The Bounce

[duckhunter3]

There is an EXCELLENT article by Barry Meadow in the December edition of American Turf Monthly on the bounce.

He discusses all aspect of research by himself and Jim Cramer of HDW re when bounces are most likely to occur, and how often they occur with different classes of horses, etc.

The research is quite impressive.

Ken

[Judge Gallivan]

I think sheet people overplay the bounce factor.

For example in his BC seminar Jerry Brown of Thorograph in his comments about Furthest Land in the 'pro-ride mile' said something like: He's fast but because of late shipment and new top we expect him to bounce.

Now, I don't mind throwing some 3/5 fav because it might bounce. If you're right you can score big. But throwing 20+/1 horse because it might bounce is taking things too far.

[Charlie D]

Drug in or out would i presume effect performance, hence thier use, Tongue Tie on or off would l i presume effect performance, hence thier use.

How can you research anything properly when this type of information is unavailable.

[fmolf]

I think sheet people overplay the bounce factor.

For example in his BC seminar Jerry Brown of Thorograph in his comments about Furthest Land in the 'pro-ride mile' said something like: He's fast but because of late shipment and new top we expect him to bounce.

Now, I don't mind throwing some 3/5 fav because it might bounce. If you're right you can score big. But throwing 20+/1 horse because it might bounce is taking things too far.
Ragozin never mentioned shipping in his chapter on the bounce in his book.I do think there is validity in it but the problem is quantifying it how many speed points will he run off by?If you read the pp's from the bottom up as i do and lots of other cappers do you will notice right away that there are very few horses that do not regress after a new top.Not even talking about lifetime just in the ten races shown in the pp's.you can test this theory yourself just look at any card any day.

[magwell]

I find it as a reaction to a new top and if it isn't too big of a reaction on a young horse especially, there is usually is another forward move coming soon.

[Judge Gallivan]

Ragozin never mentioned shipping in his chapter on the bounce in his book.I do think there is validity in it but the problem is quantifying it how many speed points will he run off by?If you read the pp's from the bottom up as i do and lots of other cappers do you will notice right away that there are very few horses that do not regress after a new top.Not even talking about lifetime just in the ten races shown in the pp's.you can test this theory yourself just look at any card any day.


It's all about percentages and prices, isn't it?

I don't doubt that some horses bounce after a new top but not all and not every time. Just like you mentioned that you can see in the pp's horses that regress after a new top, you can see horses that make 2 or 3 new tops in a row and then regress.

[illinoisbred]

I've found for years now a bounce is very likely if a horse run a new top, or near top off a layoff. Most healthy young horses seem to return to that top by their 3rd/4th start after the layoff and are a serious threat to go forward from there.

[the_fat_man]

The 'bounce': the handicapping 'aether'.

[cmoore]

I've scored many times on an angle that I've named the
REVERSE BOUNCE..Look for speed ratings like this
59
63
68

He's going to improve at some point. Finding these isn't easy but you will usually get a good price. Things to look for. Dropping in class. Horse coming off a layoff with a good workout tab.. Trainer change or high percentage jockey aboard. Blinkers on or off. Getting lasix for the 1st or second time..Changing distances. Battled for lead in last before tiring..Ran a even race. Meaning all pace figures were close to being the same.

[misscashalot]

I've found for years now a bounce is very likely if a horse run a new top, or near top off a layoff. Most healthy young horses seem to return to that top by their 3rd/4th start after the layoff and are a serious threat to go forward from there.

Regression Towards the Mean. Happens every day in every facet of your life.
Bounce fundamental theory is the falsest of all the false.

[Charlie D]

I've scored many times on an angle that I've named the
REVERSE BOUNCE..Look for speed ratings like this
59
63
68

He's going to improve at some point



Indeed, just like Zenyatta was going to bounce back towards the higher speedfigures she posted when the race dynamics dictated she had to.

[dansan]

the only thing that bounces for me is my ticket when I crumple it up and throw it on the floor :bang:

[illinoisbred]

Regression Towards the Mean. Happens every day in every facet of your life.
Bounce fundamental theory is the falsest of all the false.
I agree it's overused, looked for, or expected way too much. That said,many horses do react to big efforts off a layoff. Many are not prepared for the exertion put forth and do suffer from it's effects.

[Show Me the Wire]

Regression Towards the Mean. Happens every day in every facet of your life.
Bounce fundamental theory is the falsest of all the false.

Only in pure math in the abstract. Definetly true in physical reality. The bounce is predicated on physical exertion causing body soreness. A sore athlete will not repeat his best effort.

Also, the effort can be so taxing it depletes the horse's reserve energy. It takes time to recover this expended energy and if the horse runs prior to recovering its energy it will fail to fire.

The bounce is an absolute reality. The problem is trying to numerically quantify when the horse is sore or expended all its energy. It then becomes a guessing game based on probabilities.

[illinoisbred]

Only in pure math in the abstract. Definetly true in physical reality. The bounce is predicated on physical exertion causing body soreness. A sore athlete will not repeat his best effort.

Also, the effort can be so taxing it depletes the horse's reserve energy. It takes time to recover this expended energy and if the horse runs prior to recovering its energy it will fail to fire.

The bounce is an absolute reality. The problem is trying to numerically quantify when the horse is sore or expended all its energy. It then becomes a guessing game based on probabilities.
You wrote that better than I did.

[Charlie D]

The 'bounce': the handicapping 'aether'.


TFM, pardon my ignorance.


Could you explain the above for me as i cannot figure out what you mean by it.

[Charlie D]

Only in pure math in the abstract. Definetly true in physical reality. The bounce is predicated on physical exertion causing body soreness. A sore athlete will not repeat his best effort.

Also, the effort can be so taxing it depletes the horse's reserve energy. It takes time to recover this expended energy and if the horse runs prior to recovering its energy it will fail to fire.

The bounce is an absolute reality. The problem is trying to numerically quantify when the horse is sore or expended all its energy. It then becomes a guessing game based on probabilities.





Nice post Show Me The Wire imho

[cj]

I think sheet people overplay the bounce factor.

For example in his BC seminar Jerry Brown of Thorograph in his comments about Furthest Land in the 'pro-ride mile' said something like: He's fast but because of late shipment and new top we expect him to bounce.

Now, I don't mind throwing some 3/5 fav because it might bounce. If you're right you can score big. But throwing 20+/1 horse because it might bounce is taking things too far.

I couldn't agree more. The bounce probably occurs, but not nearly to the extent some would have you believe. It has become a convenient excuse for bettors that don't want to do the work and find the real reasons a horse runs a certain way. It is even a better excuse for trainers to duck running in tough races or explain bad defeats.

[Light]

This myth of a new top seems to be alive and well. Several years ago,I believed it. Now I don't. Look at the recent BC. Two of the 4 races won by American based horses on 11/7 had a new top in thier last races. Dancing in Silks paid $52.60 and Furthest Land paid $44.60. Not only did they have a new top but on bc day they were engaging stiffer competition. So a guaranteed bounce,right? Wrong. These horses were sharp and that's what Mr. Bounce fails to differentiate between. Their prices were inflated because most handicappers continue believing in the new top myth.

