Playing older horses

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Has their been any statistical study about playing horses 7 yo and up? I realize the condition of a horse is graded on an individual basis however it appears that the prime of most thoroughbred horses are from 3 yo to 6 yo.

Many times (especially at the smaller tracks) a horse above 6 yo seems to run an unexplained poor race even though by best accounts the horse was in-form with regular workout patterns that the horse has displayed in the past before a sharp or winning effort.

If their is a statistical base to gauge the performances of these 7 yo and up it would help to avoid these apparent inconsistent riskier selections.

[1st time lasix]

I read a chapter in one of the handicapping books regarding this topic. The book was compiled by the author {Quinn} from all of the important published handicapping topics from other sources. Under "contender eliminations" it was listed...***no play on horses 7 or older...... among others--- like no play on layoff horses without proper workouts etc. Assume there was some documentation to support such a broad thesis.

[classhandicapper]

I don't have any rules about how to deal older horses, but many of them are beat up from years of racing and the on downside of their careers. I tend to try to avoid horses that I think are more likely to run a complete dud because of a history of injuries and/or a clear downward trend in their form.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Virtually every horse (even the very talented ones) will throw in a subpar or bad race on occasion it seems most likely due to age, nagging injuries or racing activity the older horses tend to exibit more unexplained subpar or bad races.

[stu]

Every now and then I buy the hard copy of the DRF Simulcast Weekly and start drawing lines through the older horses.

No stats but just heuristics you are relatively safe eliminating 7yo+ from Allowance and Stakes races from the win and place spots in the top tier of racing.

Likewise you are relatively safe eliminating 10yo+ from middle-tag claiming races and up from the win/place spots in the top two tiers of racing.

For races with $5000 claimers or $5000 purses or less, I couldn't create any heuristics.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Stu, interesting breakdown according to class levels.

[LottaKash]

John Henry.........:jump:

[stu]

John Henry.........:jump:

John Henry is what I call a statistical outlier. I think that are only horses who won graded stakes at the age of 9 or more

[Norm]

I feel safe eliminating older horses if 1) they have not won more that one race in the last two years (there are lots of those) or 2) they are not earning the equal of their "day rate" for the past year. A lot of these are somebody's pet horse and are just out there to pick up an occasional paycheck for a third place finish. By the same token, don't arbitrarily eliminate an older horse that is earning in excess of his day rate.

[strapper]

I know one thing: you don't see as many good older campaigners like you used to and I attribute it to the constant year-round racing we do these days. In the good ol' days they used to rest horses more - pedigrees are also probably not as sound due to breeding for market fashionability

[Tom]

Those old geezers, like John Henry, should be avoided. ;)

[ezrabrooks]

I know one thing: you don't see as many good older campaigners like you used to and I attribute it to the constant year-round racing we do these days. In the good ol' days they used to rest horses more - pedigrees are also probably not as sound due to breeding for market fashionability

You are correct about the soundness nowdays...but, in the good ole days, they ran them back in a hurry.

Ez

[jfb]

Those old geezers, like John Henry, should be avoided. ;)

Also avoid ones like The Tin Man, Evening Attire...

[ryesteve]

I'm not really sure what the point is in focusing on the exceptions. You could take any piece of sound, logical handicapping advice and find examples to the contrary.

My assessment of the data supports the premise of the original poster. I concluded a while ago that when my top-rated selection is an older horse, the ROI drops off pretty sharply. I don't know whether it's the lack of reliability, or because older horse benefit from back numbers that are less representative of their current ability, or a combination of both; either way, the effect is there.

[twindouble]

I don't break down older horses by one age level. They come in different packages. John Henry was a good example, my fav horse.

I wouldn't just toss a horse because he's or she is 7,8, or 9. When older horses have sound back ground and fits the conditions better than others, that horse is a play for me. Read the conditions and past performances before you toss a horse. When older horses are unsound, the layoff lines jump out at you, same can apply to younger horses.

There's a higher risk betting on young horses overall. Young horses are maturing, learning and can improve from race to race. Older horses have developed and are more consistent in their ability and running style, again providing they are "sound". Older horses coming off a long layoff with back class dropping down are not a toss in my opinion, because a good trainer can get the horse ready and compete against lesser horses via conditions. That's their job.


Good luck,

T.D.

[1st time lasix]

I will "play" and older horse but not as a sole "key" in the exotics. If i land on one 7 or up though my 'capping .......I either use the horse with another in some sort of exacta or double or leg...or just pass entirely. Always with less than a premier larger play $$$ of my bankroll. ....just too risky in many cases.

