Coming into a race after winning its last time out

[misscashalot]

It seems to me that horses coming into a race after winning its last race should have some advantage due to conditioning. I'm wondering if in Claiming and Allowance races, broken up by Sprints and Routes there is any advantage to the bettor. Any info, thoughts or opinions about this?

[Snag]

Winners next out usually win again about 20% of the time. Not much of a profit angle there.

My guess is that the class jump is a big reason for the low percentage.

[rufus999]

One stat to consider. A high percentage rate of horses bounce after winning off a long layoff...especially when its a hard fought contest. A good safety margin for rest off a win after a long layoff is five weeks. Just something to keep in mind.:cool:

rufus

[Dublinjockey]

from my view the trainers always rise condition next start,trying to get luckey above the horses head,thats why only 20%win rate sucks when you win mclaiming and then go allowance next start

[Overlay]

Winners next out usually win again about 20% of the time. Not much of a profit angle there.

My guess is that the class jump is a big reason for the low percentage.

I'd say that the horse might carry more weight also (although weight doesn't play a prominent part in my own handicapping).

Quirin's figures (30 years ago) were 17.0% winning percentage for horses that won their last start, and 17.6% for horses that finished second.

Mike Nunamaker's winning percentages (around 1994) were 15.47% for last-race winners and 18.49% for horses that finished second in their last race.

[Overlay]

Some more findings from Quirin related to winning percentages for returning winners:

Winner returning at same distance category (sprint or route): 19.4%

(Quirin also commented, "The statistical patterns presented in this chapter appear independent of distance. Good form is as significant in sprints as it is in routes." But I couldn't find any specific statistics about horses switching to a route after a win in a sprint, or vice-versa.)

Won maiden claiming race in last start, moving up in claiming price today: 9.6%

Won maiden claiming race in last start, not moving up in claiming price today: 11.1%

*Won maiden claiming race in last start, entered in NW1 allowance race today: 15.0% (Most maiden claimer winners here had broken their maidens in a time at least as fast as the par time for a maiden special weights race.)

Won maiden special weights race in last start: 16.7%

Won maiden race in last start by three lengths or more: 20.6%

*Won maiden race in last start in time at least two lengths faster than the par time for today's race: 34.7%

Won maiden race in last start while running third or better at the first call: 16.1%

Won maiden race in last start in third lifetime start or earlier: 20.3%

Won claimer in last race: 16.2%

Won allowance or stakes in last race: 20.8%

*Won last race in time at least four lengths faster than the par time for today's race: 26.1%

(Categories marked with an asterisk above were those that produced a positive $NET in Quirin's sample.)

[Overlay]

One more:

Won non-maiden race in last start by three lengths or more: 22.7%

[misscashalot]

did Q state how many results in his sample?

[Overlay]

For the 17.0% and 17.6% winning percentages for horses finishing first and second, respectively, in their last races, the statistic was based on a sample of 1,842 races. The sample contained 16,526 horses, of which 2,278 had won their last race (with 387 of those winning their next start as well), and 1,869 had finished second in their last race (with 329 of those winning their next start).

Quirin's statistics concerning next-race performance of horses that won non-maiden races in their last start was drawn from a sample of 1,412 horses, consisting of "every horse aged three or older that raced again after winning a non-maiden race again during an entire New York racing season". Of those 1,412, 257 won their next start. The next race of 1,137 out of the 1,412 horses was at the same general distance (sprint or route) as their last-race win, of which 221 won again. 370 of the 1,412 had won their latest race by three lengths or more, of which 84 won their next start. 92 of the 1,412 won their latest race in a time at least four lengths faster than the par time for their next race, and 24 of those 92 won that next race. 612 of the 1,412 had won an allowance or stakes race in their latest start, and 127 of those won their next start. 800 of the 1,412 had won a claiming race in their latest start, and 130 of those won their next start.

Quirin's maiden statistics were based on the next race of each winner of a maiden race over two full New York racing seasons (529 races total). Of those 529 last-out maiden winners, 76 won their next race. 293 of the 529 winners were maiden special weights winners (whose next race was usually a NW1 allowance race). Of those 293, 49 won. The other 236 of the 529 winners had won maiden claimers, and 27 of them won their next race (9 in an allowance, 10 in a straight claimer where they moved up in price from their maiden claiming victory, and 8 in a straight claimer where they moved down in price). 180 of the 529 maiden winners won their maiden race by three lengths or more, of which 37 won their next start. 72 won their maiden race in a time at least two lengths faster than the par time for their next race, and 25 of those 72 were able to win that next race. 310 ran first, second, or third at the first call in their maiden victory, of which 50 were able to win their next race. 128 of the maiden winners had broken their maidens in their third career start or earlier, and 26 of those were able to win their next start.

