Seven races--SEVEN SECONDS!!

[fmhealth]

Anyone ever see anything like this? APPLESOLUTELY WILD in the 3rd at AP today. Came into the race running 2nd in all his previous six races. Where'd he run today? Second of course.

In all my 50 years at the races, I don't ever recall seeing this phenomena before. Have you?

[Overlay]

Back in the '70's, Jacques Who was famous for finishing second in race after race (usually as the favorite, since the public always thought that, with all those near-misses, the next time out had to be the one where he'd finally win). William Quirin and Andy Beyer both reproduced his past perfomances and wrote brief blurbs about him in their books. (He ran 30 races, finishing second thirteen times, before he finally broke his maiden. His final career record was 6 wins, 24 seconds, and 18 thirds in 117 races.)

[toetoe]

Don't forget Schwe La (sp. ?), Swap Dances or the GREAT ... New Plan.

[BombsAway Bob]

I think The Maloof Brothers owned a bigtime hanger in California that was second in A LOT of consecutives races...& now is a $10k claimer, I believe.
King Mobay:confused: , maybe?

[ryesteve]

King Mobay:confused: , maybe?King Palm, I believe. And I recall years ago, a horse running in NY named Full Quid had PPs where all of his last 10 races were seconds.

[equicom]

This is a lot more common than you'd probably expect, although probably it doesn't happen as much in America where there is more of an emphasis on sprint racing.

The reason goes down to equine nature. Many horses don't possess the talent to win and maybe only win by accident. But there are others that do have the talent and genetic potential to win and still don't manage it anyway. One reason can be the human factors - give a good horse a lousy trainer and jockey and he'll have a tough time winning - but another reason (and more likely, in fact) is that some horses just don't like being lonely.

This is known as the "herd instinct", and basically it means that horses feel safer in a group than out on their own. If they don't feel tuned in to the rider, then when they get in front and suddenly don't see any other horses then they'll feel like they're alone and tense up and slow down.

The trick to winning with them is to rate them very well, tracking the leader right up until the last moments before the post when you will want to draw level, then hopefully make a last second lunge just on the wire and take the horse by surprise.

The problem is that it requires expert timing and quite a bit of luck to pull it off successfully, because the moment the horse notices that he's out in front and can't see any other horses, he'll slow down.

http://www.ipswichracing.com/index.php?artid=1174&catid=52&news_page=82

[BombsAway Bob]

King Palm, I believe. And I recall years ago, a horse running in NY named Full Quid had PPs where all of his last 10 races were seconds.
That's right..duh, the Maloof Bros. Casino in Vegas is...The PALMS! :jump:

[toetoe]

Aw, the full quid it.

[menifee]

This is a lot more common than you'd probably expect, although probably it doesn't happen as much in America where there is more of an emphasis on sprint racing.

The reason goes down to equine nature. Many horses don't possess the talent to win and maybe only win by accident. But there are others that do have the talent and genetic potential to win and still don't manage it anyway. One reason can be the human factors - give a good horse a lousy trainer and jockey and he'll have a tough time winning - but another reason (and more likely, in fact) is that some horses just don't like being lonely.

This is known as the "herd instinct", and basically it means that horses feel safer in a group than out on their own. If they don't feel tuned in to the rider, then when they get in front and suddenly don't see any other horses then they'll feel like they're alone and tense up and slow down.

The trick to winning with them is to rate them very well, tracking the leader right up until the last moments before the post when you will want to draw level, then hopefully make a last second lunge just on the wire and take the horse by surprise.

The problem is that it requires expert timing and quite a bit of luck to pull it off successfully, because the moment the horse notices that he's out in front and can't see any other horses, he'll slow down.

http://www.ipswichracing.com/index.php?artid=1174&catid=52&news_page=82


From a handicapping perspective, these are the greatest horses in the world. I wish I knew about that Arlington horse today. I love these type of horses. I've actually made it a habit to try to find these horses. There was one in the Saratoga finale today. The 8 horse had finished in the money so many times, but won rarely. These horses are good because they are always overbet, but always finish in the money. I just key them in second and third with the other likely candidates and a bomb or two and sometimes hit some nice tris.