[twindouble]

I'm not really sure what the point is in focusing on the exceptions. You could take any piece of sound, logical handicapping advice and find examples to the contrary.

My assessment of the data supports the premise of the original poster. I concluded a while ago that when my top-rated selection is an older horse, the ROI drops off pretty sharply. I don't know whether it's the lack of reliability, or because older horse benefit from back numbers that are less representative of their current ability, or a combination of both; either way, the effect is there.

I doubt anyone is suggesting that "older horses" are out there burning up the tracks. Do some stats on MdSpWts, 3, and yo's, you know the ones that have had 10 to 26 starts and compare that to older horses. Depends on how you cut the mustard when it comes to stats.

What I'm saying is tossing a horse just because he's older isn't a good practice. ESP when the older horses fit the conditions and the competition. Every race offers up a different meal and in most cases stats go out the window.


Good luck,

T.D.

[ryesteve]

What I'm saying is tossing a horse just because he's older isn't a good practice.I know that's what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that in many cases it is, and the data supports it.

Every race offers up a different meal and in most cases stats go out the window.Yes, every race is unique, but if I have a group of horses that, in aggregate, show a net loss of 40%+, it's not worth it trying to pick through it case by case in order to try to find a subset within this group that might still be profitable. The baseline you're starting at is far too low.

[twindouble]

I know that's what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that in many cases it is, and the data supports it.

Yes, every race is unique, but if I have a group of horses that, in aggregate, show a net loss of 40%+, it's not worth it trying to pick through it case by case in order to try to find a subset within this group that might still be profitable. The baseline you're starting at is far too low.

I don't have a perceived base line, just the race in hand. Like anyone else, if I think the race isn't playable and doesn't fit my strategy, I'll pass. Don't matter to me. On the other hand if I think a 6,7,or 8 year old has the potential to make me money, I'll use them.


T.D.

[ryesteve]

I don't have a perceived base line, just the race in hand. Like anyone else, if I think the race isn't playable and doesn't fit my strategy, I'll pass. Don't matter to me. On the other hand if I think a 6,7,or 8 year old has the potential to make me money, I'll use them.
Well, just because you don't have a perceived baseline, that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist...

But just to clarify what I've meant by an "older horse", I wasn't referring to 6-8 year olds... 6's are fine, and 7's are marginal. 8 and up is where I see the performance data tank. Maybe someone can start a thread in the Selections forum where people can make selections on horses that happen to be 8 and up, just for the heck of it...

[twindouble]

Well, just because you don't have a perceived baseline, that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist...

But just to clarify what I've meant by an "older horse", I wasn't referring to 6-8 year olds... 6's are fine, and 7's are marginal. 8 and up is where I see the performance data tank. Maybe someone can start a thread in the Selections forum where people can make selections on horses that happen to be 8 and up, just for the heck of it...

I had a typo, what I was asking you to do is compare MdSpWt horses that are 4 and 5 yo's that had 10 to 28 starts with older horses 7 and up. The number of life time starts has dropped considerably over the years on the average, less than 35 I would say. So I would say they are lightly raced like most horses today. Old don't mean your dead on the track or at the windows.

I'll add Artiste Royal won the San Marcos, 8yo. Oldest horse in the race. I made some good bucks in that race.


Good luck,

T.D.

[stu]

I had a typo, what I was asking you to do is compare MdSpWt horses that are 4 and 5 yo's that had 10 to 28 starts with older horses 7 and up. The number of life time starts has dropped considerably over the years on the average, less than 35 I would say. So I would say they are lightly raced like most horses today. Old don't mean your dead on the track or at the windows.

With the tools available to me, I have broken down the win percentage of runners by age in the following situation:

MSW for runners with a minimum of 10 previous starts

Test period - last 180 days

Age 4 00444 00052 12%
Age 5 00192 00013 07%
Age 6 00020 00001 05%
Age 7 00012 00000 00%
Age 8 00001 00000 00%

Let's switch it to Maiden Claimers from Maiden Special Weights

Test period - last 180 days

Age 4 02472 00272 11%
Age 5 01138 00102 09%
Age 6 00250 00017 07%
Age 7 00082 00005 06%
Age 8 00014 00001 07%
Age 9 00004 00000 00%
Age 10+ 00003 00000 00%

My conclusion: even in your scenario with MSW you can blindly use an age filter to throw away any horse over 5yo.

