant before he took that bad step. Tight quarters all around. I looked at every angle, frame by frame, and it's a tough call either way. However, there were a MESS of legs in the picture right before the bad step, and it certainly figures that contact was made.

If it "figures" that contact were made, then it "figures" that the other horse involved would have had at least some of its momentum arrested. Didn't look like anyone in either to his inside or outside lost a step, except for BD (but it wasn't much).

Greeley was running somewhat erratically right from the gate, but he was two paths over on Barbaro's left side. The injury was to the right rear leg. SNS, breaking just outside of Barbaro, was clear of him shortly after the start, BD broke just to Barbaro's inside and it looked as though Barbaro veered in on him, but again that was on his left side.

Barbaro then rushed up to the inside of SNS, but SNS was still about a half length clear before Barbaro took up. SNS lost no momentum and ran a pretty good race.

BD went to Barbaro's right side after checking, but Barbaro was clear of him when he took up, so the incident itself didn't really impact BD very much, and he did not lose much momentum. and it doesn't account for the 15 length loss.

NYPlayer

06-19-2006, 10:13 PM

I would consider a bounce to be any sort of physical reaction to a hard race, that evidences itself in the horse's next race which is, after all, the next time the horse is asked to exert itself physically in a significant way. Sometimes there's just a poor race, sometimes there's injury. Pity that it was the latter in Barbaro's case.

PaceAdvantage

06-20-2006, 12:39 AM

Greeley was running somewhat erratically right from the gate, but he was two paths over on Barbaro's left side. The injury was to the right rear leg. SNS, breaking just outside of Barbaro, was clear of him shortly after the start, BD broke just to Barbaro's inside and it looked as though Barbaro veered in on him, but again that was on his left side.

So is it an illusion or a bad camera angle (head on shot) that shows Greeley moving to the right, and directly behind Barbaro a second before he broke down?

the little guy

06-20-2006, 09:49 AM

So is it an illusion or a bad camera angle (head on shot) that shows Greeley moving to the right, and directly behind Barbaro a second before he broke down?

I thought the illusion was that horses bounce.

06-20-2006, 10:55 AM

Tom

06-20-2006, 10:55 AM

Didn't they make this race official yet? :bang:

delayjf

06-20-2006, 11:18 AM

Sometimes there's just a poor race, sometimes there's injury

I might buy that if the "injury" were muscle or soft tissue related (i.e.the horse Bled). To my knowledge bones do not fatigue or break down after a single exertion (one race) like muscle or lung tissue can.

the little guy

06-20-2006, 11:20 AM

Personally, I love these absurd arguments...i.e. suggesting Barbaro's injury was somehow a " bounce "....as they just further invalidate the whole silly notion of " bounce ".

Can anyone say " self fulfilling prophesy "?

The Judge

06-20-2006, 11:56 AM

The people that believe in the bounce theory or not alone. The race track also believes in it more so then Jerry Brown or any other bounce theorist. You see when a horse breaks down they will not refund your money if you bet on that horse. It's their way of saying it's in the game. These things happen they are to be "expected ". The same as when Champion gets blocked, or the whip is lost or he breaks last, etc. etc. etc.

It has to do with foreseeablity if Champion were shot right before he crossed the finish line that would not be foreseeable and I would want a refund. That would not be a bounce. If a fan (drunk or crazy that is) ran out and interfered with the race that would not be foreseeable. Almost anything else is foreseeable that is why they won't give you your money back and that is why you don't go and ask for your money back. You knew it could happen, it happens enough to be part of the game!

How can I say with complete accuracy that Champion didn't bounce even thou I think it's on the fringe of sound thinking. Some of our now accepted theories were once on the fringe.

Come on P.A get in on this one, we need you even if it is to say I'm nuts.

06-20-2006, 12:06 PM

...If a fan (drunk or crazy that is) ran out and interfered with the race that would not be foreseeable...

Of course that is foreseeable, it has already happened.

The Judge

06-20-2006, 12:13 PM

Thaks it should be "runs" make that thanks make that Ghostfactor.

06-20-2006, 01:45 PM

You do realized it happened on Preakness day a few years ago, right? A fan took a swing at Artax, who went on to be champion sprinter that season. No doubt he was driven by the crazy episode to new levels of speed in future races.

ryesteve

06-20-2006, 02:02 PM

I remember that... but I don't remember what happened to the bets on that race. Were there refunds, or did the result stand as it was?

06-20-2006, 02:03 PM

Only bets involving Artax were refunded, though he was far from the only horse bothered.

RXB

06-20-2006, 03:05 PM

I might buy that if the "injury" were muscle or soft tissue related (i.e.the horse Bled). To my knowledge bones do not fatigue or break down after a single exertion (one race) like muscle or lung tissue can.

Bone tissue, like any tissue, needs time to recover after exertion. The amount of rest required varies according to the individual and to the exertion/jarring experienced during the effort. Bones are more likely to fracture if not given adequate time to repair following a significant exertion.

My understanding is that a condylar fracture, which Barbaro suffered, almost never occurs unless the bone tissue is already damaged. Not likely to happen just because of a "bad step."

Dave

06-20-2006, 09:28 PM

ahahahahaha.....!!

barbaro is a convenient illustration of what I was talking about.
I'll never know whether barbaro was bouncing, or not, nor do I need to know --- it's only relevant on a statistical scale, and this is why they give us an odds board.
meanwhile, there are a bunch of people running around who seem to know that it was a misstep.....oops, wait --- change that excuse to brother derek.....wait, did that actually happen.......*insert new excuse here*<<<< greeley stomped on his leg.
I think the cultists of handicapping will swallow anything passed off as gospel from the priests on high because it's human nature to need structure and to 'know' rather than accept the idea of randomness and chaos -- that's why there's a big friendly grandad w/santa's beard living in the clouds.
before the race, they 'know' some horse will win, and when he doesn't, they 'know' exactly why, whether it was brother derek, a misstep, or they can pin their neighbor as a witch.

while we're talking about this race, let me contrast bernadini ---- another horse I had pegged to bounce.
I liked sns in the race, because of this,but len friedman (frontman for The Sheets) had bernie pegged as his play because he gave him maybe a 10-20%(?) chance to repeat his last, and the odds made that a good play.
no horse is doomed to bounce beforehand, and afterwards there are only excuses, but as another poster mentioned, there are good and bad plays in the long run based on the prices.

I have updated my previous post.

I can continue to update, so let me know when you guys finally figure out a good excuse, so we can get back to debunking that crazy bounce theory.

Dave

06-20-2006, 09:38 PM

I might buy that if the "injury" were muscle or soft tissue related (i.e.the horse Bled). To my knowledge bones do not fatigue or break down after a single exertion (one race) like muscle or lung tissue can.

bone microfractures and rebuilds from stress in a similar manner to muscle tissue, but that's beside the point.

if I'm nutty brown and I want to build my case for a bounce breaking his leg, I could just blame it on the soft tissue -- because if the soft tissue causes a bad step, the bones break just the same as they do when he's unlucky enough to step in a gopher hole.

let me ask you guys a question:
if this bounce stuff is all bs, then pattern reading off the Ragozin Sheets is all bs, and any results using said Sheets would be random --- how can people win money using them?

by the way, I've already mentioned this, but don't attribute something you hear from nutty brown to all fig players.
if that's your attitude, then all you guys who use the form are just the same as every brokeass derelict at the track picking horses out of the form that have the same name as his cat.

the little guy

06-21-2006, 12:18 AM

let me ask you guys a question:
if this bounce stuff is all bs, then pattern reading off the Ragozin Sheets is all bs, and any results using said Sheets would be random --- how can people win money using them?

by the way, I've already mentioned this, but don't attribute something you hear from nutty brown to all fig players.
if that's your attitude, then all you guys who use the form are just the same as every brokeass derelict at the track picking horses out of the form that have the same name as his cat.

On the first part, may I suggest you read " Fooled by Randomness "?

On the second part, may I suggest you read " How to Win Friends and Influence People "?

The Judge

06-21-2006, 02:25 AM

Just keep an open mind.

Indulto

06-21-2006, 02:50 AM

... may I suggest you read " How to Win Friends and Influence People "?:lol: :lol: :lol:

the little guy

06-21-2006, 09:49 AM

Just keep an open mind.

For your selection of reading material I offer post #55 in this thread.

Perhaps if you take the time to read my thoughts on this subject you won't find it necessary to make unnecessarily foolish posts like the one above.

The Judge

06-21-2006, 10:27 AM

Do you think its possible that you could be wrong and that "bounce" could exist? Even Brohamer would admit that pace explains speed when speed doesn't work but it doesn't explain what happens when pace doesn't work.

Tom

06-21-2006, 11:00 AM

the little guy

06-21-2006, 11:01 AM

I believe in the " possibility " of many things I am skeptical about. I accept the " possibility " that there may be something to the concept of " bounce ", but I believe far more strongly that every horseplayer is better off dismissing it as a possibility and delving deeply into why any horse runs a particularly good race and/or a particularly bad race. Far more is to be gained from an intellectual understanding of WHY certain performances are given than simply attributing them to a generic term ( in this case " bounce " ). A sophisticated horseplayer can often accurately predict the way a horse will run on a given day by understanding the past and current race dynamics the horse is ( or has been ) faced with.

So, in a nutshell, do your work and take no shortcuts.

the little guy

06-21-2006, 11:03 AM

Since when is keeping an open mind foolish?
While I think bounce is as overused as bias, I do believe it is a physical factor
In certain cases, and when I see real, scientific proof otherwise, I will start mailing my betting money to you direct, otherwise, you guys will have to be happy taking my money at the windows. In certain cases. ;)

What I was suggesting was " foolish " was his suggestion that I don't have an open mind. I thought my response in post #55 was very well thought out and gave some of my reasons why I have arrived at my opinions. I don't believe I could have gotten there without an open mind.

