40 Race Rule

[Norm]

It's 'spring training' time for me. Each year, for a couple of weeks, I try to put aside everything I ever learned about handicapping and try to see the DRF in a new way, some way that I have never considered before (not easy after 50 years.) This time I am 'test-driving' a new notion :



The average horse has a limited number of races in which he can be effective in his lifetime. Once he passes that number, he starts to struggle. After reviewing my library of charts and PPs (mostly NY & NJ), I have come up with the number '40' as an average. Once past that number, he'll be lucky to win one race a year. I would not eliminate a horse on this basis, but would award him a 'red flag' next to his name meaning he would have to demonstrate some really good recent form before I would consider him for a bet. (In my procedure, two 'red flags' is instant elimination).



The notion appears most effective at major-circuit tracks. I am well aware that there are tracks where half the horses on the grounds are over 40 races, but they tend to run in low-purse claiming races. I am formulating the idea that this factor represents a weakness and if coupled with any other negative factor is good cause for eliminating a horse from any further consideration. (Eliminating losers is three-quarters of the battle).



I would welcome any thoughts on this notion, pro or con.



Norm

[rokitman]

Norm
Registered User


Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 40
vCash: 3600



I'm not looking forward to your next post :)

[Norm]

Norm
Registered User


Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 40
vCash: 3600



I'm not looking forward to your next post :)

Yup, over the hill and can only make one good post a year from here on ! :)

[njcurveball]

Check out #5 Azure Ciel at Charles Town in the 2nd race tomorrow night.

2-1 ML is based on this 12 year old gelding winning 4 of his last 5 races. Needless to say well past the 40 mark, the horse has 92 races lifetime.

This rule is creative, but I doubt it will make your game more profitable.

Jim

[46zilzal]

As recently as the 70's is was nothing for many geldings to have run over 100 times. COMMONPLACE, in fact.

Over Current Bolivar 2nd- Lorelle by Prophets Thumb, 160 38-14-10)

[Robert Fischer]

I think it is good Idea to turn a critical eye towards an "aging" thoroughbred. If a set number of races helps remind you, great.

Look for signs in the horses form. Is he unable to make the lead anymore? etc..

[cnollfan]

The average horse has a limited number of races in which he can be effective in his lifetime. Once he passes that number, he starts to struggle. After reviewing my library of charts and PPs (mostly NY & NJ), I have come up with the number '40' as an average. Once past that number, he'll be lucky to win one race a year. I would not eliminate a horse on this basis, but would award him a 'red flag' next to his name meaning he would have to demonstrate some really good recent form before I would consider him for a bet.
Norm

Check out #5 Azure Ciel at Charles Town in the 2nd race tomorrow night.

2-1 ML is based on this 12 year old gelding winning 4 of his last 5 races. Needless to say well past the 40 mark, the horse has 92 races lifetime.

Jim

By winning four of his last five, Azure Ciel would meet the "really good recent form" exception that Norm mentions.

I have been working on a related idea -- horses aged 7 or older often don't go straight into the tank, but still win races at a much lower percentage than they did when they were younger. As long as the declining ability is subtle rather than dramatic, these horses can go to post at relatively low odds for many races in a row with little chance of winning.

As Norm notes, it's a general pattern, not an absolute. When I come across an old horse with several recent wins, or with as many relative wins recently as it had at any other stage of its career, it's not an elimination.

[njcurveball]

By winning four of his last five, Azure Ciel would meet the "really good recent form" exception that Norm mentions.

.

I kind of got that, but not really. :bang:

If horses are eliminated due to lack of recent form than what is the use of looking at the # of starts? Seems redundant in that case.

A horse with poor form and 39 starts has a better chance of winning than a horse with poor form and 49 starts?

If you can qualify what is meant by "really good recent form", anyone could do a database query and see if number of starts is significant.

When Azure ciel won on July 26, 2007 he had finished out of the money in his last 3 races and was making start #88.

I guess it becomes another conditional, if the horse runs good today, the starts were not a factor, and if the horse does poorly than the starts WERE a factor.

[hdcper]

This output is for all of 2007, first window by starts and the second window is by age.



