Mudders

[sealord]

So I'm at Arlington for closing weekend on Sunday and the rain is coming down all day. The dirt is muddy or sloppy and 3 out of 4 turf races go on the dirt. I'm thinking "What a day to make some coin on the horses with great mud pedigree" and of course, I'm as cold as ice on the picks. I had Brisnet PPs which have mud starts and percentage winners, and those stats were meaningless. My buddy had other PPs which gave different figs and those too were worthless. I'm wondering if you all have methods which can prove of value you wouldn't mind sharing.

[46zilzal]

A simple explanation from a trainer in Vancouver B.C. (where rain is a big factor in sucess) told me: Mudders are those horses that dislike the mud LESS than their counterparts. For a long time I always thought it was the footing BUT........

ON THE WHOLE, very few horses will move up when they have a hard time seeing what is ahead of them and that's why the "clean silk syndrome," of those out of the gate quickly, is often enough to set up the entire day. If you look at most of the replays, even those that move up on really off going, do it from a part of the track where the spray from the pace setters does not overwhelm them.

There are a number of courses where first out of the gate wins when it is off......all day.. Speedy types improve a lot.

[JustRalph]

yesterday I was playing Arlington and it was soaked. speed was the key. I picked 3 or so in a row just based on e1 and e2 times. short prices........but one of the horses set a new track record. It was speed favoring as hell. reminded me turfway park back 4 or 5 years ago.

There were several that ran that had never performed in the mud before. Just defaulted back to early speed..........it worked pretty well.

[The Judge]

There are plenty of publications that deal with off track sires same as truf sires. Of course some horses show in the PP's how they fair on the off track. One of my all time favorites were Cure The Blues horses and his off spring seem to pass on the trait. Check out Http://Breedingwinners.com. Look under "list of top sires"

Of course like others say if you see is winning go with it. Even thou its raining the track is playing fast and is dominate over everthing including breeding. I would also suggest if you play breeding look for a price.

[Valuist]

Track composition plays a big role in whether speed carries or not in slop. Belmont, a track with a lot of sand, tends to be very speed favoring in the slop. Hawthorne is another where off tracks help early speed. I consider Arlington to be more closer-friendly in slop/mud since the track has a lot of clay.

[Light]

I had Brisnet PPs which have mud starts and percentage winners, and those stats were meaningless. My buddy had other PPs which gave different figs and those too were worthless.

Here is what I could find of the winners sires off track ability that day:

1) French Deputy N/D
2) Lake Austin 20%(2-10)
3) Devils Bag 13%
4) More than ready 19%
5) Forest Wildcat 16%
6) Foresty N/D but out of Storm Cat who is 18%OT.
7) Bankers Gold 14%
8) Holy Bull 16%
9) Distorted Humor 23%
10) Joyeaux Dancer 11%

This is data for last 3 years. These look pretty formidable to me but since I did not handicap AP, I dont know how the other horses sires OT ability compared. I love playing Distorted Humor horses at a price on off tracks.No handicapping required.

[46zilzal]

being a mudder is an individual's trait

[sealord]

Here is what I could find of the winners sires off track ability that day:

1) French Deputy N/D
2) Lake Austin 20%(2-10)
3) Devils Bag 13%
4) More than ready 19%
5) Forest Wildcat 16%
6) Foresty N/D but out of Storm Cat who is 18%OT.
7) Bankers Gold 14%
8) Holy Bull 16%
9) Distorted Humor 23%
10) Joyeaux Dancer 11%

This is data for last 3 years. These look pretty formidable to me but since I did not handicap AP, I dont know how the other horses sires OT ability compared. I love playing Distorted Humor horses at a price on off tracks.No handicapping required.