KingChas

06-21-2006, 11:24 AM

Far more is to be gained from an intellectual understanding of WHY certain performances are given than simply attributing them to a generic term ( in this case " bounce " ). .

Tlg, The only thing I'm reading into this is you don't like the term "BOUNCE".
No problem understand.But what would you rename a subpar performance.
"The beginning of a negative form cycle"?Just asking. :confused:

the little guy

06-21-2006, 11:29 AM

No. I don't like generic terms, which bounce falls under, but that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that very often what is referred to as a " bounce " is merely a case of a horse that performed well in one race because he got ideal race circumstances one day and adverse ones in the next. " Bounce " seems to imply that horses will somehow react to a strong performance, and I totally disagree, and feel that very often that strong performance was simply created due to very favorable circumstances. The real reason that often that performance isn't reproduced in future starts is that the circumstances are different.

the little guy

06-21-2006, 11:36 AM

I would also add that illegal and undetectable medication, which has become very prevalent over the last ten years, further screws up the situation. As I would guess a lot of people have noticed, many horses from suspected " juice " trainers will run one or two exceptional races and then either fall apart or disappear. I guess one could say these horses did react, first positively, and then adversely, to medications.

This to me is not a " bounce " but a chemical reaction. For the purposes of the " bounce " discussion I would like to confine it to the utopian ideal that everybody is playing on the same field.

KingChas

06-21-2006, 11:48 AM

What I am saying is that very often what is referred to as a " bounce " is merely a case of a horse that performed well in one race because he got ideal race circumstances one day and adverse ones in the next. " Bounce " seems to imply that horses will somehow react to a strong performance, and I totally disagree, and feel that very often that strong performance was simply created due to very favorable circumstances. The real reason that often that performance isn't reproduced in future starts is that the circumstances are different.

You are saying this subpar performance could not have come from overexertion in the previous race?

I would think a lot of athletes would disagree with this. ;)

the little guy

06-21-2006, 11:58 AM

I am not saying that I preclude a lot of possibilities, though I discount that it is often ( if ever ) due to some notion of overexertion from a previous effort, and believe that FAR more often it is actually related to differing racing circumstances.

The whole idea that some horse is so worn out because he ( or she ) ran particularly well one day that he ( or she ) is unable to perform well when returning to the track some 20 or so days later makes absolutely no logical sense...at least to me. And, when I couple that with being able to LOGICALLY explain what led to a good performance, coupled with being able to LOGICALLY predict why today's circumstances are unlikely to allow such a performance to be repeated, I feel strongly that at the very least much of the " bounce " theory is just a convenient, and as I have said before lazy, excuse for a perfectly explainable situation.

Finally, I prefer to use intellectual logic to explain performances and not lump differing performances into a convenient " box " so to speak.

KingChas

06-21-2006, 12:09 PM

Finally, I prefer to use intellectual logic to explain performances and not lump differing performances into a convenient " box " so to speak.

Understood.I've have always considered racehorses as athletes.(IMHO) ;)

Tom

06-21-2006, 12:42 PM

For me, a bounce is limited in occurrence.
It must fall a long layoff - min 60 days, but 90 is probably more relevant.
The performance immediately following the layoff must be a strenuous race, ie, 2hd 2hd 1hd 1hd, not 5-4 4-3 3-2 1-3, and the speed figure must be either a top or near top of those showing.
And, this is key, the horse must be coming back off that effort rather soon - 2-3 weeks, 4 outside. This is a tip to me that the horse might not run back to that number today. Not always - if the odds are good, hell, I bet it if the horses figures otherwise. If he is the favorite of low odds, bingo! I'm looking elsewhere.

Now, where this really comes to play for me is the third back - if it is not too close to the first off the layoff. I like 6-8 weeks. If the horse, again, is not low odds, I will usually go back to the come back line instead of penalizing the second back regression.
Thiscomes from years of getting burned by zigging and zagging and seeing bounces everywhere. Today, I see few bounces. And anyhting happening after the second race back is, to me, just performance variations, similar what Gordon Pine wrote about in his newletters and the chapter in Cardello's book.
I think people get fixed on bouncing and bias far too often. I rarely see what I would call a real track bias, other than most tracks favor early speed and turf tend to favor late speed, in general ways. But as soon as I say there is a speed bias, Custer and the cavalry always come out of the lbue and run me down at the wrie. I prefer to look for race biases, determined by the match up of the horses.
Not that I have always had an open mind, but often, and open wallet - losing leaves an impression!:D

Valuist

06-21-2006, 12:58 PM

Biases definitely exist; just not often as they used to. For the majority of the Arlington meet, you could forget about winning if you were near the rail. And Keeneland has had the rocket rail (R.I.P. to no longer playing that wonderfully biased track :mad: ) for years.

NYPlayer

06-21-2006, 08:21 PM

Tom

06-21-2006, 08:29 PM

Curious - if Poly Track becomes more widespread, will horses bounce more on it, being plastic and all? :D

the_fat_man

06-21-2006, 08:50 PM

In the words of the grandmaster himself from his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy" (p.97):

Horses who have just run an exceptionally good race will frequently follow it by reverting to their previous, unexceptional form, or by running worse than their norm, making them good horses to bet against...The starkest examples that come to mind are two great fillies, Ruffian and Go For Wand, who in races fifteen years apart literally ran themselves to death when they were raced back with insufficient recuperation time after supreme efforts."
.......
Ragozin also had some comments about trip handicapping and used Beyer's example of Badger Land's trip in the 1986 Derby. I won't quote, but here's the synopsis: Beyer predicted Badger Land to win the Preakness based on the horses rough trip in the Derby. Badger Land ran then miserably in the Preakness. Beyer's reason? The rough trip in the derby. That's what's wrong with trip handicapping, it's circular reasoning ultimately collpases in on itself.

In this corner we have Len Ragozin, the champion of the bounce.

And, in this corner, we have Frank Whiteley, trainer of champions.

Now, if Lenny believes that Frank ran Ruffian back too soon, thereby causing her to bounce and break down, then who in his/her right mind would even think of questioning the guru of the bounce? Not like Frank knew what he was doing or knew his horses even. When it comes to Tbreds, Lenny knows way more than Frank. Yeah.

I think that the Ragozin disciples really need to get their asses over to the backstretch and witness first hand what happens after a race. (In fact, some of you dudes really need to learn the game in general a bit more. Then again, the way of the zealot.) The process by which a horse recovers after racing (could take a day, 2 days, a week, etc.) goes a long way towards revealing how idiotic the bounce notion really is.

Let's see:

Horse Z wins in a particularly hard race. A number of possibilities

1) Z shows no ill effects from the effort. He cools down nicely, eats up after the race and continues from there, and after a few days of walking he's back on the track and training like a champ.

2) Z is knocked out by the race. Takes longer than usual to cool down, doesn't eat up, is listless while walking the next day, loses his appetite, and it takes a week to get him back on the track, where he lacks sharpness.

3) Z apparently is fine after the race. He eats up, retains his appetite, and after a few days of walking he's back training but he's not as sharp as before the race.

Now, meet MOE, trainer of Z.

MOE is an idiot, however, he can tell the difference between the three above cases, and MOE knows Z. And MOE knows enough to not run Z until Z is ready to race; i.e. Z has regained/retained his sharpness.

Which leads to a number of possibilities:

A) MOE runs Z when Z is ready to race (is sharp) --applies to either 1,2 or 3: which means that the BOUNCE theory does not apply---cause MOE, NOT LENNY, knows Z.

B) MOE is forced to run Z by the racing secretary (filling a race) which means that Z:

i) doesn't 'bounce' in case 1 ---in the empirical sense
ii) bounces in case 2 ---in the empirical sense
iii) bounces in case 3 --- in the empirical sense

In other words, there is/isn't a physical reason for the horse to bounce/not bounce.

Of course, to know/predict that Z will bounce in these cases requires the knowledge that Z did not recover well from his last effort (cases 2 and 3).

Get it, Raggies?

Unless you boys have recovery info from the barns, you might want to kick around the notion that horses 'bounce' when they don't get good setups (or as good as they did when they won). I'd applaud Little Guy for this but
anyone who's been in the game for more than 1 month and takes the time to watch a few races ALREADY KNOWS THIS. Except the dudes with their noses in the sheets.

Part Deux

A general and FINAL word on TRIP handicapping, as it's apparent from these posts that too many are still unfamiliar with this method.

Trip handicapping, at any but the most neophyte of levels, is NOT, I repeat, IS NOT, about rough trips. If you watch races and bet back those horses that get into trouble, YOU WILL GO BROKE!!!!. Trip handicapping is unquantified pace handicapping. Trip handicapping is about race shapes, race setups, positioning, drafting, etc.
The coach that watches the most film usually puts together the best game plan. Of course, this doesn't carry over to horseracing. Uh huh

Dave

06-21-2006, 08:59 PM

I think if you were as smart as you seem to think you are, fat man, you would take a little better care of yourself.

the_fat_man

06-21-2006, 09:10 PM

I think if you were as smart as you seem to think you are, fat man, you would take a little better care of yourself.

Ha Ha Ha ha :lol::bang:

All the critical thinkers are here tonight.

Tom

06-21-2006, 09:15 PM

Fat Man,
i would put Frank Whiteley in the catagory of idiot for ever agreeing to that match race. I thought it was stupid idea before it happened. Mathc races prove nothing and are no good for racing. You call him a trainer of champions, I call him a killer of champions. It is obvious to me Ruffian had the class, not Frank.