Furthermore,most handicappers are oblivious to what I see as the biggest bounce category in horseracing that happened to two of its biggest stars,Big Brown and Barbaro.I predicted both failures. Even though Barbaro broke his leg on bounce day,I think it was in part with his discomfort to run that day. I wont say publically what it is,but if you look at the form for both those horses disasters,you can figure it out. This goes for the ton of young horses running around the country with a similar pattern who continue to bounce at low odds. And yet the bounce factor is seldom attributed to their failures.

[Niko]

I've scored many times on an angle that I've named the
REVERSE BOUNCE..Look for speed ratings like this
59
63
68

He's going to improve at some point. Finding these isn't easy but you will usually get a good price. Things to look for. Dropping in class. Horse coming off a layoff with a good workout tab.. Trainer change or high percentage jockey aboard. Blinkers on or off. Getting lasix for the 1st or second time..Changing distances. Battled for lead in last before tiring..Ran a even race. Meaning all pace figures were close to being the same.

don't be giving this one away ;) ....I find it works even better if there's a lay-off from the peak effort, and you can go back 4-6 races.

[rrbauer]

Now, I don't mind throwing some 3/5 fav because it might bounce. If you're right you can score big. But throwing 20+/1 horse because it might bounce is taking things too far.

Finding reasons to toss 20-1 shots is not a problem. It's finding reasons to bet them that is the challenge.

[fmolf]

You wrote that better than I did.
A horse may only regress 2 points or so, or even less but it is still a regression. It may be because he faces better horses next out or a non favorable pace scenario or an unfavorable post for his running style.People will call these regressions a bounce but in reality it is just the ups and downs of racing luck!
When a horse runs a taxing all out effort in its first race back from a longish layoff then i think it is likely to bounce next out.Horses do also win back to back races ,sometimes even regressing in the second race while facing an easier field or being pace advantaged.Lots of variables to factor in and that is the essence of handicapping now isn't it?

[Bochall]

Regression Towards the Mean. Happens every day in every facet of your life.
Bounce fundamental theory is the falsest of all the false. Exactly. It was the big figure that was the 'bounce', not the return to norm. I am not denying fluctuations in form cycle, but a regression in figs is not necessarily from the overexertion of running a new top. If a .200 hitter goes 4-5 one night and then back to 1-4 the next night he didnt bounce and he wasnt overexerted. The analogy isnt the purest but forgive me.

[Steve R]

The problem with the bounce theory is that it's predicated on the proposition that speed figures are highly accurate. The imprecise way variants are usually determined, or how beaten lengths are converted into distance, or how obviously erroneous algorithms are applied to lost ground, wind or weight effects is enough to raise doubts. IOW, if I see a Beyer 105, the lack of precision in how the figure was generated makes me think it might really be anywhere, say, between 102 and 108. And it's not just Beyer's figures I'm talking about. All figures are estimates at best. Their greatest value lies in establishing a horse's relative class over a series of races. Realistically, at least to me, a Beyer 108 to 102 drop may not mean anything because of the lack of precision in how it was determined. Others might call it a bounce.

[Show Me the Wire]

The problem with the bounce theory is that it's predicated on the proposition that speed figures are highly accurate. The imprecise way variants are usually determined, or how beaten lengths are converted into distance, or how obviously erroneous algorithms are applied to lost ground, wind or weight effects is enough to raise doubts. IOW, if I see a Beyer 105, the lack of precision in how the figure was generated makes me think it might really be anywhere, say, between 102 and 108. And it's not just Beyer's figures I'm talking about. All figures are \estimates at best. Their greatest value lies in establishing a horse's relative class over a series of races. Realistically, at least to me, a Beyer 108 to 102 drop may not mean anything because of the lack of precision in how it was determined. Others might call it a bounce.


With all respect, the above is not the problem with the bounce theory, it is the problem of trying to use a quantitaive number, to predict the probabilities of muscle soreness or energy expenditure, when the number itself may reflect something else entirely.

[cmoore]

I've scored many times on an angle that I've named the
REVERSE BOUNCE..Look for speed ratings like this
59
63
68

He's going to improve at some point. Finding these isn't easy but you will usually get a good price. Things to look for. Dropping in class. Horse coming off a layoff with a good workout tab.. Trainer change or high percentage jockey aboard. Blinkers on or off. Getting lasix for the 1st or second time..Changing distances. Battled for lead in last before tiring..Ran a even race. Meaning all pace figures were close to being the same.

Calder race 3....11 Hello Precious...A Reverse Bounce angle play..Shortens up a 1/2 fur..Last 3 speed ratings
40
61
70

[Steve R]

With all respect, the above is not the problem with the bounce theory, it is the problem of trying to use a quantitaive number, to predict the probabilities of muscle soreness or energy expenditure, when the number itself may reflect something else entirely.
Presumably the number is nothing more than a measurement of how fast a horse ran from Point A to Point B. I'm not concerned with the factors that determined how fast that was. My point is that the measurement itself, because of the lack of precision in its determination, is relatively inaccurate. If that's true, then comparing two numbers just increases the inaccuracy. IOW, regardless of what may affect a horse's performance from race to race, the numbers are generally too fuzzy to make any definitive claim unless the differences are so great that the inaccuracy of the individual numbers no longer matters. Beyer 108 to Beyer 90? Different? Most likely. A bounce? If that's what you want to call it.

[Light]

Calder race 3....11 Hello Precious...A Reverse Bounce angle play..Shortens up a 1/2 fur..Last 3 speed ratings
40
61
70

cmoore

I've used that angle,but personally do not like it here because this horse has run worse figs while dropping in class. Normally the figs should improve with a drop. I perfer that angle while at the same class or slightly above what its been running for. Its 9/2 currently but I'd pass.

[cmoore]

cmoore

I've used that angle,but personally do not like it here because this horse has run worse figs while dropping in class. Normally the figs should improve with a drop. I perfer that angle while at the same class or slightly above what its been running for. Its 9/2 currently but I'd pass.

The 10 screwed up my 11 by pushing the pace early..

[Light]

She finished 4th but certainly improved from her last.

[Show Me the Wire]

Presumably the number is nothing more than a measurement of how fast a horse ran from Point A to Point B. I'm not concerned with the factors that determined how fast that was. My point is that the measurement itself, because of the lack of precision in its determination, is relatively inaccurate. If that's true, then comparing two numbers just increases the inaccuracy. IOW, regardless of what may affect a horse's performance from race to race, the numbers are generally too fuzzy to make any definitive claim unless the differences are so great that the inaccuracy of the individual numbers no longer matters. Beyer 108 to Beyer 90? Different? Most likely. A bounce? If that's what you want to call it.

A regression is not a bounce. A Beyer 108 to Beyer 90 is not necssarily a bounce or should be defined as a bounce. A bounce is the result of muscle sorenss or lack of energy due to physical exertion.

You are correct the inaccuracies inherent in the calculations further confuse the matter.