I tallied up the winning sire's percentage off track winners on Sunday's card, excluding those with very few starts, and averaged them. I came up with a 17% win rate on the off going.
I did the same with the last place finishers of all ten races Sunday at AP. Again I had to drop three figs due to either no starts, or too few (including a 50% hit rate) and came up with 15%. Now while this is a small sample, I submit that there is limited correlation between a sire's mud percentages and ability in racing on the off track of it's progeny.
However, I too like to bet Distorted Humor offspring in the off tracks.
I would like to see what the database guys could come up with over the long term.

[Stevie Belmont]

Regardless of pedigree, you won't really know if a horse can handle the off track until they run over it. PP's of a horses ability on an off track usually are the best indicator of what a horse can do. Below is a list of pretty successful slop sires. Just the ones I like a lot, as many have solid off track peds.

Mr Prospecter
Carson City
Not For Love
Storm Cat
Gone West
Polish Numbers
Citi Dancer

Anything with these in there blood gets extra consideration on an off track from me. There are many, many more however. And often, like I said, until they run one on it, you don't really know what you will get.

[1st time lasix]

in the simulcast era...i tend to avoid muddy and sloppy tracks. Particularly if there are other major tracks with a card where conditions are fast and firm. IF I play under these terrible conditions ....I spread more than usual in the exotics. Still key rather than box....but perhaps use additional entries that may have more chance on poor surfaces.

[46zilzal]

in the simulcast era...i tend to avoid muddy and sloppy tracks. Particularly if there are other major tracks with a card where conditions are fast and firm. IF I play under these terrible conditions ....I spread more than usual in the exotics. Still key rather than box....but perhaps use additional entries that may have more chance on poor surfaces.
That is what the MAJORITY think so it behooves one to learn how to handle these tracks as there is LESS EDUCATED money in the pools. I do my best in the most terrible weather since I have made it a specaialt

P.S. you really think furosemide (Lasix) makes a difference? Wow

[The Judge]

Most people that play breeding have horses that they like and don't play based on stats alone everyone can see those stats now. A way to start if you are intersested, is by hand or data base keep track of the horses on your circuit ,brood mare sires,and sires of the winners at your track and if track is slow or fast ,truely muddy and slow. The reason I put brood mare sires first is its harder to see.

This is alot of work especially if you have weather. I'm in California so it wasn't as hard but still hard. I don't do that anymore but I did do it.

My goal now is to find (which I have yet to do) a few sires, brood mare sires or mares (back in generations) that or automatic plays (at a decent price).

I am very intersest in the works by Wm. Lathorp " Modern Conduit Mares" which I leaned about on this board and the works of Bruce Lowe as updated by Robert H. Murphy. Lowe's work has been maligned by many Breeding experts and I think wrongly so.

The reason I like other peoples works is I not trying to reinvent the wheel I just like breeding and want a way to use it in my everyday handicapping.

I can still use the old way and sometimes do.

[Valuist]

Slop and multi-race exotics. Check out these payoffs on races 6-8 at Arlington.

Race 6, $12.80 winner in a 5 horse field
Race 7 $6.40 favorite in a 9 horse field
Race 8 $7.00 second choice in a 6 horse field (taken off grass)

The $2 P3 payoff?? $467.60. Keep in mind the track was sloppy all day, so it wasn't a matter of the rain hitting in the middle of a P3 sequence. The 8th was taken off the turf but the scratches were announced long before the race. The public did do a pretty good job, betting the winner down to the 2nd choice in that race. Small pool (under $6K) probably had a role. Slop + small pool = inefficient market

[The Judge]

You almost have to be there. I know we can't always so we must rely on the best information we have. I have been at the track ,it was raining track listed as "fast" on the board. Look slow and muddy to me. Big races I am sure they try to list as fast no matter what is really going on. But what can we do, the best we can and move on.

[JustRalph]

Slop and multi-race exotics. Check out these payoffs on races 6-8 at Arlington.