By: Lifetime Starts

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999 20 -84096.10 361618.00 0.7674 22650 180809 .1253 1.0235
20 22 -3431.90 14858.00 0.7690 887 7429 .1194 0.9756
22 24 -1873.30 12990.00 0.8558 774 6495 .1192 0.9737
24 26 -2877.50 11586.00 0.7516 665 5793 .1148 0.9379
26 28 -2677.50 10070.00 0.7341 576 5035 .1144 0.9347
28 30 -2212.90 8736.00 0.7467 476 4368 .1090 0.8904
30 32 -2504.40 7814.00 0.6795 453 3907 .1159 0.9474
32 34 -1703.00 6772.00 0.7485 381 3386 .1125 0.9194
34 36 -1385.00 5992.00 0.7689 360 2996 .1202 0.9818
36 38 -1324.00 5308.00 0.7506 297 2654 .1119 0.9144
38 40 -1057.10 4652.00 0.7728 260 2326 .1118 0.9133
40 42 -664.70 4116.00 0.8385 245 2058 .1190 0.9727
42 44 -790.10 3886.00 0.7967 237 1943 .1220 0.9966
44 46 -358.10 3312.00 0.8919 189 1656 .1141 0.9325
46 48 -1004.80 2924.00 0.6564 166 1462 .1135 0.9277
48 50 -906.70 2618.00 0.6537 131 1309 .1001 0.8177
50 52 -880.50 2358.00 0.6266 123 1179 .1043 0.8524
52 54 -919.30 2050.00 0.5516 106 1025 .1034 0.8450
54 56 -465.10 1744.00 0.7333 105 872 .1204 0.9839
56 999999 -3448.90 11872.00 0.7095 615 5936 .1036 0.8465







By: Age Of Horse Years

Age Yrs Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
0 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
1 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
2 -12895.30 51286.00 0.7486 3049 25643 .1189 0.9715
3 -38720.50 168226.00 0.7698 10432 84113 .1240 1.0134
4 -27113.80 125196.00 0.7834 8011 62598 .1280 1.0457
5 -15774.20 68774.00 0.7706 4203 34387 .1222 0.9987
6 -9972.90 39122.00 0.7451 2240 19561 .1145 0.9357
7 -5451.60 18068.00 0.6983 951 9034 .1053 0.8601
8 -3349.20 9012.00 0.6284 490 4506 .1087 0.8885
9 -815.60 3702.00 0.7797 214 1851 .1156 0.9446
10 -190.80 1266.00 0.8493 83 633 .1311 1.0714
11 -281.20 464.00 0.3940 19 232 .0819 0.6692
12 24.20 120.00 1.2017 4 60 .0667 0.5447
13 -40.00 40.00 0.0000 0 20 .0000 0.0000
14 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000

[Norm]

Hope this helps

This output is for all of 2007, first window by starts and the second window is by age.

Yes ! Both helpful and very interesting. While the difference in winning percentage changes very little with the number of lifetime starts, the more dramatic statistic is the sharp decline in the number of plays. If I am understanding correctly (?), and for example, of all the plays in the 20 - 22 play range, 72% (rounded off) will not make it to the 40 - 42 play range. That's a high "retirement" rate, probably (?) caused by not earning their keep (I hope the injury rate is not that high). Although you could draw a line at almost any point on the chart, it would suggest that even after 30 races (rather than 40) one would have to watch for signs of deteriorating ability. (Coming in 2nd or 3rd doesn't pay for many oats or training time or win bets.)



Norm

[andicap]

Check out #5 Azure Ciel at Charles Town in the 2nd race tomorrow night.

2-1 ML is based on this 12 year old gelding winning 4 of his last 5 races. Needless to say well past the 40 mark, the horse has 92 races lifetime.

This rule is creative, but I doubt it will make your game more profitable.

Jim\


Didn't Norm say this angle works best on "major circuits?"
I don't think anyone would consider Charles Town a major circuit by any stretch of the imagination.

[njcurveball]

\


Didn't Norm say this angle works best on "major circuits?"
I don't think anyone would consider Charles Town a major circuit by any stretch of the imagination.

WOW! Remind me not to get involved in these threads again. I simply was trying to show that horses with many starts are still viable and took the first track I found.