Ragaozin's bounce theory is based on his comparing results of horses next out after exhibiting certain number patterns. i.e. top. It only is the probability, based on his database, that a horse will act like the general sample population after running a new top of x amount points.

Not every regression is a bounce. There are regressions (lesser performances) and there are bounces. Figures can't adequately make the distinction between regression and bounce, thus it is an exercise in probability that a horse will make a sub-standard performance resulting from muscle soreness or lack of energy resulting from a prior fatigue.

[cmoore]

She finished 4th but certainly improved from her last.

here's another one Light..

Aqu race 7)..The 10 Hook Me UP..Last 3 speed ratings
77
82
92

Been off for about 6 weeks. The 5 is the one to beat here. But a win bet and an exacta behind the 5 is the bet here..

[Judge Gallivan]

Finding reasons to toss 20-1 shots is not a problem. It's finding reasons to bet them that is the challenge.


I meant tossing 20-1 shots that you think are fast enough to win just because they could bounce.

[cj]

here's another one Light..

Aqu race 7)..The 10 Hook Me UP..Last 3 speed ratings
77
82
92

Been off for about 6 weeks. The 5 is the one to beat here. But a win bet and an exacta behind the 5 is the bet here..

This is just as bad as the "bounce" handicapping. The questions should be is there a reason the horse ran slower the last two, did he have excuse(s). Was the 92 the aberration? What is it going to take to win today? At what odds am I willing to take this horse runs back to his best?

[Steve R]

A regression is not a bounce. A Beyer 108 to Beyer 90 is not necssarily a bounce or should be defined as a bounce. A bounce is the result of muscle sorenss or lack of energy due to physical exertion.

You are correct the inaccuracies inherent in the calculations further confuse the matter.

Ragaozin's bounce theory is based on his comparing results of horses next out after exhibiting certain number patterns. i.e. top. It only is the probability, based on his database, that a horse will act like the general sample population after running a new top of x amount points.

Not every regression is a bounce. There are regressions (lesser performances) and there are bounces. Figures can't adequately make the distinction between regression and bounce, thus it is an exercise in probability that a horse will make a sub-standard performance resulting from muscle soreness or lack of energy resulting from a prior fatigue.
If, as you say, figures can't adequately differentiate between a regression and a bounce, how can you tell if what is called a bounce based on probability isn't really due to some unrelated fever, an isolated attitude problem, environmental factors or a general lack of interest on a given day? There are a host of things that affect performance that are totally unrelated to muscle soreness or lack of energy. How can you separate them?

Which leads me to a more fundamental question. How long after a race are muscle soreness or lack of energy reasonable explanations for a bounce? Three weeks? Four? Two months? Even fuzzier than figures is timing an individual horse's recovery. I'm also confused by the fact that harness horses seem to be able to race almost weekly and still maintain their form over long periods of time. With their schedule, shouldn't they be "bouncing" like rubber balls?

[Cratos]

If, as you say, figures can't adequately differentiate between a regression and a bounce, how can you tell if what is called a bounce based on probability isn't really due to some unrelated fever, an isolated attitude problem, environmental factors or a general lack of interest on a given day? There are a host of things that affect performance that are totally unrelated to muscle soreness or lack of energy. How can you separate them?

Which leads me to a more fundamental question. How long after a race are muscle soreness or lack of energy reasonable explanations for a bounce? Three weeks? Four? Two months? Even fuzzier than figures is timing an individual horse's recovery. I'm also confused by the fact that harness horses seem to be able to race almost weekly and still maintain their form over long periods of time. With their schedule, shouldn't they be "bouncing" like rubber balls?


A great post; I am anxiously awaiting the response

[Overlay]

I'm also confused by the fact that harness horses seem to be able to race almost weekly and still maintain their form over long periods of time. With their schedule, shouldn't they be "bouncing" like rubber balls?

Although I can't cite a reference offhand, an explanation that I recall running across in that regard is that, in contrast to thoroughbreds, standardbreds are a hardier breed that actually need to achieve a certain level of fatigue in order to be able to run their fastest. This accounts for their more active racing schedule, as well as the extended warm-ups that they go through prior to races.

[Show Me the Wire]

If, as you say, figures can't adequately differentiate between a regression and a bounce, how can you tell if what is called a bounce based on probability isn't really due to some unrelated fever, an isolated attitude problem, environmental factors or a general lack of interest on a given day? There are a host of things that affect performance that are totally unrelated to muscle soreness or lack of energy. How can you separate them?

Which leads me to a more fundamental question. How long after a race are muscle soreness or lack of energy reasonable explanations for a bounce? Three weeks? Four? Two months? Even fuzzier than figures is timing an individual horse's recovery. I'm also confused by the fact that harness horses seem to be able to race almost weekly and still maintain their form over long periods of time. With their schedule, shouldn't they be "bouncing" like rubber balls?

Yes, I left out the physical ailments, because ailments confuse the issue even more. Could be something as simple as mucus in the lungs to a major injury, which causes a sub-par performance..

Many things can cause regression or poor efforts. You are a precise person, so you understand the importance of using precise language to describe soreness or lack of energy resulting from a major effort as a bounce.

The time frame for recovery is usually around 4 to 6 weeks depending on the exertion. Notice how many horses are now given 30 days or more rest. Also, horses are individuals and depending on their physical make-up the time frame varies.

If the horse did not exhibit the figure pattern leading to a possible bounce more than likely the regression is due to a physical ailment or the race conditions, race surface , etc. Remember a bounce comes after a taxing physical effort. I will concede a physical ailment may result from a taxing effort which will cause poor performance next out.

The term "bounce" is properly used specifically as outlined by Ragozin and his general sample database, which is probability of how the horse will perform after achieving a certain speed figure pattern.

A bounce is not simply a regression. Regressions do not equal bounces nor are they equivelant to bounces.

Standardbreds are much hardier than thoroughbreds and they thrive on frequent racing.

[Robert Goren]

Among cheaper horses, a big race and month or longer layoff is a bad sign. IMHO

[Steve R]

Show Me the Wire...I must say this thread is very disconcerting. Has the Thoroughbred changed so much in just a couple of generations that now it takes four to six weeks to recover from a hard race? I don't like using anecdotal examples, but to illustrate what I mean, in the fall of 1974 Forego won the Woodward at a mile and a half on Sept. 28 following stakes races on Sept. 2 and Sept. 14. That's three races in 26 days. Three weeks later on Oct. 19 he dropped down to 7 furlongs and won the Vosburgh in 1:21.3. Three weeks after that on Nov. 9 he jumped up to 2 miles and won the JCGC. These were 4 G1s and a G2 in 68 days. I know he was special, but give me a break!