Dave

06-21-2006, 09:21 PM

oh, and I forgot about this part:

Of course, to know/predict that Z will bounce in these cases requires the knowledge that Z did not recover well from his last effort (cases 2 and 3).

of course, this is incorrectly attributed as fact, when it is actually your opinion based on no actual knowledge of the subject.

DrugSalvastore

06-21-2006, 09:36 PM

This isn't a particularly interesting topic to me.

I'm not a big fan of labels at all....but I do believe the time a horse gets between races is something that all horse players should take note of. Most of the time it's not important at all...but each horse is it's own entity.

Barbaro had been given atleast a month off between all his starts leading into the Preakness. His trainer choose that schedule for this horse inspite of the trends that suggested that it wasn't the best way to bring a horse into the Derby.

Barbaro is a horse with a rather high knee action---he's also a horse who's taken missteps in races before and got a little sloppy with his action. I would assume that is the reason why Matz opted to give him so much time between his starts leading up to the Derby.

From a betting standpoint---in the Preakness---you have an odds-on favorite doing something he hasn't yet been asked to do (running on three weeks shorter rest than he's ever had to.)

That didn't really play a role in my handicapping though. I bet against Barbaro more so because I felt his dream trip in the Ky Derby made him look better than he really was...and that Sweetnorthernsaint's abysmal early trip and alarmingly swift (record or near-record) 2nd quarter mile fraction made the horse look much much worse than he really was on Derby day.

Had Sweetnorthernsaint not run in the race---than I would have used the fact that Barbaro had never run on such short rest as a reason to not totally concede the race to him. However, with SNS out, he would still have been viewed by me as by far the most likely winner of that race.

Who really knows what impact the short rest had. I would think much less of an impact than his breaking hard through the gate prior to the race could have had.

The thing to remember is that each horse is its own entity...just as each race is its own entity.

Dave

06-21-2006, 09:47 PM

His trainer choose that schedule for this horse inspite of the trends that suggested that it wasn't the best way to bring a horse into the Derby.

that is a crock.

edit ps (just read the rest)

as each person is his/her own entity, I will tell the actuarial profession that they have been fooled by randomness.

DrugSalvastore

06-21-2006, 09:55 PM

that is a crock.

The statement itself was not a crock you dumbass.

It had been 50 years since a horse had won the race off similar rest.

I think you meant to say that 'the idea that a horse can't win the Derby off of five weeks rest is total nonsense' and that, of course, I would have agreed with.

Dave

06-21-2006, 09:59 PM

The statement itself was not a crock you dumbass.

that is a crock.

DrugSalvastore

06-21-2006, 10:10 PM

you're just jealous of my good looks.

the little guy

06-21-2006, 10:12 PM

Who isn't?

Dave

06-21-2006, 10:16 PM

ok, I am willing to keep an open mind.

could you plz post the actual data so that I might examine this trend?
all horses who prepped in a gr I 5 weeks prior to the derby along w/their finishes and prices.

kthx

we will see just how suggestive you actually are....

DrugSalvastore

06-21-2006, 11:22 PM

It would be a waste of time.

As you should have known, I am not one of the people who actually believed that trend to mean anything.

I was just pointing out that it was common knowledge that a horse hadn't won the Derby in 50 years while entering the race off of five or more weeks rest.

And knowing that, Matz still decided to take that route into the Derby, because he believed his horse would be at his best on Derby day with five weeks between races....inspite of what those trends being overplayed by the press said.

The basis of my entire post was that "each horse is it's own entity"

Because past horses who have absolutley nothing in common with Barbaro, failed to win off five weeks or more rest, doesn't mean Barbaro couldn't.

I think you just don't like the fact that I called it a "trend suggesting that it wasn't the best way to bring a horse into the Derby."

* The fact that a horse hadn't won the Derby in 50 years off a layoff of five weeks or more is in fact a trend. It can very easily be argued--as I know you want to do---that it is a misleading trend. And---it also does suggest that generically speaking...it's not the best way to bring a horse into the race.

Dave

06-21-2006, 11:34 PM

DrugSalvastore

06-21-2006, 11:54 PM

actually, as matz correctly pointed out, it's just bs and suggests nothing.

that's what I don't like about it --- I don't like people propagating bs dressed up as fact or statistics.
these are the kind of 'trends' that led people to burn witches.

I'm not arguing it -- I'm mocking it.

Yea---I made a big announcement here declaring Discreet Cat would win the KY Derby. So, that tells you how much I believed the time between final prep stuff.

In the past, other than the more recent and somewhat unproductive UAE Derby, there hasn't really been a final prep for the Derby outside of four weeks. That obviously played a big role in that trend

You clearly missed my entire point---either my writing is very confusing...or your reading comprehension skills lack....or both.

Dave

06-22-2006, 12:27 AM

In the past, other than the more recent and somewhat unproductive UAE Derby, there hasn't really been a final prep for the Derby outside of four weeks. That obviously played a big role in that trend

ahahahahahahaha!!!!!

think so?

DrugSalvastore

06-22-2006, 01:14 AM

It's not my fault that you will never be as breathtakingly beautiful as I am.

I'm on a roll with these gems of obviousness. aren't I???

06-22-2006, 01:22 AM

Ragozin also had some comments about trip handicapping and used Beyer's example of Badger Land's trip in the 1986 Derby. I won't quote, but here's the synopsis: Beyer predicted Badger Land to win the Preakness based on the horses rough trip in the Derby. Badger Land ran then miserably in the Preakness. Beyer's reason? The rough trip in the derby. That's what's wrong with trip handicapping, it's circular reasoning ultimately collpases in on itself.

I love examples like this. :rolleyes:

For every one, you can easily find a similar one that shows the opposite. How about Touch Gold's Preakness? This was about as bad a trip you will see, and the horse rebounded to deny Silver Charm the Triple Crown.

PaceAdvantage

06-22-2006, 03:57 AM

You are saying this subpar performance could not have come from overexertion in the previous race?

I would think a lot of athletes would disagree with this. ;)

Just how much time do these massive bundles of muscle and bone need to recuperate from one race? How much time does a human athlete need to recuperate from a supreme effort? Only a few days for most athletes.

Why would a horse be any different? Racehorses spend their entire lives either training, racing, or standing in their stall. They are usually in prime physical condition. The very definition of being in prime physical condition is the ability to recuperate quickly from exhaustive physical efforts.

Unless a horse becomes ill after a race, I see no reason to think 15-20 days off is more than enough time NO MATTER how physically taxing the last race happens to be......but that's just me....

Does anyone really believe that a healthy horse is somehow blown out by running 6 measly furlongs, or 8 measly furlongs, or even 9 measly furlongs every 20 days? 20 days is a LONG time for a flesh and blood being to recuperate from physical activity....

PaceAdvantage

06-22-2006, 04:04 AM

ahahahahahahaha!!!!!

think so?

This is getting real old, real fast.

PaceAdvantage

06-22-2006, 04:04 AM

It's not my fault that you will never be as breathtakingly beautiful as I am.

As is this....

06-22-2006, 06:05 AM

I tend to agree with TLG on this one. I think most "bounces" are the product of not analyzing what happened during a race to cause a horse to run slower figures than in the previous race. Most horses that run new tops do so by getting ideal circumstances for a particular race. Surface, distance, fitness, the pace of the race, and a clean trip all merge to form a very good looking performance.

Now, if you change any of those for the next race,the chances or a repeat or better figure become reduced greatly. I prefer to analyze why a horse ran a big figure and decide myself if I think conditions will be present to allow a repeat, or if something is likely to change and cause a horse to perform differently next time out.

In Barbaro's case, he had an absolute dream trip in the Derby, especially for such a big field. I figured he was no better than 10% to give a repeat performance. The problem for me was, none of the alternatives were particularly attractive for wagering purposes. My point is, I don't think most "big figure" races are particularly stressful on a horse, they are the product of a pretty stress free race. If others choose to call this regression a "bounce" for no other reason than the horse ran fast last time, so be it. It seems like a lazy way to handicap to me.

The Foster was a very good example. The favorite, the name already forgotten, earned a big Beyer and TG number while getting a dream trip. He had virtually zero chance of repeating this effort next out because his chances of getting an easy lead were about 1%. Did this horse bounce from stress from the last race? I seriously doubt it.

Suff

06-22-2006, 07:34 AM

Unless a horse becomes ill after a race, I see no reason to think 15-20 days off is more than enough time NO MATTER how physically taxing the last race happens to be......but that's just me....
....

I can't speak to all class levels, but (some) Horse's in the 5K-8K claiming range can barely walk for 3-4 days after a tough race. (frequently).

Not kidding, 15-20 minutes after a race you can't get the horse to walk. And when you do, he walks like you or I would if we were to walk barefoot through broken glass.

I don't know nothing else about bounce. Every so often I don't want to be at work....so bad.... that I fluff an excuse and leave. I have no idea when, where, or how often these days come. Someone may even ask..." where's Dudley?"...and they'll hear ..."oh, he bounced " .....He'll be in tommorrow".

the little guy

06-22-2006, 08:43 AM

I love examples like this. :rolleyes:

For every one, you can easily find a similar one that shows the opposite. How about Touch Gold's Preakness? This was about as bad a trip you will see, and the horse rebounded to deny Silver Charm the Triple Crown.

If memory serves me right, Badger Land NEVER ran another particularly good race.

Now there's quite a bounce! I think we call that the DWayne Bounce.

KingChas

06-22-2006, 09:24 AM

My definition of a bounce.The horse has been running a positive form cycle.This is speaking all class levels.The horse has just ran or matched or beat his lifetime high beyer (shall I say).He's peaked.Now most horses except young(lightly raced) or very superior(stakes horses) will begin to tail off .