Pick a track and I will get you a similar example.

On second thought, just listen to his advice and toss ALL Horses out as per the instructions.

[Norm]

As long as the declining ability is subtle rather than dramatic, these horses can go to post at relatively low odds for many races in a row with little chance of winning.

As Norm notes, it's a general pattern, not an absolute. When I come across an old horse with several recent wins, or with as many relative wins recently as it had at any other stage of its career, it's not an elimination.
Yes, that's it exactly. Having run in 40 or more races is not enough of a reason by itself to eliminate, but should cause caution lights to start flashing. One would then check for other signs of deteriorating ability such as, not more than one win in the past year, or class drops and still failing to win or low earnings, below the cost of up-keep, over an extended period. Horses with even 50 or more races who show 3 or 4 wins in the past year would certainly not be eliminated since they are demonstrating the they still have enough in the tank.

This notion is far less effective at tracks with a low purse structure for the obvious reason that horses that can no longer earn their "day fees" at the major-circuit tracks tend to collect at tracks with a lower purse structure. These horses will either win at the smaller tracks or be retired. Eliminating such horses at these tracks would be counter-productive since a large part of many fields is made up of these.

It should be noted by exotics players that these horses can still get 2nd or 3rd but just don't have enough left of what it takes to be first.

As I mentioned at first, this is a notion in it's formative stages so, not too much should be read into it without some observation at one's own favorite track.

[ddog]

Yes, that's it exactly. Having run in 40 or more races is not enough of a reason by itself to eliminate, but should cause caution lights to start flashing. One would then check for other signs of deteriorating ability such as, not more than one win in the past year, or class drops and still failing to win or low earnings, below the cost of up-keep, over an extended period. Horses with even 50 or more races who show 3 or 4 wins in the past year would certainly not be eliminated since they are demonstrating the they still have enough in the tank.

This notion is far less effective at tracks with a low purse structure for the obvious reason that horses that can no longer earn their "day fees" at the major-circuit tracks tend to collect at tracks with a lower purse structure. These horses will either win at the smaller tracks or be retired. Eliminating such horses at these tracks would be counter-productive since a large part of many fields is made up of these.

It should be noted by exotics players that these horses can still get 2nd or 3rd but just don't have enough left of what it takes to be first.

As I mentioned at first, this is a notion in it's formative stages so, not too much should be read into it without some observation at one's own favorite track.


Norm,

I am curious if you have seen any difference in these types based on the running style they normally use or need to win a race in races where other younger horses of the same running style are entered?

Especially of the front runner or close presser type.

[ddog]

\


Didn't Norm say this angle works best on "major circuits?"
I don't think anyone would consider Charles Town a major circuit by any stretch of the imagination.

it's more "major" to me than California these days.
;)

I would think the old bullring type tracks might lend themsleves to this type of play.

[Norm]

Norm,

I am curious if you have seen any difference in these types based on the running style they normally use or need to win a race in races where other younger horses of the same running style are entered?

Especially of the front runner or close presser type.

It seems most noticeable with front runners. They don't burst out of the gate and grab the lead as they did before. I've been reviewing replays from my library trying to put my finger on something specific and the most visible characteristic is that the older front runners are losing the battle to the rail in the first 100 yards or so. The number of races is affecting more than just front runners, but it's more clear to the eye with those.

The more time I spend studying the phenomenon, the more inclined I am to lower the number below the 40 that I originally proposed.

[bellsbendboy]

While the number of starts or the age of the horse, that is past its prime varies, handicappers are largely aware of the inevitable decline in ability and attitude. The question, is when do the wheels come off ?

A few tenets we employ:

Be wary of any "older" horse that has won four races or less and take a very dim view if only three wins.

Downgrade any "aging" horse off more than 30 days or so, especially for lower classes.

Nonclaiming "seniors" in entry or nonwinners two, with less than a dozen or so starts, especially ones in good hands can win.

A horse with ten wins in his lifetime sixty three races can probably win today, and many of this type relish dropping weight.

Many barns, especially larger, more successful operations will drop a horse way, way down knowing the horse should win, and will be claimed. These win at a good percentage albeit often at unappealing odds.

Hope this helps keep this thread going. BBB