[Show Me the Wire]

Show Me the Wire...I must say this thread is very disconcerting. Has the Thoroughbred changed so much in just a couple of generations that now it takes four to six weeks to recover from a hard race? I don't like using anecdotal examples, but to illustrate what I mean, in the fall of 1974 Forego won the Woodward at a mile and a half on Sept. 28 following stakes races on Sept. 2 and Sept. 14. That's three races in 26 days. Three weeks later on Oct. 19 he dropped down to 7 furlongs and won the Vosburgh in 1:21.3. Three weeks after that on Nov. 9 he jumped up to 2 miles and won the JCGC. These were 4 G1s and a G2 in 68 days. I know he was special, but give me a break!

To recover to avoid the bounce effect. The question was how long of a recovery period to avoid the bounce effect and not about the time frame a horse can physically make it to the track.

Sure physically a horse can race prior to 30 days, but typically you shouldn't expect another top or better effort.

Have you or have you not noticed the 30 day or close to layoff pattern more and more? You are lucky if a horse gets to the track 9 times in a year.

Not many Foregos in this genration. How many races did R.A. have this year? Surely one more wouldn't have hurt her, would it?

[Steve R]

To recover to avoid the bounce effect. The question was how long of a recovery period to avoid the bounce effect and not about the time frame a horse can physically make it to the track.

Sure physically a horse can race prior to 30 days, but typically you shouldn't expect another top or better effort.

Have you or have you not noticed the 30 day or close to layoff pattern more and more? You are lucky if a horse gets to the track 9 times in a year.

Not many Foregos in this genration. How many races did R.A. have this year? Surely one more wouldn't have hurt her, would it?
I think you missed my point. It wasn't very long ago that a lot of horses could put in top efforts with 7, 10 or 14 days between races and do it over a span of several races. It is genetically impossible for the breed to have devolved to the point where now 30 days is required before a horse can be expected to reproduce a big race. If the bounce wasn't obvious with 14-21 day turnarounds 30 years ago, what is responsible for today's 30-day turnaround that you describe?

Whirlway:
26Sep, Manhattan H at 12f, wins and breaks TR by 2 ticks
03Oct, JCGC at 16f, wins in 4 ticks off TR
10Oct, New York H, 18f, wins in 2 ticks off TR
Between 22Jun and 15Jul of the same year he set 3 TRs and equaled 1 between 9 and 10f.

Not a bounce to be seen, and if there ever was a candidate it had to be him.

[DeanT]

With their schedule, shouldn't they be "bouncing" like rubber balls?

They do. Usually do to soreness.

[cj]

Show Me the Wire...I must say this thread is very disconcerting. Has the Thoroughbred changed so much in just a couple of generations that now it takes four to six weeks to recover from a hard race? I don't like using anecdotal examples, but to illustrate what I mean, in the fall of 1974 Forego won the Woodward at a mile and a half on Sept. 28 following stakes races on Sept. 2 and Sept. 14. That's three races in 26 days. Three weeks later on Oct. 19 he dropped down to 7 furlongs and won the Vosburgh in 1:21.3. Three weeks after that on Nov. 9 he jumped up to 2 miles and won the JCGC. These were 4 G1s and a G2 in 68 days. I know he was special, but give me a break!

Of course they haven't changed that much. What has changed is the way they are handled in the US. Shocking recently won the 3200 meter (about two miles) Melbourne Cup THREE DAYS after winning the Lexus Stakes at 2500 meters.

[Turfday]

what puzzles me...and what I don't conceptually understand...is how the bounce theorists can be so adamant about a next race bounce off a top when the horse may be...switching surface, changing distance, going up in class, facing a different pace scenario and perhaps being ridden by a different jockey.

If a horse runs poorly after a new top, can't any of the reasons or combinations thereof be just as or even more so attributable to the "bounce" and not just because of over exertion from the previous race ?

[DanG]

Whether you agree with the bounce theory, or liken it to witchcraft…one general aspect is your betting against horses off their ‘perfect storm’. If your ratings are of reasonable quality and the experienced animal has just significantly surpassed its previous ratings; very often you’re left with an underlay in the run back.

On average; the good speed oriented ratings in this game really aren’t that far away from each other concerning most “fast” efforts. As a rule; adjusted final time drives most tote boards and betting against an animal that just caught their optimal scenario can often lead to prices.

“Normally” an experienced animal who runs a significant new top has not had a stone in its path, matched its perfect surface, distance, pace scenario, rest, competition level and the rider just had their favorite breakfast. Trip players have been using a visual version of the “bounce” theory for many years without the ‘mystical terminology’ with very similar results.

Most things in life fall to one degree or another from a crescendo; race horses, musician's solos, football teams, relationships, movies, gambling and most certainly…internet posting.

[andymays]

In the 80's and 90's in particular I used to bet a lot of horses coming from overseas with first time lasix. Back then they were almost always a price, especially in the 80's. John Gosden and Chris McCarron popped with several at nice prices until everyone caught on.

I can't tell you how many times I was ready to tear up my tickets after seeing one of them sitting in last place while the pacesetters were walking on the lead. They would come home with incredible kicks and win anyway. In their next race, even with a favorable pace scenario, many of them would come up empty.

It's one of those things that you can't always explain but it happens for whatever reason. Maybe the horses were "short" coming into the race but won anyway. Could that be what caused the "bounce" in their next start?

[Show Me the Wire]

what puzzles me...and what I don't conceptually understand...is how the bounce theorists can be so adamant about a next race bounce off a top when the horse may be...switching surface, changing distance, going up in class, facing a different pace scenario and perhaps being ridden by a different jockey.

If a horse runs poorly after a new top, can't any of the reasons or combinations thereof be just as or even more so attributable to the "bounce" and not just because of over exertion from the previous race ?

I've been advocating the above repeatedly, during this thread. But it is ignored because it can not be accounted for in the abstract of pure math.

Aslo the bounce theory applies to young developing horses, lightly raced horses and sound upper level horses. The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels. These animals already proved thay are too slow to compete at higher levels or the rigors of racing has already taken its physical toll.

[Light]

The bottom line is horses bounce all the time and it is not only from a top or a layoff. The majority of runners are not in that category and they are just as inconsistent. I do alot of show parlays and just won an online contest in one. But I still cant give you a straight answer as to why some horses "bounce" or not but its a very important consideration when doing a show parlay,in fact it's my first question. Every time I think I have the answer,another race disproves that theory. This is why it's so hard to make money in this game. There are just too many variables and whittling it down to "soreness" is old school. They have drugs today that will take care of that. In fact that is another reason why horses bounce. They are given a drug or drugs that masks an ailment and they run a great race. But soon enough the ailment gets the upper hand and the horse is back on the shelf.

[Show Me the Wire]

..................
I can't tell you how many times I was ready to tear up my tickets after seeing one of them sitting in last place while the pacesetters were walking on the lead. They would come home with incredible kicks and win anyway. In their next race, even with a favorable pace scenario, many of them would come up empty............................................. .........................

...Could that be what caused the "bounce" in their next start?

The above-scenario couldn't have taken place on "dirt" surfaces at Santa Anita, could it? ;)

To answer your question, yes. I believe that specific type of bounce is called the "Euro" bounce. It does not happen as much in today's current climate.