The bounce term is just a form cycle measure to me.A lot of horseracing terminollogy is foolish.But we all know the meaning or intent of them.As I stated in another post.My pet peeve is the "Perfect Trip".Impossible (oxymoron).But I truly know the meaning of the term.

I find it funny people get so upset over the use of a word that's always been around.So it's a shortcut term.I do not wish or need to write an essay every time a horse is about to bounce....ooops sorry...I mean tail off on his form cycle today. ;)

I have no need to be "Logically Correct" on this subject only to cash tickets when I catch the above scenario about to happen.My ego just isn't that big.

I do agree using bounce as a way to justify a horse being injured is totally "assinine".

Bottom line.Use what works for you.If I personally thought just like every one else capping would not be a lot of fun.I strive to be eclectic.Whats the big deal ? ;)

KingChas

06-22-2006, 09:31 AM

Just how much time do these massive bundles of muscle and bone need to recuperate from one race? How much time does a human athlete need to recuperate from a supreme effort? Only a few days for most athletes.

....

Funny PA.I guess with that point of view every human athlete and equine athlete would just keep on setting personal highs and world records each time they competed if they had adequate rest. :lol:

PaceAdvantage

06-22-2006, 09:46 AM

Funny PA.I guess with that point of view every human athlete and equine athlete would just keep on setting personal highs and world records each time they competed if they had adequate rest. :lol:

Why should the concept of rest be the sole reason for a better performance next time out? Just how long should it take for a healthy athlete to completely RECOVER from a taxing physical event? Should a healthy, 1100 pound horse who is at the top of his or her game athletically take more than 15-20 days to recover from a single, solitary race?

No.

But why would that also mean (as you state) that he or she is going to return to run an even better race than last time? I don't see how the two go hand in hand.

KingChas

06-22-2006, 09:58 AM

PaceAdvantage; Should a healthy, 1100 pound horse who is at the top of his or her game athletically take more than 15-20 days to recover from a single, solitary race?

This thread is confusing me.I thought the word bounce was attributed to every class in horseracing?You are comparing this to a horse of Citation's calibre.How long can a athlete be on top his/her game?I was refering to the word bounce for all class levels of horseracing.As I said Bounce to me is the shortcut term for (FCC) Form Cycle Change.That's all. ;)

I would never debate superior or top class athletes hold their form longer than average athletes. :cool:

Tom

06-22-2006, 11:19 AM

Suff,
We used to hav e a horse at FL that was hands down the top dog on he grounds - sprinter. He was our BIG horse. Went to the front and never looked back every time. Ran full out every race.
When got him back to his stall, he actually lay down! They had a chiropracter work on him and gave him accupuncture between races. A hopelss cripple 13 days, then a superstar for 1:10.

PA,
I think the bounce things is limited to freshened horses putting out to much too early - and getting muscle sore. Like your first game of tennis in the spring. I think it is less frequent now with better nutrition, training, etc. But it still happens, and horses need time to recover. And a short freshening - 30-45 days proabably is better now and then to keep the fit. But once the foundation is there, I doubt you see performance bounces, just normal variations couple with pace and luck and match ups.
But is refreshing to see so much disagreement over this - help at the windows.;)

KingChas

06-22-2006, 11:21 AM

One last question in closing.

Do you beleive in Form Cycles?

Or is this just another lazy,generic,illogical,shortcut horseracing term? :kiss:

Dave

06-22-2006, 09:04 PM

Just how much time do these massive bundles of muscle and bone need to recuperate from one race? How much time does a human athlete need to recuperate from a supreme effort? Only a few days for most athletes.

Why would a horse be any different? Racehorses spend their entire lives either training, racing, or standing in their stall. They are usually in prime physical condition. The very definition of being in prime physical condition is the ability to recuperate quickly from exhaustive physical efforts.

Unless a horse becomes ill after a race, I see no reason to think 15-20 days off is more than enough time NO MATTER how physically taxing the last race happens to be......but that's just me....

Does anyone really believe that a healthy horse is somehow blown out by running 6 measly furlongs, or 8 measly furlongs, or even 9 measly furlongs every 20 days? 20 days is a LONG time for a flesh and blood being to recuperate from physical activity....

a couple days?
is this based on any factual reality, or are you just making up your own and spreading disinformation?

I'm not a vet, and I haven't trained horses a day in my life, so let me try to find some kind of empirical evidence.
fat man cited trainers in his case vs Ragozin, so let me do the same here re: your hunches.
30 years ago, Ragozin was probably regarded as the fringe, and horses were trained on different schedules than they are now.
today, Ragozin is accepted by the mainstream, and trainers work on Ragozian schedules.
the great majority of trainers across the country are now giving their horses 3, 4, and 5 weeks between starts, but I'm supposed to believe that those horses could have run back in just a couple days, and rather than going after thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars these trainers leave their horses standing in a stall for no reason?

who am I supposed to believe -- the expert opinions of the bulk of the trainers in this country, or your unsupported hunches?
could you refute the testimonies of these trainers and provide me w/some -- ANY evidence at all to support your opinion?
if you were correct in your thinking, trainers would be stupid not to run 50 times a year, instead of 6-8.

ps

kingchas --
'bouncing' and tailing off are 2 different things.
as I mentioned in a previous post, the whole problem w/this subject is that 'bouncing' is actually specific lingo from the Ragozin lexicon that has been co-opted by the mainstream.
it really doesn't have much meaning outside the context of Ragozin's figs.
if you were to use said figs, you would see plenty of evidence of 'the bounce' --- the only real question is whether you feel Ragozin's #'s are any accurate reflection of the underlying reality.

KingChas

06-22-2006, 10:45 PM

kingchas --

it really doesn't have much meaning outside the context of Ragozin's figs.
if you were to use said figs, you would see plenty of evidence of 'the bounce' --- the only real question is whether you feel Ragozin's #'s are any accurate reflection of the underlying reality.

Dave I use my own figs and see plenty of evidence of 'the bounce'.As I said previously I use the term for my personal reasons 'my way'.Tailing off or whatever. Didn't know I had been borrowing the term from the Rag's all these years :D

I think PA's reply of 2 days rest was to my comparison of human athletes.I am 99% sure he was not refering to horses. ;)
Good luck -KC

Dave

06-22-2006, 11:14 PM

Dave I use my own figs and see plenty of evidence of 'the bounce'.As I said previously I use the term for my personal reasons 'my way'.Tailing off or whatever. Didn't know I had been borrowing the term from the Rag's all these years :D

I think that's a pretty odd term for you to come up w/before you ever heard it at the track, but that's irrelevant, anyway.
the 'bounce' in this thread is the 'bounce' terminology that the mainstream has borrowed from Ragozin.

if you have your own terminology that you define differently, then you are talking about something different.

Only a few days for most athletes.

Why would a horse be any different?

Dave

06-22-2006, 11:27 PM

Dave I use my own figs and see plenty of evidence of 'the bounce'.

and I stand corrected on that -- change 'Ragozin' to 'accurate'.

KingChas

06-23-2006, 12:20 AM

and I stand corrected on that -- change 'Ragozin' to 'accurate'.

:lol: When they become inaccurate you could always join the public library for free wearing rags and read the books TLG suggested :kiss: :lol:

the little guy

06-23-2006, 12:37 AM

I would say, in order.....

1. A Fan's Notes

2. American Pastoral

3. The Master and Margurita

4. Europe Central

5. Revolutionary Road

Get back to me after you've finished those.....I have plenty more great books. Just don't waste your time on Horse Racing books. Except, of course, for " Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees ".

PaceAdvantage

06-23-2006, 04:19 AM

This thread is confusing me.I thought the word bounce was attributed to every class in horseracing?You are comparing this to a horse of Citation's calibre.

No I'm not. When I say a horse at the TOP OF HIS GAME athletically, it can apply to the Grade 1 runner, or the $5000 claimer. Both horses can easily be at the top of their game. It's just that one's game is played against Grade 1 runners, the other against $5,000 claimers....and everywhere in between.

I didn't think this was all that complicated.

PaceAdvantage

06-23-2006, 04:28 AM

a couple days?
is this based on any factual reality, or are you just making up your own and spreading disinformation?

Of course it should only take a couple of days to recover from the actual stress of a race, provided that the horse is healthy to begin with.

Why is this so unbelievable to you? Have you ever been an athlete of any measure? I used to be a runner. Sprinter actually.....never took more than a few days for any aches and/or pains received from an especially intense competition or workout to disappear.

And in all actuality, an athlete at the top of his or her game should recover more quickly. A physically fit person shouldn't really get aches or pains from competition, as their training should allow their body to become used to the stress of competition.

The fact that trainers often wait two weeks to run back (but some have and still do run back on only a couple of days rest on occasion), doesn't mean the horse itself hasn't recovered from the effects of a race in only a few days. I generalize here, as of course, every horse is different.

Most thoroughbred flat horses only compete for a scant minute and a half on average. Do you really think it takes a physically fit, 1200 pound animal two weeks to recover from running in a race that lasts 90 seconds? That's absurd.

rastajenk

06-23-2006, 05:00 AM

In many, if not most, cases, the time between races is based more on the condition book and the preference system in place, so factors completely unrelated to physiology further weaken any generalizations about recovery time.

Dave

06-23-2006, 07:41 AM

that's a crock, rasta.

horses do occasionally wait for the right race, but that's not why they all get this time off and you know it.
I'm supposed to believe that every horse around the country takes 3-4 weeks to find an appropriate race??
what's absurd is practically every trainer in the country leaving his horse in a stall for a month instead of putting him on the track to earn money -- that's what the horse is there for.
how many times per year would you guess the average stakes horse runs?

still awaiting your rebuttal, pa -- we're talking about racehorses, not your high school track team.
please find me some kind of evidence to dispute 90% of the trainers in the country.

rastajenk

06-23-2006, 08:05 AM

I didn't say they wait for the right spot. I said the system of preference prevents them sometimes from running right back.