[LottaKash]

I love those horses and I am always on the alert for them, as they are "RATS", and they help me get my better price........:jump:


best,

[jotb]

This is a lot more common than you'd probably expect, although probably it doesn't happen as much in America where there is more of an emphasis on sprint racing.

The reason goes down to equine nature. Many horses don't possess the talent to win and maybe only win by accident. But there are others that do have the talent and genetic potential to win and still don't manage it anyway. One reason can be the human factors - give a good horse a lousy trainer and jockey and he'll have a tough time winning - but another reason (and more likely, in fact) is that some horses just don't like being lonely.

This is known as the "herd instinct", and basically it means that horses feel safer in a group than out on their own. If they don't feel tuned in to the rider, then when they get in front and suddenly don't see any other horses then they'll feel like they're alone and tense up and slow down.

The trick to winning with them is to rate them very well, tracking the leader right up until the last moments before the post when you will want to draw level, then hopefully make a last second lunge just on the wire and take the horse by surprise.

The problem is that it requires expert timing and quite a bit of luck to pull it off successfully, because the moment the horse notices that he's out in front and can't see any other horses, he'll slow down.

http://www.ipswichracing.com/index.php?artid=1174&catid=52&news_page=82


True to some degree. Many horsemen feel that horses that constantly finish second all the time just don't have the heart to win. Hard to think they are right about the heart thing because they don't know what a horse is thinking. I've witness tons of horses over the years, that come from behind and when they get to the front they just don't seem to know what they need to do from there. I think they lose their focus. Could be the horse is thinking "hey where is everyone"?. There are certain types of equipment changes that can help this problem or the jockey needs to keep busy on the horse. For the most part, I believe in what you had said about the "herd instinct" When horses run "in the wild", I would think the horses in the front and back are most likely to be attacked by other prey. In this situation, I would think horses feel more comfortable in the middle of the pack. Anyway, thanks for the link and your insight.

Best regards,
Joe

[startngate]

I have seen several instances of horses running consistant seconds and thirds when they are at the end of their conditions and will have to run against open company after the next win.

If the connections don't think they can win in open races, it's far better to pick up checks for second and third, as opposed to getting nothing in open company.

This is especially true of State-breds running where there are limited numbers of State-restricted "open" races, and for bottom level claimers where the option of running in "non-winners since a date" races are available.

[equicom]

I have seen several instances of horses running consistant seconds and thirds when they are at the end of their conditions and will have to run against open company after the next win.

That's a good point also, and I should have mentioned that myself. It's another "human factors" issue, that they are sometimes less than honest. The tragedy of this is that they might be underestimating the potential of the horse and perhaps he would have the ability to win in open company.

Also a good reason why $50,000 maiden races are a bad idea. They should not have those. A much better system would be to have all non-stakes races having a set value (varying by track) where maiden races have the least value and progressively increasing value up to open class.

That would be more natural, and fits the concept of meritocracy. Success should be rewarded, not failure (and especially not deliberate failure).

[jotb]

That's a good point also, and I should have mentioned that myself. It's another "human factors" issue, that they are sometimes less than honest. The tragedy of this is that they might be underestimating the potential of the horse and perhaps he would have the ability to win in open company.

Also a good reason why $50,000 maiden races are a bad idea. They should not have those. A much better system would be to have all non-stakes races having a set value (varying by track) where maiden races have the least value and progressively increasing value up to open class.

That would be more natural, and fits the concept of meritocracy. Success should be rewarded, not failure (and especially not deliberate failure).

I'm not following your idea here. Are you saying maiden 50k claiming or 50k purse? How can you have maiden races the least value when some owners purchase horses for millions of dollars not counting how much money they have to put into a horse just to get to the races. The idea behind high priced maiden claiming races is to protect the owners from losing their horses.