Race 6, $12.80 winner in a 5 horse field
Race 7 $6.40 favorite in a 9 horse field
Race 8 $7.00 second choice in a 6 horse field (taken off grass)

The $2 P3 payoff?? $467.60. Keep in mind the track was sloppy all day, so it wasn't a matter of the rain hitting in the middle of a P3 sequence. The 8th was taken off the turf but the scratches were announced long before the race. The public did do a pretty good job, betting the winner down to the 2nd choice in that race. Small pool (under $6K) probably had a role. Slop + small pool = inefficient market

the pools were small because brisnet and its affiliates weren't able to bet arlington today

[PlanB]

Modern Conduit Mares? Is this the lost manuscript of Ron L. Hubbard
that Tom Cruise has been searching for?

[eqitec]

I have observed that normally low % trainers win at a higher % when the track is off, usully getting long prices. I suspect that is because the good trainers/riders won't step on the pedal as much on an off track unless they happen to be on the the lead or close to it. They won't put their good horses at risk and save their ammo for another day.
The bad trainers having less to lose on an off track will go all out to win and many times do by the default of their superiors.
Has anyone else noticed this? If so, is there a different reason?

[Valuist]

Ralph-

No Brisbet and YouBet definitely hurt them. The slop probably hurt the handle a bit, and races 6-9 comprise their late P4 so a lot of the bigger players may opt to invest heavier in the P4 pool while the P3 pool from 6-8 gets ignored.

[The Judge]

Alright you pulled the trigger. I started not to put in Cure The Blues becauseI know someone would come back and say Cure The Blues horses only win such and such win its off and have not satistical value. But I swallowed hard and put it down. CONGRADULATIONS!!!

[Stevie Belmont]

Thats great. Only in horse racing.

[twindouble]

Nowadays, handicapping looking for "mudder's" is of little or no factor. Track conditions have changed to the point where all you have to do is look for speed on a sly track or sly sealed track. I think you should be thinking more about bias, inside and out as the track dries. How often do you see a heavy track? The majority of the times it's fast, good, sly or muddy but the problem with "muddy" is it's not as tiring as it once was, so speed holds stronger today. The material is so loose, (more sand) and it drains so fast in the course of a card it can go from sly to good. That's when to look for an outside bias. When you see horses that have 3 to 5 wins on an off track out of 20 life time starts, I'll wager the majority were on sly tracks. If the speed can't go the distance on a muddy track that don't make the winner a "mudder" as I knew them to be. I remember walking across the track and almost getting stuck in the mud, that don't happen today, on other times, my boots got real heavy by the time I got across, stuck to them like cement every step you picked up more. Try it sometime on today's tracks.

T.D.

[andicap]

As usual people are making a lot of blanket statements without bothering to cite any hard facts, just talking off the top of their heads.
You had one guy talking about how speed had won almost everything at Arlington the other day followed almost immediately by someone else who advised playing closers in the slop!

"Belmont plays speedier on a wet track."
"Speed does better overall on an off track."
Yada yada yada.

Well I took the time to compare the 1st call lengths behind of winners at Belmont for the fall 2005 and spring 2006 meets and while speed does in fact hold up better at some distances and some conditions, there are others were in fact off-the-pace horses fare better in the mud/slop. (I did not compute "good" tracks.)

And I'd advise handicappers to look skeptically at the off-track records in the DRF. You have no clue how the horse actually ran under those conditions. Better to get some lifetime PPs (like with Formulator) and compare the Beyers (or Sheet figs, etc.) of a horse on dry and wet tracks.

If a horse seems to perform comparably on wet and fast tracks I might use a recent sloppy PP as representative of what the horse can do today on a fast track.

Moreover, there are differences between how sloppy and muddy tracks performed. As TD pointed out, the rush to seal tracks has often made a mockery of the labeled track conditions on rainy days.

Granted the sample size is limited but it does cover two meets.

I divided the running styles into four categories at the first call.:
1. Early (less than one-length behind, in other words on or dueling for the lead, but having no mud kicked in their face.).
2. Presser. (between 1 and 3 lengths behind)
3. Sustained Presser (3.25-5 lengths)
4. Sustained (more than 5 lengths back).