KingChas

06-23-2006, 09:57 AM

No I'm not. When I say a horse at the TOP OF HIS GAME athletically, it can apply to the Grade 1 runner, or the $5000 claimer. Both horses can easily be at the top of their game. It's just that one's game is played against Grade 1 runners, the other against $5,000 claimers....and everywhere in between.

I didn't think this was all that complicated.

Apples and Oranges?
A Grade 1 horse will be on top of his game a hell of a lot longer than a $5k claimer.Except in some rare instances,wouldn't you say?Age is also a factor.

How many cheaper horses can even string together consecutive wins?

I'm not talking about horses moving up the class ladder.I'm talking about established, consitantly raced claimers.They take turns beating each other.

Why's That?

kenwoodallpromos

06-23-2006, 02:28 PM

Apples and Oranges?
A Grade 1 horse will be on top of his game a hell of a lot longer than a $5k claimer.Except in some rare instances,wouldn't you say?Age is also a factor.

How many cheaper horses can even string together consecutive wins?

I'm not talking about horses moving up the class ladder.I'm talking about established, consitantly raced claimers.They take turns beating each other.

Why's That?
______________
That's because as a % probability, "classier" horses have more energy potential, recover faster, and exhibit more stamina for high speed on the track.
And that is why I have said Class= Stamina!

DrugSalvastore

06-23-2006, 04:04 PM

If you run a horse every 15-to-20 days---and he's sound enough to see out that racing schedule for an entire year---the horse will have between 18-to-25 starts by year's end.

Comparisons to humans are absurd. These are animals ranging in weight from 1,000 pounds to 1,200 pounds....and top horses can sustain speeds of nearly 40 mph's for more than a full minute...sometimes slightly beyond two full minutes---with 114 or more pounds on their back...all while running on some pretty fragile legs.

You also have to take into account the medication they are given before a race. A very common drug like lasix can dehydrate horses and sometimes even deplete them of pottasium. It's illegal for a human sprinter to run on lasix--but I think that's because it's considered a phenominal masking agent and can make other drugs in the system undetectable.

Steriods like Winstrol and Equipose are very legal in horse racing and very illegal in human sports. There's really a big difference in diets and medication.

In the old hay, oats, and water days---it was very reasonable to expect a horse to stand up to a race every 15 or so days...and sometimes with much less time between races if you planned to eventually give the horse some time off later on. Lasix has only been legal since the 1970's...and since 1995 in NY. That, and the big advancement in nutrition and drugs have changed things one would think.

A lot of trainers are very conscious of how a horse is eating between races. Too demanding of a schedule can put horses "off their feed" and affect the way they eat. Which can lead to weight loss...and that's not good.

I guess you should also take into consideration that breeders value raw speed more than they do durability and stamina...such things might have an effect on the breed overtime.

I think every trainer should strive to get 5 or 6 quality efforts from there horse each year....from about a 7 or 8 race a year schedule. Each horse is it's own entity though--and for some unsound types, that might not be possible---while other very sturdy and honest types might be able to give even more than that.

DrugSalvastore

06-23-2006, 04:22 PM

I should also have noted that Lasix is still not legal in Europe.

Valuist

06-23-2006, 04:32 PM

I think every trainer should strive to get 5 or 6 quality efforts from there horse each year....from about a 7 or 8 race a year schedule. Each horse is it's own entity though--and for some unsound types, that might not be possible---while other very sturdy and honest types might be able to give even more than that.

I assume you are talking about stakes horses with 5 or 6 quality efforts. But with the everyday horse, that just isn't an option. Its just too much to feed and stable horses to run them that infrequently. Let's say a horse is running for a $15,000 purse. He turns in a "quality effort", finishing 3rd beaten a length and a half. He's earned a grand total of $1,650. And now he's only got a few more bullets to fire. Sure its nice for Frankel to tailor-make a schedule for Ghostzapper to run 5 times in a year, but what about the guy with the $4,000 claimer at Thistledown? He's got to earn his keep......and he has to go out to battle regularly to do it.

DrugSalvastore

06-23-2006, 04:57 PM

If you spot a horse correctly---and can get five or six quality starts a year from the horse, you will be doing fantastic at any level of training.

I understand the economics...and I know what you are saying. I think the vast majority of owners of horses at that level want to see their horses race as much as possible--and "go to battle regularly" as you say.

Even at the bottom level, I don't think it's astute to run a horse every two weeks for as long as he holds up. But yes, you might be pressing to get more than 8 starts in if you can---where as with a classier animal that would be less tempting.

the_fat_man

06-23-2006, 08:19 PM

Of course it should only take a couple of days to recover from the actual stress of a race, provided that the horse is healthy to begin with.

Why is this so unbelievable to you? Have you ever been an athlete of any measure? I used to be a runner. Sprinter actually.....never took more than a few days for any aches and/or pains received from an especially intense competition or workout to disappear.

And in all actuality, an athlete at the top of his or her game should recover more quickly. A physically fit person shouldn't really get aches or pains from competition, as their training should allow their body to become used to the stress of competition.

The fact that trainers often wait two weeks to run back (but some have and still do run back on only a couple of days rest on occasion), doesn't mean the horse itself hasn't recovered from the effects of a race in only a few days. I generalize here, as of course, every horse is different.

Most thoroughbred flat horses only compete for a scant minute and a half on average. Do you really think it takes a physically fit, 1200 pound animal two weeks to recover from running in a race that lasts 90 seconds? That's absurd.

Rather than speculating on the topic, and this is not to say that I disagree with anything you've written, BOSS, in fact, I'm in agreement, those arguing against (namely DAVE, who really needs to explore the physical rather than the sheet game) should really get out to the barns and see for themselves.

In most cases, it takes a couple of days for a horse to 'recover' after a race. They're walked for a day or 2 after the race, and unless they're really knocked out by their effort, they're back on the track training. In most cases, they're eating regularly at this point. A fit horse should race regularly. Between races, daily gallops are sufficient to maintain form. (Allowing for cases where specific work needs to be done.)

With the present lengthy spacing between races, a horse needs regular morning workouts to stay/get fit. It the past, workouts were for horses coming off layoffs or day of the race edge-taker-offers.

So basically, horses are racing less, in races, but still training just as hard, only they're doing so primarily in the morning these days.

Perfect example of overtraining: Dan PUTZ and Steppenwolfer.

Rather than just long galloping the horse up to the Belmont (with an occasional breeze to retain some semblance of speed). Not like anyone is going to run off with the race, DAN, I mean, it is 1 1/2 miles.

PUTZ decides to work SWF in '10 and change for 6F, a few days before the race.

:bang:

Anyone remember the good turf gelding Johnny D?

Mike Kay has him at the top of his game and rather than ship him west or south at the end of the season, Kay decides to lay him up.
A handicapper friend remarked that it was a bad idea: WHEN A HORSE if FIT IT NEEDS TO RUN.

Johnny D got hurt when they started him back training and was never the same again.

P.S. damn those 114 pound jockey are heavy.
Ever been around a TBRED, DRUGS?
A fit, aggressive, ready to race, TBRED?
Ever been almost run over by a TBRED who has broken out his stall early in the morning, just aching to get out on the track?
Yeah, throw 114 pounds on his back and he becomes like a little puppy.

DrugSalvastore

06-23-2006, 08:43 PM

I've obviously been around them and on them.

I've never ridden in a race or worked a horse in the AM though....as 6 foot 3 inch 195lbs jockeys and exercize riders aren't exactly in demand from an employment standpoint.

I was pointing out the differences between human athletes and race horses. My writing must be really confusing.

Dave

06-23-2006, 10:15 PM

In most cases, it takes a couple of days for a horse to 'recover' after a race. They're walked for a day or 2 after the race, and unless they're really knocked out by their effort, they're back on the track training. In most cases, they're eating regularly at this point. A fit horse should race regularly. Between races, daily gallops are sufficient to maintain form. (Allowing for cases where specific work needs to be done.)

With the present lengthy spacing between races, a horse needs regular morning workouts to stay/get fit.

and why is there presently a lengthy spacing between races?
and why is the horse simply working out instead of racing and earning money?
look, I've been to the track enough to recognize this kind of behavior --- all the frustrated couch trainers need to show the world how 'right' they are, but there's not much point to any of this discussion if you guys aren't going to bring any kind of actual information.
that's why I like talking about racing -- maybe I'll learn something.
I'm really not in it to find out about anybody's high school track team, or halfbaked fantasy from wannabe vets or trainers.
I understand that actually touching a horse, or setting foot on the backstretch might be a novelty to some people, but it's really not all that special.

again, I would ask for this secret info that some of you guys have and aren't sharing w/90+% of the professional trainers in the country.

while I'm asking, I've never bet a dog or trotter in my life --- how often do those things race?

Perfect example of overtraining: Dan PUTZ and Steppenwolfer.

Rather than just long galloping the horse up to the Belmont (with an occasional breeze to retain some semblance of speed). Not like anyone is going to run off with the race, DAN, I mean, it is 1 1/2 miles.

PUTZ decides to work SWF in '10 and change for 6F, a few days before the race.

well, since horses only need a couple days to recover from an actual race, I'm sure he bounced back pretty quick from his work.........:lol::rolleyes:

ps

this is tommy tomillo, isn't it?

PaceAdvantage

06-24-2006, 12:39 AM

the little guy

06-24-2006, 12:43 AM

Oh, I would say there are many appropriate places for " absurd ".

KingChas

06-24-2006, 01:20 AM

Thanks fat man. That was all I was trying to say. Apparently, people are having trouble understand my writings in this thread. It happens to the best of us I suppose.