[Show Me the Wire]

The bottom line is horses bounce all the time and it is not only from a top or a layoff. The majority of runners are not in that category and they are just as inconsistent. I do alot of show parlays and just won an online contest in one. But I still cant give you a straight answer as to why some horses "bounce" or not but its a very important consideration when doing a show parlay,in fact it's my first question. Every time I think I have the answer,another race disproves that theory. This is why it's so hard to make money in this game. There are just too many variables and whittling it down to "soreness" is old school. They have drugs today that will take care of that. In fact that is another reason why horses bounce. They are given a drug or drugs that masks an ailment and they run a great race. But soon enough the ailment gets the upper hand and the horse is back on the shelf.


Yes drugs can limit the effects of physical exertion. Many of the well financed operations routinely give their horse some sort of pain management medication after the horse competes. Also, certain medication can help rehabilitate muscle mass during training.

I agree, between the rest period and medication the bounce effect from muscle soreness and or physical exhaustion can be minimized.

But not all operations are not equal and do not have the ability to give a horse time off or spend extra money on discretionary post-race medication.

[Tom]

I like the idea of looking at a graph of the horse's races. Using CJ PaceFigures makes it easier because he take pace into account, and his conversion of turf/poly tends to put the races more in line with a form cycle ( as opposed to interchangeable) so that helps. The rest, you have to surmize for yourself, as Cary Foitus does with his pace tops. If you think a race is not true and should not be used, cross it out. You will be worng more often than not, but my rule of thumbs is always be strict with favs and forgiving with the price horses.

Just having a new to doesn't mean the horse was using up too much energy - was it and all out drive from the gate or one big stretch run? Makes a diff.
When you look at graph, you can see the peaks - what is the best fig a horse has ever improved on? Ask that a few times for kicks and giggles and see what you see.

[1st time lasix]

Taking "dead aim" against a vulnerable favorite is the true lifeblood of the exotic player trying to stay ahead of the onerous takeout in this game. One must find overlays and spot underlays in a never ending challange to catch enough good tickets to stay above water. I use my knowledge of "bounce" theories when evaluating the likelyhood that a certain public favorite will not run today. I could always be better in identifying these patterns....and i truly believe they exist. Of course I also use distance/likely pace scenarios/post positions/jocky combinations /and a guess of trainer intent as well. Fortunatelly not all favorites are equal. Not sure i care what aspect of my thinking helps me identify the ones that may miss the top spots on the ticket. *** Every year during the holidays I find it is helpful to re-read all my books on handicapping, read all my own notes in the margins, and closly review my performance for the year. I keep some records and logs. The game is difficult but the rewards on those big days still seem worth it...both mentally and financially. Good luck to all.

[George Sands]

Aslo the bounce theory applies to young developing horses, lightly raced horses and sound upper level horses. The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels. These animals already proved thay are too slow to compete at higher levels or the rigors of racing has already taken its physical toll.

This sounds almost as if you read the "Bounce" section on the Ragozin website and decided to disagree with every single one of Ragozin's points.

[Show Me the Wire]

This sounds almost as if you read the "Bounce" section on the Ragozin website and decided to disagree with every single one of Ragozin's points.

I haven't been on his site since you needed to join. I read his earlyl research and listened to the original tapes, on the bounce, many moons ago. I used the sheets as my primary tool for capping back in the seventies. as I was a devotee of his methodology. Since the 90's I have weaned myself off speed figures, there is no advantage as everyone has access to good quality speed figures.

BTW have you ever seen a horse unable to stand up in its stall for an entire week after puttung forth a strenious racing effort. I have. Muscle soreness is real and so is over-exertion. Theory is theory and physical reality is reality.

Do you think a horse that can't stand up for a week won't be sore if you race him within two weeks of his last race? If you do, you are denying phsical reality of living muscled organisms.

My explanation of the 'bounce" is not formulated only in the abstract, but fromed through theory and actual experience. In the claiming ranks the horses are "racing" sound and the physical ailments come into play much more than muscle sorenss or over exertion.

I think in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy" all the examples of bounces did not involve heavily raced claiming horses or low level claimers. So where is my specific disagreement with Ragozin?

[46zilzal]

Since every horse is an individual, there are no hard and fast rules for over-exertional form reversal. Some thrive on work many others don't. NO blanket revelations here.

[Light]

Since every horse is an individual, there are no hard and fast rules for over-exertional form reversal. Some thrive on work many others don't. NO blanket revelations here.

Amen.

[Cratos]

I haven't been on his site since you needed to join. I read his earlyl research and listened to the original tapes, on the bounce, many moons ago. I used the sheets as my primary tool for capping back in the seventies. as I was a devotee of his methodology. Since the 90's I have weaned myself off speed figures, there is no advantage as everyone has access to good quality speed figures.

BTW have you ever seen a horse unable to stand up in its stall for an entire week after puttung forth a strenious racing effort. I have. Muscle soreness is real and so is over-exertion. Theory is theory and physical reality is reality.

Do you think a horse that can't stand up for a week won't be sore if you race him within two weeks of his last race? If you do, you are denying phsical reality of living muscled organisms.

My explanation of the 'bounce" is not formulated only in the abstract, but fromed through theory and actual experience. In the claiming ranks the horses are "racing" sound and the physical ailments come into play much more than muscle sorenss or over exertion.

I think in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy" all the examples of bounces did not involve heavily raced claiming horses or low level claimers. So where is my specific disagreement with Ragozin?

If the bounce theory is valid then plotting the performances of top graded horses over time should produce a sine curve (or similar shape curve). Also is the reason that for the hundred plus years of the Triple Crown there has been only 9 TC is because of “bounce?”

[46zilzal]

Woody Stevens used to say that any really good horse only has three good performances in him before he needed a break. Good logic

[George Sands]

I think in his book "The Odds Must Be Crazy" all the examples of bounces did not involve heavily raced claiming horses or low level claimers. So where is my specific disagreement with Ragozin?

www.thesheets.com (http://www.thesheets.com). Intro. Material. "The Bounce Theory."

You don't need to join anything. That's for the message board. This is on the home page.

[Show Me the Wire]

Since every horse is an individual, there are no hard and fast rules for over-exertional form reversal. Some thrive on work many others don't. NO blanket revelations here.


Every hosre has muscles and as a living being it can deplete its energy to fatigue.

The part about no hard fast rules does not make the event a non-event.

The uniqueness of each horse allows using probabilities of an elusive event happening and not a blanket revelation, that there is no such animal as the "bounce".

The only hard fast rule is you need access to the horse to understand whether the horse is muscle sore or fatigued or some other factor may play a role in the horses next race.

The "bounce" being the elusive commodity it is in combination with current medication use, it may be better to ignore its existence completely, or more effeciently limit its application to young developing horses, lighly raced horses and allowance type runners.

[Show Me the Wire]

www.thesheets.com (http://www.thesheets.com). Intro. Material. "The Bounce Theory."

You don't need to join anything. That's for the message board. This is on the home page.


The only thing there seems to you take as a disagreement is my statement about claimers. Read my statement carefully, I stated heavily raced claimers and low level claimers. I qualified my statement. Lightly raced horses and young developing horses can be claimers, can they not?