[Overlay]

I should add that Nunamaker's percentages were based on a sample of 111,700 horses in 12,815 races.

[misscashalot]

.............
Quirin's statistics concerning next-race performance of horses that won non-maiden races in their last start was drawn from a sample of 1,412 horses, consisting of "every horse aged three or older that raced again after winning a non-maiden race again during an entire New York racing season...................

Thanks for the info. Its interesting that he deleted the numbers for 2 yr olds, as, probably, their NW1 includes many more last time winners than the older set.

[Overlay]

Sorry for the omission. Quirin had a separate chapter on two-year-olds. Out of 1,114 maiden races for two-year-olds with a total of 11,344 horses, 999 had finished second in their latest race, of which 218 won their next race. 1,021 had run third, of which 169 won. 6,262 had run out of the money, of which 469 won.

Of 500 two-year-olds making their next start after winning a maiden race, 44 of 262 (16.8%) that won a maiden special weights race also won their next start. 22 of 238 (9.2%) that won a maiden claimer won their next start.

Of 302 two-year-olds that won a stakes, allowance, or open claiming race in their latest start, 67 (22.2%) also won their next start. 94 of the 302 had won their last race in a time at least two lengths faster than today's par, and, of those, 28 (29.8%) won their next race.

(I couldn't find any statistics in Quirin on non-maiden two-year-olds that finished second or third, or ran out of the money in their last start.)

[Overlay]

Sorry for the omission. Quirin had a separate chapter on two-year-olds. Out of 1,114 maiden races for two-year-olds with a total of 11,344 horses, 999 had finished second in their latest race, of which 218 won their next race. 1,021 had run third, of which 169 won. 6,262 had run out of the money, of which 469 won.

(The other 258 winners were making their debuts (out of a total of 3,062 first-time starters in those 1,114 races)(8.4% winning percentage).)

[jonnielu]

It seems to me that horses coming into a race after winning its last race should have some advantage due to conditioning. I'm wondering if in Claiming and Allowance races, broken up by Sprints and Routes there is any advantage to the bettor. Any info, thoughts or opinions about this?

A win doesn't conditon a horse any more or less then any other race. The evidence is those horses that come back from layoffs from 120 days to 2 years long and win. In general, the winner of last out is at a double dis-advantage, if we are considering everyday classes, or the workhorses that must perform every few weeks.

From Allowance to Stakes, a win last out is generally an advantage, and one that the analyst can use more readily with consideration of underlying factors that differ from those that impact the everyday classes.

To lump them all in a big pile and break out a statistic, would be most useful as material for a Jeopardy contestant.

jdl

[Tom Barrister]

The figures are a bit higher now than they were 30 years ago, mainly because field-sizes are smaller.

Paraphrasing what jonnielu said, winning a race by a head doesn't condition a horse much more than than losing a race by a head. The problem is that winning can force a horse to move up in class (such as out of a NW-conditional claimer to a tougher one), and/or it can also cause it to be assigned more weight. In addition, the public tends to overbet horses who show a win in the last race.

[Robert Fischer]

a whole bunch of interesting stuff here

/concept of the importance last out winners = How do last out winners compare with horses who exceeded today's par in their last out? Is there some quality, almost an intangible quality (alpha/refuses to be headed etc..) that winners develop or posses?
Value drives everything. A lot of trip handicappers would claim that winners only carry the "stigma" of being underlayed, while losers exiting a key race or a brutal trip may offer value.


concept of conditioning = can a bunch of correlating factors to a well conditioned horse be calculated or tallied to look for a meaningful contrast? ie:One single high scoring horse entered in a race with low scoring opponents.

[Semipro]

You have to consider that you can have multiple last race winners in the same race which of will effect the %age.

[Pell Mell]

Last out winners to fear; Set or pressed the pace, led at stretch call and increased lead by at least 2 lengths.

[Achilles]

Take a look at the thread of 6-30-06, titled "Last Race Winners???". I posted a brief reply there about a Mark Cramer angle on what he termed double advantage winners returning. I won't repeat it here, but you can find it easily if you go to the members list and click to see my previous posts.


In addition to the basic "double-advantage", he preferred MSW winners stepping up, didn't like MC winners or those that won on sloppy tracks or off-the-turf races. He had some stats with decent ROI's. I was able to use it with some success when I played more.

Jack

[misscashalot]

Take a look at the thread of 6-30-06, titled "Last Race Winners???". I posted a brief reply there about a Mark Cramer angle on what he termed double advantage winners returning. I won't repeat it here, but you can find it easily if you go to the members list and click to see my previous posts.


In addition to the basic "double-advantage", he preferred MSW winners stepping up, didn't like MC winners or those that won on sloppy tracks or off-the-turf races. He had some stats with decent ROI's. I was able to use it with some success when I played more.

Jack

Here's that thread

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29124