Who just used the word absurd? It fits right in here....

Ok PA I understand now.When we were comparing recovery time from humans to horse's I missunderstood your 2-day reply.I actually thought you meant that a horse could be ready to race again in 2-days :blush:That would be absurd! I'm absurd :D

PaceAdvantage

06-24-2006, 01:25 AM

06-24-2006, 01:27 AM

Dutrow would certainly agree with you.

KingChas

06-24-2006, 01:52 AM

Dutrow="The Golden Man Himself" :lol:

Dave

06-24-2006, 11:48 AM

Repetitive stress obviously will bring on cumulative effects, which is why races are normally spaced at least two weeks apart....

so, you now change your story and claim that the effects of stress linger for at least 2 weeks?
dude, I hate to be the one to set myself up as your english teacher, but you know what 'cumulative' is, right?
in order to sum up many, you'd first have to have one to begin with, wouldn't you?
if, as you seem to want to believe, horses were 100% 2 days after a race, how could any negative effects add up, unless you raced 2 days apart?
let's just try to use a little common sense on this.

ps

is this the kind of forum that bans people for disagreeing w/the host?

NYPlayer

06-24-2006, 12:24 PM

No, not at all. I wasn't implying a horse should be ready to race again in 2 days, although horses have raced on only one or two days rest and have been competitive.

All I am saying is that the recovery time from stressful exercise (such as the running of a race) is nowhere near the 10-15 days some are trying to imply here, for a normal, physically fit, healthy horse. That would be nuts....

Just because a horse has recovered from the physical stress of running race, doesn't mean you should go right out and race him again in 3 or 4 days. Repetitive stress obviously will bring on cumulative effects, which is why races are normally spaced at least two weeks apart....

But the recovery time for a single, solitary race, taken in isolation, should be no more than a couple of days for most horses....

If what your saying is true, then most horses, make that the vast majority, would be racing every few weeks at a minimum. You don't see that, especially of the more talented stakes runners. Take SNS for example, looks like he won't make another start until August. Why? Well looks like he had some injury (a quarter crack) or at least that's what we were told. But Tombetti had him back in training, and then decided to back off, so even though he apparently healed from his injury, he still wasn't quite ready for training. So why is that? The horse had a tough Spring campaign, and is feeling the effects of it. Not every horse is the same, but it's the intensity of the racing that does it.

the_fat_man

06-24-2006, 12:58 PM

If what your saying is true, then most horses, make that the vast majority, would be racing every few weeks at a minimum. You don't see that, especially of the more talented stakes runners. Take SNS for example, looks like he won't make another start until August. Why? Well looks like he had some injury (a quarter crack) or at least that's what we were told. But Tombetti had him back in training, and then decided to back off, so even though he apparently healed from his injury, he still wasn't quite ready for training. So why is that? The horse had a tough Spring campaign, and is feeling the effects of it. Not every horse is the same, but it's the intensity of the racing that does it.

Why are we making this so difficult?

Horses that are in shape should race.

Horses that are in shape should recover from races without difficulty and retain their fitness.

If a horse is hurt or loses its edge, it's appropriate to back off on its training. Then the process of getting the horse ready to race starts again.

What's the point of having a fit horse, a horse ready to race, but spotting its races to the extent that you have to work it regularly in the morning to keep it fit? Not buying the theory that a horse peaks FOR a single race and needs an extended layoff with subsequent training to peak for the next single effort.

Stake horses naturally run less than cheaper ones because there are less stakes available (relatively speaking). Stake horses, by virtue of their 'class' and relative lack of infirmity, also tend to retain their form for longer periods of time.

In the case of SNS, the horse suffered not only from the 'intensity' of racing but also from having an IDIOT on its back that forced SNS to put in more effort than normal in its races (witness SNS' trips in the Derby and Preakness).

Dave, how about another quote from your GURU.
Ever have an opinion of your own, dude?
What's it like to experience a sport through the eyes (DATA) of someone else? :lol::lol:

Comeon, Puppet boy, gives us something original.

P.S. You've been shaded.

NYPlayer

06-24-2006, 01:03 PM

"Now, if Lenny believes that Frank ran Ruffian back too soon, thereby causing her to bounce and break down, then who in his/her right mind would even think of questioning the guru of the bounce? Not like Frank knew what he was doing or knew his horses even. When it comes to Tbreds, Lenny knows way more than Frank. Yeah..."

Len owned horses and from what i've heard, the barn was successful . Len used his concepts to claim horses and move them up. And other trainers use them and believe in them. Just ask Bobby Frankel. He's had so many successful meets with outstainding win percents even Beyer was suspicious. Frankel knows all about the bounce and he's careful to space his horses' races accordingly. Empire Maker was a good example. He let him recuperate form his Derby and didn't enter him in the Preak. The horse came back and won the Belmont nicely. And J Bailey's agent always used the sheets to select mounts.

"...I think that the Ragozin disciples really need to get their asses over to the backstretch and witness first hand what happens after a race. (In fact, some of you dudes really need to learn the game in general a bit more. Then again, the way of the zealot.) The process by which a horse recovers after racing (could take a day, 2 days, a week, etc.) goes a long way towards revealing how idiotic the bounce notion really is..."

There's no need to do any of that or understand the physicality of a horse. The sheets will tell you when the horse should bounce, and the horses will do that about 80% of the time.

"...In other words, there is/isn't a physical reason for the horse to bounce/not bounce...."

You could be right, but it really doesn't matter. All any handicapper really needs to know is, if the numbers move in a certain direction, the horse is more/less likely to bounce. It's ery predictable straight from the sheet.

"...A general and FINAL word on TRIP handicapping, as it's apparent from these posts that too many are still unfamiliar with this method.

Trip handicapping, at any but the most neophyte of levels, is NOT, I repeat, IS NOT, about rough trips. If you watch races and bet back those horses that get into trouble, YOU WILL GO BROKE!!!!. Trip handicapping is unquantified pace handicapping. Trip handicapping is about race shapes, race setups, positioning, drafting, etc.
The coach that watches the most film usually puts together the best game plan. Of course, this doesn't carry over to horseracing. Uh huh..."

A very impressive list of factors. But what does it matter if the horse is going to bounce? Form cycle is the overarching handicapping concept. I look for horses to either improve or decline based on the energy output they've demonstrated in past races. I don't worry so much about the cirmumstances of those races because it really doesn't matter much. The hardest thing a horse has to do is actually run the race. If a horse breaks quicky and is "on game", his jock can put him where he wants to early in the race, but the horse still does the running. He makes his own trip.

the little guy

06-24-2006, 01:08 PM

NYPlayer

06-24-2006, 01:15 PM

Horses that are in shape should race.

Horses that are in shape should recover from races without difficulty and retain their fitness.

Agreed. But they don't do they? Please point me to any horse that is racing every two weeks ragardless of its class and is running close to its top ability.

Stake horses naturally run less than cheaper ones because there are less stakes available (relatively speaking). Stake horses, by virtue of their 'class' and relative lack of infirmity, also tend to retain their form for longer periods of time.

There are still plenty of stakes races in any given region of the country. If a trainer had a fit horse that only needs ten days or so to be ready for its next race as you and PA have said, then he could find plenty of spots to run him in.

NYPlayer

06-24-2006, 01:24 PM

Interesting to note that apparantly horses recover quicker overseas.....

Badaam won a 2 1/2 mile race at Royal Ascot this past Tuesday and returned to win at 2 5/8 at the same meeting just a few minutes ago. The connections are, I guess, NOT sheet players.

On the turf I presume? It's well known that horses bounce less on the turf. Also it would depend on the quality of the Tuesday race. My guess was that it was not a new top. Anyway, when a hore is entered righ back, you have to look at the connections. If they're good, they're entering him back because they know he's in top condition (not just taking a shot), thus mitigating against the likelyhood of a bounce.

I don't know much about Euro racing, but I hear the meets are spaced well apart, so a horse going into Royal Ascot is likely to have been coming off a good bit of rest.

06-24-2006, 01:26 PM

Amazingly enough, the winner of the Golden Jubilee Stakes, a Group 1, was able to win on just four days rest. This was the same four days rest the 3rd place finisher had as well.

the little guy

06-24-2006, 01:40 PM

Oh, come on CJ, that was another turf race. Apparantly horses don't have a physical reaction to exertion when racing on grass.

Do people ever reread the stuff they post?

Dave

06-24-2006, 04:46 PM

06-24-2006, 04:56 PM

if 1000 horses ran today, how many would you estimate had run just 4 or fewer days ago?

if this, and the high school track analogies, are what you base your opinions on, then I think this thread's in the tank.

Where do you get your opinions about these supposed expert professional trainers? Do you know any of these guys? Most are incompetent at best, many are outright idiots. It is also in the trainer's best interest many times to keep horses in the barn instead of running them, even if not in the owner's best interests. So I'd be careful basing your opinions on what these guys do.

Free Bird

06-24-2006, 05:21 PM

Where do you get your opinions about these supposed expert professional trainers? Do you know any of these guys? Most are incompetent at best, many are outright idiots. It is also in the trainer's best interest many times to keep horses in the barn instead of running them, even if not in the owner's best interests. So I'd be careful basing your opinions on what these guys do.Fred Warren in FL and Barry Abrams in CA come to mind. They will run their horses every 5 days come hell or high water, good form and bad, and occasionally one of them wins before he is completely worn out.

Dave

06-24-2006, 05:23 PM

I think this thread's in the tank.

Where do you get your opinions about these supposed expert professional trainers? Do you know any of these guys? Most are incompetent at best, many are outright idiots.

I stand corrected.