I stand by my actual experince and knowledge regarding heavily raced claimers and low level claimers. These horses are there for significant reasons as I stated in my earlier posts. $4k claimers have many mor serious ailments or physical issues that account for regressive performances than muscle soreness.

[George Sands]

Read my statement carefully, I stated heavily raced claimers and low level claimers. I qualified my statement. Lightly raced horses and young developing horses can be claimers, can they not?

You wrote that "The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels."

Ragozin wrote that claimers are more likely to bounce than classy horses (see chart under "more") because: "Classy horses generally get better handling, more rest, and are more able to withstand strong efforts."

And page 101 of Ragozin's book: "A horse is a better candidate to bounce if he's been heavily raced."

[johnhannibalsmith]

In my opinion, heavily raced anythings, particularly claimers at the lowest levels give the impression of having bounced with frequency - but I can more often than not attribute it to general mismanagement or the reality that cheap claimers tend to run their best race of any given campaign while in the easiest condition and then are forced into tougher competition upon winning. It's reasonably rare to see a bottom level claimer win six or seven a year, stepping up from N1y to N2y and then to open company, and maintaining that form through the ascent in class.

And as ShowMe points out, economics often dictates a horse's veterinary treatment, and at the bottom - a runner that is probably in disrepair is unlikely to be, for example, injected (cortizones/hylauronics) before each and every start. Typically, people will wait until it is absolutely necessary (or 30-45 days) and after a top effort following treatment, they have almost no option but to regress without that same treatment two weeks later.

It looks like a bounce on paper, but I call it "the ping pong"...

[Show Me the Wire]

You wrote that "The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels."

Ragozin wrote that claimers are more likely to bounce than classy horses (see chart under "more") because: "Classy horses generally get better handling, more rest, and are more able to withstand strong efforts."

And page 101 of Ragozin's book: "A horse is a better candidate to bounce if he's been heavily raced."

I told you why I disagree with this particular statement. If you do not want to accept my expalanation, fine. One statement at odds (pun intended) with him as you succintly put it does not mean "I decided to disagree with every single one of his points".

Classy horses generally get better handling, more rest, and are more able to withstand strong efforts." I have posted about the importance of rest and handling as factors in combatting the "bounce." Notice the word "generally", it does not mean all.

The subject is whether the "bounce" exists or not. Seems like I agree with the majority of his points and that the "bounce" does exist.

You see contradiction, where none exists.

[Show Me the Wire]

www.thesheets.com (http://www.thesheets.com). Intro. Material. "The Bounce Theory."

You don't need to join anything. That's for the message board. This is on the home page.

The BB use to be open access. I haven't been to the site since they required registration to the BB due to the fued between the Rags and TG guys.

BTW I like Brown's methodology of splitting the varient, instead of the window time frame approach of Ragozin.

[George Sands]

I told you why I disagree with this particular statement. If you do not want to accept my expalanation, fine. One statement at odds (pun intended) with him as you succintly put it does not mean "I decided to disagree with every single one of his points".

Classy horses generally get better handling, more rest, and are more able to withstand strong efforts." I have posted about the importance of rest and handling as factors in combatting the "bounce." Notice the word "generally", it does not mean all.

The subject is whether the "bounce" exists or not. Seems like I agree with the majority of his points and that the "bounce" does exist.

You see contradiction, where none exists.

Let's see. You wrote:

" the bounce theory applies to young developing horses, lightly raced horses and sound upper level horses. The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels."

Ragozin believes that the bounce applies MORE to the horses you say it doesn't apply to than it does to the horses you DO think it applies to. I'm now willing to let you call that anything you want. Contradiction? Agreement? Harmony? Pick your word. Makes no difference to me.

[TurfRuler]

O'k so most here understand the bounce theory. Then explain why trainer's don't and run their horses again in a short time span and the public make's him or her the 3-5 favorite, the public handicappers at DRF and Bloodhorse or your hometown newspaper capper choose him as the one who can't lose today and last place it comes in causing disgruntled fans who followed the popular choice by betting their twos (dollars)?

[raybo]

O'k so most here understand the bounce theory. Then explain why trainer's don't and run their horses again in a short time span and the public make's him or her the 3-5 favorite, the public handicappers at DRF and Bloodhorse or your hometown newspaper capper choose him as the one who can't lose today and last place it comes in causing disgruntled fans who followed the popular choice by betting their twos (dollars)?

Are you wishing that this stuff didn't go on?

Careful what you wish for, as, this phenomenon allows some of us to reap a profit from this game.

[Show Me the Wire]

Let's see. You wrote:

" the bounce theory applies to young developing horses, lightly raced horses and sound upper level horses. The bounce really does not apply to heavily raced claiming horses, especially in the lower levels."

Ragozin believes that the bounce applies MORE to the horses you say it doesn't apply to than it does to the horses you DO think it applies to. I'm now willing to let you call that anything you want. Contradiction? Agreement? Harmony? Pick your word. Makes no difference to me.

Okay I'll modify my statement for you as follows: In my opinion based on my personal experience, I believe heavily raced low level claimers regressive performances can be attributed to permanent physical ailments, which are unrelated to taxing efforts. Thus removing the taxing effort from the equation, it makes the physical bounce less likely.

Ask Friedman, on the BB, whether he can factully assure you the next out regression, off a good performance, is the sole result of energy expended by the low level claiming horse and that any regression can not be atributed to the cortisone injection wearing off in the artheritic knee joint.

Once he answers your question, we may continue this discussion.

[George Sands]

Ask Friedman, on the BB, whether he can factully assure you the next out regression, off a good performance, is the sole result of energy expended by the low level claiming horse and that any regression can not be atributed to the cortisone injection wearing off in the artheritic knee joint.

Once he answers your question, we may continue this discussion.

How about this? Instead of ordering me to ask him a question, why don't you put your fear aside, sign in on his BB, and ask him your own question?

[Show Me the Wire]

How about this? Instead of ordering me to ask him a question, why don't you put your fear aside, sign in on his BB, and ask him your own question?

In my mind the question is satisfactorily resolved. There is no need for me to ask any question on the Ragozin BB. You are the one that does not believe what I say is possible. I refered you to a knowledgable, third party, someone you more than likely will believe, to help clear up any confusion.

Strange I don"t remember using any command words ordering to you do anything, I just made a suggestion for your own edification.

As I said before feel free to disregard my opinion. FYI I am not interested in conflict for conflict's sake, especially since the original point was about the existence or non-existence of the "bounce".



Since you are referring to Ragozin, it suggests you feel the "Bounce" exists or am I wrong about your belief in the existence of the "Bounce"?

[George Sands]

Strange I don"t remember using any command words ordering to you do anything, I just made a suggestion for your own edification

Oh, silly me. I thought that when you wrote "Once he answers your question, we may continue this discussion," you meant that once he answered the question you told me to ask, you and I could continue the discussion. But now I know that you were merely making a suggestion for my edification.