6F.

On fast tracks, 52% of the horses fell into the "early" category and 23% were pressers. Sustained horses won 16%.
On "sloppy" tracks, in 19 races, early horses won 58% and pressers 26%. Sustained horses won 11%.
On "muddy" tracks, in 16 races, early horses won 50% and pressers won just 13%. Both SP and sustained horses won 19%.

Overall, not much difference.

Where did speed fare better in the muck?
At 7f, (70% on sloppy tracks and 3-5 on muddy tracks copared to 46% on dry tracks.)
And at 8f and 9f on sloppy tracks only. The mud played similar to fast tracks.

At 8f, early horses won 61% in 18 races compared to 48% on fast tracks and 45% at 12 races in the mud. It was almost impossible to close on sloppy tracks at 8f but in the mud, 45% of the sample were SP or S horses.

At 9f, 5 of 8 horses (63%) won early in the slop compared with 4 of 12 (33% on fast tracks and 2 of 7 (29%) in the mud.

There were little differences in a very small sample at 8.5F BUT deep closers won 3 of 6 races in the slop compared to 27% on fast tracks.
Deep closers also fared better at 7f in the slop than on fast tracks

Once again I recognize the inadequacy of the sample size, but that makes little difference if you were betting off-tracks at Belmont over the last two meets. If you had played speed indiscriminately at some distances and under some conditions you would get beat.

.

[Light]

Andicap

I agree. It seems reality at the track is fleeting. Speed can hold in the slop,next race it collapses. Breeding works in the slop one race,next race it doesn't. Its all relative and the art of sucess is a matter of going with the flow.The flow is certainly not dogmatic.

[The Judge]

Do you think it was a accident that these two long price horses ran well in the off going? I don't, I have seen it to many times not with just Cure The Blues horses. Breeding explains what happen that day, in that race, on that track other wise there is no explaintion. Does it happen 100% of the time? It better not or it will pay $0. Price determines if its a win bet or not, no matter what speed is doing and no matter what breeding has to say. Except in multi-horse bets where the muti-horse payout is the price.

If a horse has never run before or first time on a surface you need to know about breeding ,if you are to bet the race. If you are betting a pic3,pic4,pic6 and you are thrown one of these races you can't pass it, you don't know which horse will go to the lead; you need another weapon.

[Dan Montilion]

I once wagered on a mud pedigree on a wet poly surface and got beat by a 10 time turf winner that had never been on poly or dirt.

At some time in the near future somedody will rename themselves and start selling poly track sire ratings.

[The Judge]

This could happen. Have start looking for first time starters on poly and multiple winners. Who knows what will turn up.

Something I always wanted to do (never)was to see if some horses run better at night. They started the Friday night races at Baymeadow and Golden Gate (when they got lights). I wonder?

[twindouble]

As usual people are making a lot of blanket statements without bothering to cite any hard facts, just talking off the top of their heads.
You had one guy talking about how speed had won almost everything at Arlington the other day followed almost immediately by someone else who advised playing closers in the slop!

"Belmont plays speedier on a wet track."
"Speed does better overall on an off track."
Yada yada yada.

Well I took the time to compare the 1st call lengths behind of winners at Belmont for the fall 2005 and spring 2006 meets and while speed does in fact hold up better at some distances and some conditions, there are others were in fact off-the-pace horses fare better in the mud/slop. (I did not compute "good" tracks.)

And I'd advise handicappers to look skeptically at the off-track records in the DRF. You have no clue how the horse actually ran under those conditions. Better to get some lifetime PPs (like with Formulator) and compare the Beyers (or Sheet figs, etc.) of a horse on dry and wet tracks.

If a horse seems to perform comparably on wet and fast tracks I might use a recent sloppy PP as representative of what the horse can do today on a fast track.

Moreover, there are differences between how sloppy and muddy tracks performed. As TD pointed out, the rush to seal tracks has often made a mockery of the labeled track conditions on rainy days.