[stu]

Let's look at claiming races for races that are either 3yo+ or 4yo+

Sample Period - Last 180 days

Age 4 24292 03031 12%
Age 5 17929 02044 11%
Age 6 10093 01077 11%
Age 7 06333 00687 11%
Age 8 03015 00300 10%
Age 9 01511 00129 09%
Age 10+ 00859 00053 06%

I would use an age filter to knock out 10 year old and up runners in claiming race for the top spot. 25% of them still finish in the money.

In my mind it is all about heuristics to simplify the number of contender that you seriously consider

[kenwoodallpromos]

I look at any older horse (6+) as what it is- a senior citizen in terms of racing; They need what human seniors need- same ole same ole- throw them if any factor at all changes from previous races- even the barometer reading!! IMO the worst changes are track, surface, track condition, and smaller time gap between races.
I would even be suspect if I do not see their usual pre-post-parade limp (too drugged up).

[twindouble]

With the tools available to me, I have broken down the win percentage of runners by age in the following situation:

MSW for runners with a minimum of 10 previous starts

Test period - last 180 days

Age 4 00444 00052 12%
Age 5 00192 00013 07%
Age 6 00020 00001 05%
Age 7 00012 00000 00%
Age 8 00001 00000 00%

Let's switch it to Maiden Claimers from Maiden Special Weights

Test period - last 180 days

Age 4 02472 00272 11%
Age 5 01138 00102 09%
Age 6 00250 00017 07%
Age 7 00082 00005 06%
Age 8 00014 00001 07%
Age 9 00004 00000 00%
Age 10+ 00003 00000 00%

My conclusion: even in your scenario with MSW you can blindly use an age filter to throw away any horse over 5yo.

Who today is just betting just horses to win? Older horses hit the board as well, do some stats on that, ex, tri, supers, high fives for example. Those gimmicks have produced good scores for me. When a horse figures to be there, I don't care how old he or she is or the odds, and I wouldn't waste my time keeping track of age. Breaking down A race is more important to me. To each his own.

Good luck,

T.D.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Stu

How about 6yo 1st time starters?
I've used that as an angle and scored many times.

Also another tidbit of info.
Proven Cure was a turf sprinting machine down in here in Texas.
He went 14/8-3-1 during his 11 and 12 year old campaigns winning 3 stakes in the process. He's 15 now and ineligible to race.

[stu]

Stu

How about 6yo 1st time starters?
I've used that as an angle and scored many times.



First-time starters in MSW or MCL 3yr+ or 4yr+

Sample Period - Last 180 days

Age 4 00589 00036 06%
Age 5 00133 00009 07%
Age 6 00027 00001 04%
Age 7 00003 00000 00%
Age 8 00001 00000 00%

[stu]

Stu

Also another tidbit of info.
Proven Cure was a turf sprinting machine down in here in Texas.
He went 14/8-3-1 during his 11 and 12 year old campaigns winning 3 stakes in the process. He's 15 now and ineligible to race.

I remember him. Proven Cure started as a 13yo until the date at which it was more than 365 days since his last win which made him inelibible to start.

I tried to recruit him to run later in the year for $50K stakes at Albuquerque but John Locke told me that he had already been turned out.

[twindouble]

Stu; I don't know how you come up with these stats to begin with. I would think all they should encompass all factors, like the ratio of young horses to older horses. Take this stat for example. How many 6,7, and 8 yo's are there compared to 4 and 5 yo's?

I took 4 cards at SA, out of 420 horses entered, 42 6 yo's, 15 7 yo's and 12 8 yo's. Just 1 9yo. All others were, 3,4,5 yo's. We all know horses today have a much shorter racing career than in the past. Based on your percentages, those 6, 7, and 8 yo's are doing quite well, even when it comes to winning, not to mention hitting the board. I would say the majority players wager on the gimmicks, wouldn't you? Tossing horses because of age alone isn't a good idea in my opinion.

If 4yo's only win 11% out of 2,472 races and 6yo's win 7% out of 250, you see my point? I assume that's what your numbers mean. Correct?


Age 4 02472 00272 11%
Age 5 01138 00102 09%
Age 6 00250 00017 07%
Age 7 00082 00005 06%
Age 8 00014 00001 07%

My conclusion: even in your scenario with MSW you can blindly use an age filter to throw away any horse over 5yo. quote; Stu.



T.D.