[classhandicapper]

Forms cycles have written about for many decades. There is really nothing new about "bounce theory" other than giving it a fancy name and explanation.

There is little question in my mind that a series of tough races will eventually wear a horse out and causes its form to decline. So to that extent I believe horses bounce.

However, TG and Sheet methodology is so speed figure oriented, it doesn't differentiate between fluctuations in figures that could be related to pace, bias, surface preferences, off tracks, the accuracy of the figures, normal mean reversion of performance etc... and those that are actually related to the impact of a single or series of tough races.

Since we are trying to estimate the chances of a horse winning, I think it's fairly important to have a reasonable understanding of how often horses actually "react" to prior efforts. On that count, I think most Sheet and TG players probably overestimate the probability because they lump everything together.

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh, silly me. I thought that when you wrote "Once he answers your question, we may continue this discussion," you meant that once he answered the question you told me to ask, you and I could continue the discussion. But now I know that you were merely making a suggestion for my edification.

Communication is not as clear as we assume, at times.. Charge of the Light Brigade.

[delayjf]

I've scored many times on an angle that I've named the
REVERSE BOUNCE..Look for speed ratings like this
59
63
68

He's going to improve at some point. Finding these isn't easy but you will usually get a good price. Things to look for. Dropping in class. Horse coming off a layoff with a good workout tab.. Trainer change or high percentage jockey aboard. Blinkers on or off. Getting lasix for the 1st or second time..Changing distances. Battled for lead in last before tiring..Ran a even race. Meaning all pace figures were close to being the same.
Beyer did a study of horses who exhibited the above pattern (Beyer On Speed page 40) he found that in the above case, 64 % of the horses that ran three declining speed figures in a row, improved their next speed figure in their next start.

[cj]

Beyer did a study of horses who exhibited the above pattern (Beyer On Speed page 40) he found that in the above case, 64 % of the horses that ran three declining speed figures in a row, improved their next speed figure in their next start.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect. Lets say the horse had three races and various circumstances led to the different figures, but he maintained his form. There is a 33% chance he runs a 59, a 33% chance he runs a 63, and a 33% chance he runs a 68. The chances he should run better than 59 would be 67%, so the angle actually under performs expectations.

[delayjf]

There is a 33% chance he runs a 59, a 33% chance he runs a 63, and a 33% chance he runs a 68. The chances he should run better than 59 would be 67%, so the angle actually under performs expectations.

I see your point about the probabiliy of improvement, but in the Beyer study.
only 4 % ran the same last race figure, while 32% ran worse. Isn't this the
X-0-2 pattern? Personally, I will consider a hourse with this kind of speed figure pattern - at a price, but only if I see further evidense that he will improve today.

[duckhunter3]

Well a lot of opinions have been expressed and actually a lot of pontificating going on, but what else do I expect from horseplayers?
Here are the methods and results of Barry Meadow and Jim Cramer aresearching this issue, originally published in 2002. Even with Cramer's high speed computers running every night, the survey took months to complete.

After every new top- first or one of many, most horses failed to repeat or improve on the performance. the totals involved 644,557 races . Did you get that? Over 600,000 races, and:
Declilned- 67.1%
Improved- 27%
Repeated- 5%

Over twice as many declines as improvements or repeats.

The median speed rating declilne was 12 Cramer speed points while the median improvement was only 6. Bertring every horse who had just run a new lilfetime best resulted in a .24 loss on every dollar.

If the new top was the first the horse had ever run- i.e., his first race, it did not improve until the 4th race and betting him next time out resulted in a miserable .70 ROI.

Cramer and Meadow developed a bounce ratio. If the horse went from a 62 CR to a 43 in his next race, the bounce ratio would be 63 (.43/.62).

Giving the horse several weeks off after te new top did not seem to change things much.

Horses were more likely to bounce off dirt sprints than dirt routes, and also more likely to bounce off dirt than turf.

Another finding: the classier the horse, the less apt the horse is to bounce (not surprising). They measured the bounce ratio for 10,000 races and remember, the less the the bounce ratio, the more bounces that will occur, and vice versa.

Stakes 81.7%
Allwoances 77.9%
claimers 73.8%
Maidens 71.5%
Maiden Claimers 65.5%

SO CHEW ON IT ALL YOU KNOW IT ALLS.
duck

[delayjf]

If the new top was the first the horse had ever run- i.e., his first race, it did not improve until the 4th race and betting him next time out resulted in a miserable .70 ROI.

I'm not sure I'm getting the gist of the above.

Would'nt ANY figure earned in a horses first lifetime start be considered a TOP?? How do you define a speed figure top for a horse that has never run. Are you saying that 67% of first time starters do not improve there SF earned in their first race until the fourth race? What am I missing?

[Light]

After every new top- first or one of many, most horses failed to repeat or improve on the performance. the totals involved 644,557 races .
Declilned- 67.1%
Improved- 27%
Repeated- 5%

Over twice as many declines as improvements or repeats.



In other words, 32% did not bounce and that is very significant when you consider favorites win with about the same percentage and that percentage is considered a major handicapping factor to take into consideration.

That there were 67% that did not repeat their tops is no surprise because any horseplayer would have guessed most horses will not repeat a good performance even without bounce conditions present.

This only confirms my disagreement with Ragozin's theory about a new top and bouncing. Reading his book,I felt like he was saying 95% of horses will bounce from a new top and at first I believed him. But this study you presented proves him wrong as has my personal experience.

[George Sands]

This only confirms my disagreement with Ragozin's theory about a new top and bouncing. Reading his book,I felt like he was saying 95% of horses will bounce from a new top and at first I believed him. But this study you presented proves him wrong as has my personal experience.

I agree. Quoting from books is passe. Far better just to say what we "felt like" the author was saying, and then claim he has been proven wrong. Myself, I felt like he was saying 150% of horses will bounce off a new top, and I have a hunch he will be proven wrong some day.

[Trotman]

"Bounce" the now word for a bad race,I don't find it coming into my capping selecting pace lines.

[NYPlayer]

...That there were 67% that did not repeat their tops is no surprise because any horseplayer would have guessed most horses will not repeat a good performance even without bounce conditions present.

I would say not repeating a good performance is the same thing as bouncing.

This only confirms my disagreement with Ragozin's theory about a new top and bouncing. Reading his book,I felt like he was saying 95% of horses will bounce from a new top and at first I believed him. But this study you presented proves him wrong as has my personal experience.

I don't recall that Ragozin ever put a number on the bounce. He discussed the conditions that generally lead to a bounce and gave some examples. He also discussed some situations where a new top did not lead to a bounce.

[Light]

I would say not repeating a good performance is the same thing as bouncing.

That's a pretty narrow perspective,don't you think? There are alot of other reasons why horses dont repeat a good performance such as class hikes,distance switches,surface switches,track conditions,trouble,pace disadvantages,new jock,new trainer,new track,equipment changes,medication changes,illnesses,length of time between races, etc etc etc.



I don't recall that Ragozin ever put a number on the bounce. He discussed the conditions that generally lead to a bounce and gave some examples. He also discussed some situations where a new top did not lead to a bounce.