Granted the sample size is limited but it does cover two meets.

I divided the running styles into four categories at the first call.:
1. Early (less than one-length behind, in other words on or dueling for the lead, but having no mud kicked in their face.).
2. Presser. (between 1 and 3 lengths behind)
3. Sustained Presser (3.25-5 lengths)
4. Sustained (more than 5 lengths back).

6F.

On fast tracks, 52% of the horses fell into the "early" category and 23% were pressers. Sustained horses won 16%.
On "sloppy" tracks, in 19 races, early horses won 58% and pressers 26%. Sustained horses won 11%.
On "muddy" tracks, in 16 races, early horses won 50% and pressers won just 13%. Both SP and sustained horses won 19%.

Overall, not much difference.

Where did speed fare better in the muck?
At 7f, (70% on sloppy tracks and 3-5 on muddy tracks copared to 46% on dry tracks.)
And at 8f and 9f on sloppy tracks only. The mud played similar to fast tracks.

At 8f, early horses won 61% in 18 races compared to 48% on fast tracks and 45% at 12 races in the mud. It was almost impossible to close on sloppy tracks at 8f but in the mud, 45% of the sample were SP or S horses.

At 9f, 5 of 8 horses (63%) won early in the slop compared with 4 of 12 (33% on fast tracks and 2 of 7 (29%) in the mud.

There were little differences in a very small sample at 8.5F BUT deep closers won 3 of 6 races in the slop compared to 27% on fast tracks.
Deep closers also fared better at 7f in the slop than on fast tracks

Once again I recognize the inadequacy of the sample size, but that makes little difference if you were betting off-tracks at Belmont over the last two meets. If you had played speed indiscriminately at some distances and under some conditions you would get beat.

.

Yes, the sample is to small. The question was about horses that run better in the mud. "mudder" (pedigree). Like I said, it's of little or no factor. It's racing a usual. You can't have both sides of the fence, we all agreed speed is an important factor in racing and breeding, ESP today. How many are seriously breeding into pedigrees hoping to come up with a mudder, when the greater majority of horses can handle the off going on todays tracks with no problem, aside from the kick back.


T.D.

[andicap]

TD,
I'm not replying to the pedigree/breeding part of the thread. I know more about pig farming than I do about pedigree. And if I ever respond to a post about pedigree and it's not to ask a question, you have my permission to slap me upside my head -- virtually of course.

I was responding to several posts that made generalizations about track biases on wet tracks, especially at Belmont.

[twindouble]

TD,
I'm not replying to the pedigree/breeding part of the thread. I know more about pig farming than I do about pedigree. And if I ever respond to a post about pedigree and it's not to ask a question, you have my permission to slap me upside my head -- virtually of course.

I was responding to several posts that made generalizations about track biases on wet tracks, especially at Belmont.

That makes two of us. My reference to bias was taking note of inside and outside bias as the track drys. I hope that makes sense to you.

T.D.

[JPinMaryland]

why do andicap's stats not add up to 100%? I thought you were taking all winnners? Do wire to wire types make up the diff? Confused.. :confused:

[Light]

Do you think it was a accident that these two long price horses ran well in the off going? I don't, I have seen it to many times not with just Cure The Blues horses. Breeding explains what happen that day, in that race, on that track other wise there is no explaintion.

I assume you were responding to me when I said:Breeding works in the slop one race,next race it doesn't. This is still true since I wrote it. When it does work,you get results like 2 Cure the Blues horses running 1-2. But the best slop bred horses still only win around 25% meaning they lose 75% of the time.There are slop days when breeding is not the primary factor affecting winners. As others said it may be form,or running style or track bias or some more obscure factor.And then not every race on the card is dominated by the same factor.Knowing which factor will be the primary influence on a particular race is the key,wet or dry.That was what I meant with go with the flow. If breeding seems to be the major influence,go with it. If speed seems to be the power,go there. There is no set answer.