06-24-2006, 06:11 PM

Glad I was able to help.

karlskorner

06-24-2006, 06:14 PM

Here we go again. As soon as somebody doesn't like what someone is doing he becomes an Idiot or Stupid or Incompetent or just plain Moron. I see these discriptions in numerous posts over and over again. I have to assume it's an opinion, but rather harsh especially if the person is not known personally.

06-24-2006, 06:41 PM

I know and have known lots of trainers. Why do you think small group of trainers win most of the races? What do you think the average hourly wage is of a normal, every day trainer? What education level do you think a typical trainer has?

I agee idiot was a bit harsh. On the other hand, your post takes my words totally out of context. Who said I don't like what someone is doing? I'm just saying that because a trainer is doing something doesn't make it right. I jokingly talked about Dutrow running horses back quickly, but he does it often. Obviously one of the most successful trainers in the game isn't a big believer in the bounce.

Tom

06-24-2006, 07:00 PM

OK, 163 posts and no one has changd my mind about anything.
Times up....I keep playing the same way unless I get a good reason by 8:00pm est. :sleeping:

Dave

06-24-2006, 07:39 PM

I know and have known lots of trainers. Why do you think small group of trainers win most of the races?

and these are the ones running their horses back every 4 days?

your comments about dutrow couldn't be more wrong --- you would have been better served by a. jerkens.
a. jerkens might be one of the last of the successful old school trainers, in terms of racing schedule.
or, maybe even some guys like lake, or shuman.
just look at how he gets horses to move up --- must be the short rest.

thx for the insight, but I'll stick to the opinions of the ron andersons, frankels, or amosseseses over the frustrated virtual board trainers, high school track stars, and fat people.

let me know where you train, so we can bet against, plz.

kev

06-24-2006, 07:52 PM

Dave: Ron, Tom, and Bobby ?? Oh yes Ragzion sheets users, don't forget about big Dale and Doug O. the list goes on and on. People needs to learn about the whole bouncing topic before posting. One thing a horse can bounce and still win, 2nd I love to play a 3yr who just ran a new small (off their 2yr top) top right back in their next race. So what if Richard runs horses every 4 days, he's doing something that most can't do, what happens when a trainer gets a horse from Richard are they running the same? Are they wheeling them back in 4 days?? For your info Richard does know about the sheets, he's talked about them before when he was buying Sis City. Not saying he using them like Tom A. does or Doug O.Neil.

karlskorner

06-24-2006, 08:00 PM

For someone who has been 30 years at the same job and spent most of the time here and there I don't doubt you may have known several trainers at one time or another. On the other hand I personally know 15/20 trainers, most of them on a first name basis acquired over the years. Stanley Ersoff gave up a lucrative Law practice because he wanted to train horses and does fairly well at it, I wouldn't call him imcompetent. Happy Alter sold a barricade business for $10 million because he wanted to train and breed horses, which he does fairly well at, drives a Rolls Royce, wouldn't call him an idiot. I could name others. I park in the horsemens lot at CRC/GP and you would be surprised at some of the high priced cars parked there, I would n't call their owners incompetent. Our own Tom Schell is handling bottom feeders and holding his own, I wouldn't call him imcompetent. Agreed 20 percent of all trainers win 80 percent of the races, simple answer, they have the better horses in their charge, probably the reason the balance can be called incompetent, idiots and morons.

Dave

06-24-2006, 08:14 PM

Our own Tom Schell is handling bottom feeders

hehe....ouch.
take it easy on tom --- I don't even know the guy and I felt that one.

karlskorner

06-24-2006, 08:37 PM

06-24-2006, 08:54 PM

I didn't mean it as an insult, I am quite impressed with the job he has done so far with the stock he has. Just look at his record, ran 8 times at CRC, 7 in the money, with 2 wins. I would hardly call this incompetent.

ROFL, you were all over Tom earlier in the year about one of his first time starters. You ripped him on several occasions.

I never said some trainers weren't very good. For every success story you quote, I could find about 50 to 100 in the opposite direction.

Kev,

Aren't you the guy that recently bounced the Sheets in favor of BRIS numbers?

Dave,

Like it or not, Dutrow is an elite trainer in the game right now. He is certainly doing better than Frankel. Who is the "amosseseses"? Forget high school track and start with high school English.

kev

06-24-2006, 09:06 PM

the little guy

06-24-2006, 09:28 PM

Just for a point of clarification, and I may be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that the business you referred to Happy Alter selling was from his wife's family. If that is indeed the case I suppose the argument is that he was smart enough to marry well.

the little guy

06-24-2006, 09:30 PM

This is certainly not meant as a criticism of Ron Anderson in any way, he is a great jockey agent and in my experience a very nice guy, but I don't think even he would argue that he knows more about handicapping and speed figures than CJ.

karlskorner

06-24-2006, 09:39 PM

Happy bought the business, built it up over a couple of years and than I believe sold it back to the original owners for big bucks. Years ago he use to train boxers, brought this knowledge to the horse racing business.

kev

06-24-2006, 09:41 PM

"February 07, 2004 - Eclipse Award winner Jerry Bailey called Anderson "the best agent I've ever had." "Ron uses the Ragozin Numbers system better than anyone else," Bailey said. "He can determine 95% of the time when a horse will or will not run his A race. He doesn't ask me a whole lot to choose between horses, and I like that. It's one of the things I don't want to get involved in."

the little guy

06-24-2006, 09:41 PM

I'll assume that you know better than me.

06-24-2006, 09:53 PM

"He can determine 95% of the time when a horse will or will not run his A race..."

Sure he can. I'm sure Bailey said it, but there is simply zero chance that is even close to true.

karlskorner

06-24-2006, 09:54 PM

The only thing I questioned Tom Schell earlier this year was during the GP meet and why was Danny Hurtak listed as the trainer for an entry he owned and trained. If I found fault last year with his handling of a 2 year old, I probably had good reason to, I am the same person when he started out at CRC and couldn't get stall space that offered various locations locally that he could board his charges, I am the same person who spoke to RS Bobby Umphrey (unbeknownst to Tom) about giving him some stall space. If it weren't for my hearing problem left over from WWII and causing me some problems this past year or so I would probably jump over the paddock rail and shake his hand.

Dave

06-24-2006, 09:55 PM

CJ your all over the place and don't even know what your talking about. This is what I said about that topic.

"The Sheets I'm better at the stake races and Thorograph the cheaper races. Mostly I use them now just for the 3yr races. I found Bris pace figs and their data and doing very well with that. It's cheaper by far. If you have the money to spend on the sheets go for it, but study and learn where your better at using them. cosmo96 I'll be buying some Ragzion sheets for the CD races this sat. I'll be on their site under the name toocool and maybe we will come up with something."

Are you the guy,lol, yes I'm the guy you nail the Oaks ex straight up cold using the Sheets. I hated to do that, being the modest azz I'am.

I was actually going to mention that THOUSAND dollar exacta, and NINETY SIX dollar winner you picked off The Sheets, but I didn't want to embarrass you for that very reason, kev.
wish randomness would fool me like that a little more often.

and cj -- I have no idea what the hell your dutrow comment is in regard to.
all I can tell you is that reading is FUNdamental.
most of the dutrow horses I see are coming off a 2 month break, so I guess he must just like to pamper them after the 2 days of recovery.
maybe rents them out as trail horses between races for some extra cash, I don't know.

06-24-2006, 10:03 PM

most of the dutrow horses I see are coming off a 2 month break, so I guess he must just like to pamper them after the 2 days of recovery.

Most Dutrow horses return off a 2 month break? Sure they do. Wake up man. You are the guy always wanting stats. Look up Dutrow's horses for the past year and tell me what percentage of his starters came off a two month layoff. I will go way out on a limb and bet the number is nowhere near "most".

06-24-2006, 10:06 PM

I was actually going to mention that THOUSAND dollar exacta, and NINETY SIX dollar winner you picked off The Sheets, but I didn't want to embarrass you for that very reason, kev.
wish randomness would fool me like that a little more often.

It was a good selection, as I think I mentioned at the time. Great job. Should I bow in awe, as if you are the only one to hit a race big ever? Let me know, I'll get a congratulary strip-o-gram in the mail right away. I may be able to get Len Friedman to do it for you.

Dave

06-24-2006, 10:06 PM

Most Dutrow horses return off a 2 month break? Sure they do. Wake up man. You are the guy always wanting stats. Look up Dutrow's horses for the past year and tell me what percentage of his starters came off a two month layoff. I will go way out on a limb and bet the number is nowhere near "most".

yeah, I'm sure I'll find that most of them are coming in off of 4 days.

cj is my antidrug.

Dave

06-24-2006, 10:08 PM

It was a good selection, as I think I mentioned at the time. Great job. Should I bow in awe, as if you are the only one to hit a race big ever?

probably not, but between the 2 of you, probably the only one to post one here in advance.

PaceAdvantage

06-24-2006, 10:08 PM

so, you now change your story and claim that the effects of stress linger for at least 2 weeks?

No, I haven't changed any "story." Why is it so difficult for you to understand a simple concept without resorting to insults?

Are you telling me the following two concepts are mutually exclusive of one another?

Concept A: An otherwise healthy and physically fit horse only needs 2-3 days at most to recover from the physical stress brought about by running in a single, solitary race.

Concept B: The reason why most trainers space their races out at least two weeks on average is because the cumulative effects of racing more often may lead to injury, illness, or other undesirable effects.

Concept B does not preclude the existence of Concept A. A horse CAN recover in 2 or 3 days AND not race again for another two weeks. Taking two weeks between races does NOT mean the horse did NOT recover in only 3 days. Get it?

Obviously, the two concepts presented above can exist together in the time space continuum without disastrous consequences. Why do you believe they can not?

dude, I hate to be the one to set myself up as your english teacher, but you know what 'cumulative' is, right?