[stu]

Stu; I don't know how you come up with these stats to begin with. I would think all they should encompass all factors, like the ratio of young horses to older horses. Take this stat for example. How many 6,7, and 8 yo's are there compared to 4 and 5 yo's?

I took 4 cards at SA, out of 420 horses entered, 42 6 yo's, 15 7 yo's and 12 8 yo's. Just 1 9yo. All others were, 3,4,5 yo's. We all know horses today have a much shorter racing career than in the past. Based on your percentages, those 6, 7, and 8 yo's are doing quite well, even when it comes to winning, not to mention hitting the board. I would say the majority players wager on the gimmicks, wouldn't you? Tossing horses because of age alone isn't a good idea in my opinion.

If 4yo's only win 11% out of 2,472 races and 6yo's win 7% out of 250, you see my point? I assume that's what your numbers mean. Correct?


Age 4 02472 00272 11%
Age 5 01138 00102 09%
Age 6 00250 00017 07%
Age 7 00082 00005 06%
Age 8 00014 00001 07%

My conclusion: even in your scenario with MSW you can blindly use an age filter to throw away any horse over 5yo. quote; Stu.



T.D.




Again my conclusion was to filter the older horses from Maiden Special Weights. I did not assert that you should use the same filter for Maiden Claimers. You challenged my conclusion with the stats that I provided for the Maiden Claimers. The maiden special weight stats showed that the 6yo+ group was 1 for 33 - thus worth tossing completely.

BTW, I am using the Robot2 component of Ken Massa's HTR software to do the heavy lifting on the statistics.

[twindouble]

Again my conclusion was to filter the older horses from Maiden Special Weights. I did not assert that you should use the same filter for Maiden Claimers. You challenged my conclusion with the stats that I provided for the Maiden Claimers. The maiden special weight stats showed that the 6yo+ group was 1 for 33 - thus worth tossing completely.

BTW, I am using the Robot2 component of Ken Massa's HTR software to do the heavy lifting on the statistics.

Well, I wouldn't call my inquiry a "challenge", not in my mind anyway. Like I said, I had no idea how you come up with the stats, that's no bases for a challenge. I didn't intend to come off that way. I'll try to be more sensitive next time.

If your making money off those stats all the more power to you. I have no envy of any player that makes money, I'm happy for them. All I can do is stick to what's worked for me for many years and not tossing older horses out right has been part of my game. I sure as heck don't open the form looking for older horses to bet or 3yo's for that matter. When an older horse or young horse figures to be there, that's my bet. Simple as that and stats over 180 days don't apply.


Good luck to you,

T.D.

[ryesteve]

If 4yo's only win 11% out of 2,472 races and 6yo's win 7% out of 250, you see my point? I assume that's what your numbers mean. Correct?If you're trying to say that the % for the older horses is lower because there are fewer of them, expressing these numbers as percents already takes that into account.

[twindouble]

If you're trying to say that the % for the older horses is lower because there are fewer of them, expressing these numbers as percents already takes that into account.

Yes exactly, thanks.

Then the stats stu posted still shows me 6, 7, and 8 yo's fair well. Take one card for example, the conditions offered for that day also have an effect for that day as to what age the horses are that are entered. Also, you could have 25% of older horses entered but only 8% qualify in terms of distance, track, turf, dirt, or syn and so on. Whereas 50% of younger horses do. Just fudging the percentages, because they would vary a lot. So if they aren't offering better conditions for older horses they end up at smaller tracks, so I think older horses getting better conditions their win % would go up including hitting the board. Hitting the board is big when playing the gimmicks. How do you factor all that in with your stats? Take SA for another example, their big push to create carryovers dictates offering conditions for younger horses, including large fields, 2,3,4,and 5 yo's. The average player could very well be better off at smaller tracks and older horses than dealing with conditions like that. I'm doing Ok with the Cal tracks but I have to invest more to hang in with them.

T.D.

[ryesteve]

Also, you could have 25% of older horses entered but only 8% qualify in terms of distance, track, turf, dirt, or syn and so on. Whereas 50% of younger horses do.I would agree that the one thing missing from Stu's statistics are what percent of these horses are viable candidates in the first place, and how these horses are performing relative to their odds.

That said, I have looked at the data in those terms, and I still come to the same conclusion. Any objective measure that I've looked at to determine selections or contenders (ie speed figs, power ratings, etc.) always show that among qualifying horses, 8yo's and up underperform in both ROI and hit rate, in all pools.