Joe

[boomman]

[/font]
That's right..duh, the Maloof Bros. Casino in Vegas is...The PALMS! :jump:

Got to meet the Maloofs in my many years as the track announcer in Albuquerque (their hometown)......GREAT folks, and we used to run a race named after their father: The George Maloof Futurity.....And I would imagine that running 2nd with one of their horses isn't too concerning considering their "Palms" success......;)

Boomer

[equicom]

I was referring to a high purse level. Nothing wrong with having a high claiming price. Some of the bigger tracks have maiden races that pay well enough for an owner to profit by running a place.

But we also must consider that convincing a jockey to not win when he has the chance is not as easy as many people might think.

I did not specify that I was referring to the purse value rather than the claiming price because I believed that it was implied by the context (we're talking about owners and trainers not trying to win with a horse on a regular basis, which would be impossible anyway if other people kept claiming the horse).

My view is that if the purse level is too high on the lower classes of race, then there is less incentive to try and progress. This was a problem in Australia and New Zealand some years ago before they modernized the racing classes. Under the old system, it was better financially to not advance through the classes too quickly.

[jotb]

I was referring to a high purse level. Nothing wrong with having a high claiming price. Some of the bigger tracks have maiden races that pay well enough for an owner to profit by running a place.

But we also must consider that convincing a jockey to not win when he has the chance is not as easy as many people might think.

I did not specify that I was referring to the purse value rather than the claiming price because I believed that it was implied by the context (we're talking about owners and trainers not trying to win with a horse on a regular basis, which would be impossible anyway if other people kept claiming the horse).

My view is that if the purse level is too high on the lower classes of race, then there is less incentive to try and progress. This was a problem in Australia and New Zealand some years ago before they modernized the racing classes. Under the old system, it was better financially to not advance through the classes too quickly.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that you can't convince a jock to intentionally finish 2nd or 3rd. In regard to trainers, I don't believe they put a horse on the track not trying to win. Trainers like jockeys make money winning races. Will they be happy if the horse finishes 2nd? Yes. Why? Because it keep owners happy and the horse is still sitting on the condition. I'm not so sure owners are making money with the horse if the horse continues to finish 2nd. The 2nd's cover the monthly overhead plus some extra's but don't forget it cost money to claim horses or privately purchase horses. Most owners are in denial about their horses. They believe in their minds that their horse is capable of winning not only the condition they run for but winning the next condition level as well. I would think the main objective for owners and trainers is to have that horse win enough races to make it to stakes company for black type. On a final note, most of the races are claiming events in the United States, so when you claim a horse the owner is in the red and needs to win as quickly as possible to recoup that money. Many trainers and owners in the game make bad claims such as claiming a horse for 10k to only find themselves running for 5k a month later praying they can get out without further damage. Don't get me wrong there are trainers and owners that are sharp and know how to play the claiming game making money but the majority don't do well overall.

You believe that the purse level is too high for maiden races and there is less incentive to try and progress. I believe lowering the purse level for maidens will not make maidens win any quicker. Some horses are just professional maidens not because of owner trainer intent but more because they are just not good enough. The overhead for maidens is the same for alw. horses. Say for instance an owner purchases a 2yo for 30k and it takes 6 months to get that horse to the races and the horse does not break it's maiden until it's 5th race 2 months after it ran it's first race. The owner is stuck at least 40k to 50k depending how long the trainer had the horse and the trainers day rate not counting vet and farrier bills. With your idea of lowering the purse level for maidens the owner is certainly in a losing propostion. Do you know how long it takes sometimes for horses to break their maidens on average? If it takes a significant amount of time to break their maidens then how difficult will it be for them to get through their next level. Luckily for many owners that the purse races for maidens are high enough that they don't have to win to recoup some of their investment. Don't forget the owner only gets 20% for place and 10% for third. If you have a horse that is at Saratoga and the purse is 72k and you finish 2nd then you are picking up 14,400. If the horse run 2nd 5 times you have yourself 72,000. These are nice checks to pick up if you are running at Saratoga but I'm sure that many horses are purchased for a large sum of money. I rather win the 72k purse quickly picking up 43,200 advancing to the next condition because everytime you put a horse on the racetrack you increase the chance of injury. Imagine all the owners that paid big bucks for horses that find themselves running in a maiden race where the purse is 10k. I would like to hear from other owners on this board what their take is.

Best regards,
Joe