Again, with the insults....what's up with that?

A teacher should know that the "e" in "english" should be capitalized.....

if, as you seem to want to believe, horses were 100% 2 days after a race, how could any negative effects add up, unless you raced 2 days apart?
let's just try to use a little common sense on this.

Common sense? Is it common sense to believe a horse needs at least two weeks to physically recover from running in a race that takes maybe 70-90 seconds on average? The fact that he is recovered and ready to go in a few days does not mean it is wise to race him right back in said time, because you could risk over-exerting the horse if this were done on a continuous basis.

But it by no means renders moot the concept that a healthy horse doesn't require two weeks to recover from one race.

is this the kind of forum that bans people for disagreeing w/the host?

Absolutely not. Why would make you think such a thing? Then again, you're going a bit beyond simple disagreement with the insults and all....that could get you booted, technically....

06-24-2006, 10:09 PM

yeah, I'm sure I'll find that most of them are coming in off of 4 days.

cj is my antidrug.

I never said most were, you did say most were coming off a two month layoff. Nice try. I'll take your response as admitting your statement was not even close to true.

PaceAdvantage

06-24-2006, 10:11 PM

probably not, but between the 2 of you, probably the only one to post one here in advance.

Well, we all know that ain't true. Next.

06-24-2006, 10:12 PM

probably not, but between the 2 of you, probably the only one to post one here in advance.

Hardly. I used to post selections all the time and spend a lot of time in the War Room. I'm sure you can find them if you bother to look. I just don't have the time or inclination to do so anymore.

Dave

06-24-2006, 10:15 PM

Again, with the insults....what's up with that?

A teacher should know that the "e" in "english" should be capitalized.....

shift key is more trouble than it's worth.
it's all about value.

and it's not like I'm the one in this thread labeling people they don't know as 'idiots' or 'incompetent' --- but I guess I am the one disagreeing w/you.
so, let's just leave it at that -- this thread has degenerated way past pointless.

Dave

06-24-2006, 10:17 PM

Hardly. I used to post selections all the time and spend a lot of time in the War Room. I'm sure you can find them if you bother to look. I just don't have the time or inclination to do so anymore.

congrats on that $1k exacta that I'm not looking up.

I'll just take your word for it.

PaceAdvantage

06-24-2006, 10:28 PM

and it's not like I'm the one in this thread labeling people they don't know as 'idiots' or 'incompetent'

Neither am I, yet you don't see me trying to throw in a few petty insults while I disagree with you....

And may I add, your point is nowhere near proven simply by pointing at trainers and saying "They all mostly come back in 14 days or more, so that's how long it takes for a horse to recover from a prior race"

Dave

06-24-2006, 11:05 PM

Neither am I, yet you don't see me trying to throw in a few petty insults while I disagree with you....

no, and I don't see you objecting to it, either, like you object to any joke I make.
you ARE the moderator, right -- the one linking me to your tos?
but, like I said, I'm the one disagreeing w/you.

And may I add, your point is nowhere near proven simply by pointing at trainers and saying "They all mostly come back in 14 days or more, so that's how long it takes for a horse to recover from a prior race"

no, it's certainly not proven.
it's supported by observation, which is a hell of a lot more than you've got going for you w/your high school track analogies.

and just to correct something that you keep repeating --- outside of the cheap claimers, it's usually more than 2 weeks.
2 weeks is the short minority of cases.

back in ye olde days, it was a lot more common.
now, it's not.

Tom

06-24-2006, 11:23 PM

4/1/05 - 5/31/06

Back in 4 days - 10 3-0-5
30% winners, 80% in the $

Layoff 50-70 days (2 months give or take) 92 29-10-15
31% winners 59% in the $

All horses, all tainers, 4 day layoff

478 59 winners 12%

Dave

06-24-2006, 11:37 PM

9-1

thx, tom -- owe you one.

if you have the stats handy, have you got the total # of starts for that period?

bigmack

06-24-2006, 11:53 PM

My first time running through this thread. May I ask what the point is?

How bout if we start a separate thread on every arguable angle involved in the game and kick it around.

There's alot of disagreement in this game - Good - It spreads the money out.

Bounce - no bounce. Just play and make some money.

06-24-2006, 11:57 PM

9-1

thx, tom -- owe you one.

if you have the stats handy, have you got the total # of starts for that period?

Tom's stats really had nothing to do with what I was saying. Of course many more ran with 50 to 70 days off than with 4...duh. I said most didn't have a two month layoff. So, how many started with > 60 days off, and how many started with less? If it is 3 out of 4 or more, I'll give you most.

kev

06-24-2006, 11:59 PM

Good job Tom, that was my main point first off, before CJ came with his, oh your that one guy BS, It's Richard D he does that type of shi*, but I'm sure they fall apart (not all) after someone gets them. That's one of the ways that some Sheets readers will veiw different lines, if one of the so-called super trainers has the horse, then it's a new ball game.

06-25-2006, 12:03 AM

...if one of the so-called super trainers has the horse, then it's a new ball game.

Sorry, it is just so tough to keep up with all these bounce rules. It has to be dirt, it can't be a super trainer, etc, etc. Any chance of posting the rules of a bounce?

PaceAdvantage

06-25-2006, 12:08 AM

it's supported by observation, which is a hell of a lot more than you've got going for you w/your high school track analogies.

Why do you keep coming back to the track comment I made? Do you think you are somehow belittling me by doing this?

Do you think it is that wrong to compare one mammal's athletic experiences to another? We're all made of flesh and blood, muscle and bone. Do you really think the recovery process for a horse is all that much different than a human when it comes to strenuous exercise?

Biology 101. That's what I have going for me....

06-25-2006, 12:12 AM

Amazingly, with Tom's stats, it looks like Dutrow's 4 day turnarounds performed as well or better as the other set. And, 12% winners trainers has to be right around average for all starters with any length layoff. I guess the difference is the 88% that don't win must break down or something.

Dave

06-25-2006, 12:46 AM

Why do you keep coming back to the track comment I made? Do you think you are somehow belittling me by doing this?

Biology 101. That's what I have going for me....

then maybe you should have continued on w/it.....

I keep repeating your analogy because it's ridiculous and it cracks me up.
back then you might have been whacking off twice a day, too, but I really wouldn't want to be your trainer if that's the program you'd institute for your horses.

hey, maybe they should dig up all that sand and lay down a nice running track like you used to use.
and make the horses wear little shorts.

is there absolutely any factual basis for this comparison, or just wishful thinking?

bigmack

06-25-2006, 01:07 AM

then maybe you should have continued on w/it.....

I keep repeating your analogy because it's ridiculous and it cracks me up.
back then you might have been whacking off twice a day, too, but I really wouldn't want to be your trainer if that's the program you'd institute for your horses.

hey, maybe they should dig up all that sand and lay down a nice running track like you used to use.
and make the horses wear little shorts.

is there absolutely any factual basis for this comparison, or just wishful thinking?
You're a gentleman and a scholar Dave - then again maybe not.
Know anyone named KoKo?

Tom

06-25-2006, 01:21 AM

Dave

06-25-2006, 01:23 AM

You're a gentleman and a scholar Dave - then again maybe not.
Know anyone named KoKo?

clicky (http://www.masterstech-home.com/The_Library/ASL_Dictionary_Project/ASL_Tables/Communicator/N/No.html)

Dave

06-25-2006, 01:29 AM

I jokingly talked about Dutrow running horses back quickly, but he does it often. Obviously one of the most successful trainers in the game isn't a big believer in the bounce.

so, 10 out of 700+ is 'often'?:lol:

my reply to that post was something like 'you couldn't be more wrong about dutrow......'

think it holds up pretty well.

edit: thx again, tom.
take 50 vcash bucks for the trouble.

Tom

06-25-2006, 01:36 AM

Dutrow, <10 days = 42 starts

06-25-2006, 01:38 AM

and cj -- I have no idea what the hell your dutrow comment is in regard to.
all I can tell you is that reading is FUNdamental.
most of the dutrow horses I see are coming off a 2 month break...

OK, Mr. I Want Facts. 92 out of 711 starters were coming off a two month break. Wow, that is most.

Since you are obviously a troll, judging by your response in a guy's legit Modern Pace Handicapping thread, I'll be done here. I can't believe I allowed myself to be sucked into this nonsense. But hey, at least I was working the last part of a 12 hour graveyard shift. Au revoir mon amie.

Dave

06-25-2006, 01:42 AM

OK, Mr. I Want Facts. 92 out of 711 starters were coming off a two month break. Wow, that is most.

that was a typo.

bigmack

06-25-2006, 02:13 AM

back then you might have been whacking off twice a day, too, but I really wouldn't want to be your trainer if that's the program you'd institute for your horses.
Trust that was a typo on your part - right Buckaroo?

Tom

06-25-2006, 02:20 AM

Mr Rogers asks, "Can you say closed thread?"
bye bye.

PaceAdvantage

06-25-2006, 04:06 AM

is there absolutely any factual basis for this comparison, or just wishful thinking?

Yup, it's called Biology 101 and Evolution 101.

If (as in your little fantasy world) horses actually required 15 days to recover from running around for 90 seconds, then horses as a species would not have survived very long on this planet.

In fact, today, the only place you'd be able to see a horse in "Dave World" would be in the museum, where you'd be able to dress them any which way you'd please, including a nice pair of gym shorts.

You're so intent on being an ass, you fail to realize that mother nature endowed a horse with one major defense, and that's the ability to run away. Imagine what would happen if they had to stop and rest for 15 days after fleeing from the first predator they encounter in the wild.

Obviously, I'm wasting my time with you....bounce on.....