[The Judge]

Of course there is no set answer all the time. It's a horse race the favorite wins 33% at low odds. Why not take a chance on breeding at high odds?What do you do when you don't want to pass? You have a good shot at a 2 /3 legs of a pic3 or pic4 and they throw a race at you like the 2nd at Belmont what to do? This happens all the time.

I didn't just wake up one day and say "I love breeding ". I use it as "almost" a last resort and even then I insist on a price. I'm a pace handicapper by preference ,but after looking at so many tickets where I have been right on hard races only to be beat out by the same sires again and again, sires that the breeding crowd knew by name and were easy calls for them I decided "I" needed more arrows to shot.

It works when it works the same as everything else in handicapping. 25% in the long run means nothing to me (although thats not bad.) In the long run we are all dead. This day the chances of those 2 horses running 1-2 at long odds were 100%. We just didn't know that until the race was over then it was too late to bet.

What would you have done with race 2 at Belmont park?

[Dan Montilion]

This could happen. Have start looking for first time starters on poly and multiple winners. Who knows what will turn up.

Something I always wanted to do (never)was to see if some horses run better at night. They started the Friday night races at Baymeadow and Golden Gate (when they got lights). I wonder?

Your Honor,

From my start in 1988 as a full timer up to the NoCal circuit driving my out do to magical trainer clique and lack of horse, this circuit was home. I can tell you your thoughts about some horse like the lights is correct, not a lot mind you but the angle was simply there. However, using the "under the lights" excuse was much better. There were some horse that just would not perform under the lights. And many times even if there was no apparent trip, bias, form, surface excuse under the lights I would just draw an excuse line through the most recent race due to the night factor (when back in under the sun). Sometimes I did catch horses going off form but many overlays were had due to the bad most recent line and I love betting horses with bad lines.

When Bay Meadows first went to Friday nignt racing their lighting system was not very good. If one went up to the roof and got a birds eye view you could see that there was a strong halo of lights starting about 3 to 4 paths out. the inside few lanes were of course lighted but had a much lighter glow and shadows. This produced an outside edge that was exploited by yours truly until they upgraded the lights. In fact one friday night "the halo" bought my 86 f-150 4X4, thank you very much.

One last tease. There is a day/light play that has been a money maker at The Los Alamitos QH meeting for 20 years. I have never heard any of the TVG guys even remotely mention it, including the sharp track announcer and Les O'chalka.

Your thoughts about the lights are correct but just another piece of the puzzle. Wagering on situations as opposed to horses can and does work. But then again on some other popular threads I was informed by an author that "angels don't work". Should I give the cash back?

I would expect something will turn up in regards to pedigree and poly, I agree with you 100%. I have a friend in Great Britian that has already proven this on artificial surfaces in England.

[The Judge]

First of all I know your name and your reputation. Afer all I am from Northern Califronia.

Tanks

[The Judge]

What you saidt makes alot of sense to me. Keep at it. Bet what you see then the numbers. The two are deadly.

[Light]

What would you have done with race 2 at Belmont park?

I don't know cause I didnt play it. I'm glad FM took your advice and nailed it for he has said he hasnt been profitable in 40 years of play at the track. Obviously your way was the best way in that race.

I think I probably look at breeding more than the average player(mainly in maiden and turf races). As much as I put stock in breeding, I still see a great need to be flexible in one's approach to handicapping and not to stick to one method. If we could make a profit solely with betting by breeding, Lauren Stitch and Mike Helm would not have had to write books on pedigree for profit.

[The Judge]

Light, I think we agree.

[sealord]

Great responses here at PA Forum, as usual. Talk about a collective brain trust. Seriously.

I went back and reverse handicapped the card I had such a horrific time with and basically realized that if I had ignored all mud stats (courtesy of Bris), I would have done considerably better. Yes, this is just one day, but I feel some of the other posters here would agree. I learned my lesson well, but will still use mud pedigree like another tool in my belt for certain occasions.