Yes he made some exceptions to the rules, but the overwhelming majority were expected to bounce or the point about a top and bouncing would be pointless.

[raybo]

Whatever you want to call it, poor races (bounces) do occur frequently, after very physically demanding performances. However, IMO, the handicapper must look at more than a speed number to ascertain whether or not a race was physically demanding. There are too many variables in a race to be represented by a speed number, at least most speed numbers that we're all familiar with.

When a true "bounce" occurs, even a rest and workouts often is not enough to bring him/her back to previous levels, as we have all seen, many times it takes a race or more before he/she is ready to expend that type of energy again.

[George Sands]

That's a pretty narrow perspective,don't you think? There are alot of other reasons why horses dont repeat a good performance such as class hikes,distance switches,surface switches,track conditions,trouble,pace disadvantages,new jock,new trainer,new track,equipment changes,medication changes,illnesses,length of time between races, etc etc etc.

You are saying that these changes can make a horse look as if he bounced when in fact he regressed due to the change in circumstances? OK, flip it. How about horses who did in fact bounce but the bounce was disguised by the fact that the horse reacted positively to one of the changes you mention above?

[Light]

You are saying that these changes can make a horse look as if he bounced when in fact he regressed due to the change in circumstances?

Correct

OK, flip it. How about horses who did in fact bounce but the bounce was disguised by the fact that the horse reacted positively to one of the changes you mention above?

I dont understand your logic. If a horse reacts positively to a change in circumstances,his performance should improve,so how could you label that performance a disguised bounce?

If a horse is too sore to repeat his previous performance then none of the circumstances I mentioned (except medication),should be able to impede the horses ability to feel his own pain from tightness and soreness and he should regress in performance. The only "hidden bounce" imo would be due to medication.

[George Sands]

I dont understand your logic. If a horse reacts positively to a change in circumstances,his performance should improve,so how could you label that performance a disguised bounce?

A horse runs a top that is significantly out of line with his previous performances. Then he runs a lousy race. A bounce theorist then says the horse bounced. You then say no. He ran the lousy race not because he bounced, but rather because circumstances changed. My point is that change can cut both ways. If different circumstances can make a horse run slower, they can also make him run faster. Therefore, you can have a horse run an ugly new top, figure to bounce, go on to indeed bounce, say by three points, but get those points back by responding favorably to the changed circumstances. In other words, if stretching out in distance benefits a particular horse by three points, and if this horse runs a new top at 6F and proceeds to pair the top at 9F, then to be fair to bounce theory, the 9F pair-up figure ought to be labelled a bounce. Otherwise the effect of your thinking is to rig the game against bounce theory--breaking every tie against it.

[NYPlayer]

That's a pretty narrow perspective,don't you think? There are alot of other reasons why horses dont repeat a good performance such as class hikes,distance switches,surface switches,track conditions,trouble,pace disadvantages,new jock,new trainer,new track,equipment changes,medication changes,illnesses,length of time between races, etc etc etc.

I think you have a very narrow definition of what a bounce is. Training regimens aside, I don't believe the circumstances you listed have much influence on the physical condition of the horse. The bounce is a poor race that follows either a new top or an effort close to a horses previously established top. The reason for the poor effort is the physical exertion from the previous good performance.

Let's consider the case of a 5 yo male horse that has just run a 3 point new top (Ragozin style, BSF style would be about 8 or 9 points), a pretty significant forward move. Let's consider how he might be affected by the circumstances you describe.

New jock, new trainer, new track, equipment - Contrary to popular opinion, these don't have much bearing on how a horse is doing physically. Illnesses and medications obviously will impact condition, but if a horse becomes ill after a top effort, he's not likely to be entered in a race anytime soon, and I would consider that the top effort weakened it making it vulnerable. Ragozin dealt with "medication" somewhat in his book. Some trainers can postpone decline or dramatically improve horses with good "medication", so it's best to know who they are. If my hypthetical horse was trained by one of these sharpees, I would definitely think twice about predicting a bounce.

Distance and surface switches are a subject by themselves, but if a horse runs a three point new top as a five year old in a sprint, and then performes poorly at a route three weeks later, I'm likely to ascribe the poor route as a bounce from the top. Horses that are in good and improving condition will adapt to distance changes readily. It happens all the time. With surface switches, it's more about breeding, but again, a horse that has turf breeding that has raced well over the turf before and races poorly after a three point top that happened to come on the dirt, I would still say that the poor grass effort was a reaction.

Track conditions - If our horse improved three points in the mud and is now on a dry track and runs poorly, lots of people will say that it was mud that enabled the horse to run well, and the absence of moisture that caused the decline. This being the case, my preference would be to believe the mud number was real and simply look for the horse to come back to that top effort sometime later. I'm likely to get my odds.

Trouble - The most overstated reason for poor perfomance. Some horses occasionally stumble out of the gate, or get blocked trying to make a move. I think the overall impact of trouble is negligible. If the horse is going to bounce in a race, chances are it'll also have some trouble in that poor race, either by stumbling out of the gate, appearing to get cut off as its jockey urges it between horses, or by running erratically. In any event, you're just watching a tired horse, that's all.

Class hikes & pace disadvantages - More myths and figments of imagination. A horse moves up three points, the trainer then enters him in a stakes race and it runs poorly. I don't know about you, but I don't think the horse knows what class it's been entered for, and the bounce would come whether it was in stakes or a claimer. Of course, you're free to believe as you wish.

Time between race - Extra time may ameliorate the impact of a new top. Most bounces do occur on short rest. In the case of an older horse running a significant new top, I would call a bounce even if it came back in six weeks. Maybe it'll be less of a bounce, but the horse is more likely than not to regress from the top.

[Light]

I'm sure you can show real life examples to prove your point and so can I. But we still have a statistical study presented in this thread that basically disproves the bounce/new top theory as an inevitable event.

[NYPlayer]

The Beyer study only proves that 67% of horses bounce after three improving BSF figs, and that not all horses with three improving BSF figs bounce. I agree the bounce is a complex topic, but if it's to be discussed profitably, we first have to eliminate some rediculous ideas.

[George Sands]

we still have a statistical study presented in this thread that basically disproves the bounce/new top theory as an inevitable event.

Now all we need is somebody who believed it was inevitable. Really, Light, when you're trying to disprove someone's theory, it's a pretty good idea to present not just the theory, but also the someone.

[Show Me the Wire]

All you non-believers must have missed this juicy tidbit from Bruno DeJulio's about Sheza Screemer:

"The track cut five inches deep on July 29 was an abomination and a disgrace. She raced fifth after some difficulties early. The sad part was how that track knocked her out. She lost weight and her trainer nursed her back to health. She started eating again a week or so later, and didn't race again until the day after Del Mar."[bolding added for emphasis]

[Gold9er]

if you could figure out how much a horse will bounce or improve, you could retire in a month and own 2 yachts

[fmolf]

if you could figure out how much a horse will bounce or improve, you could retire in a month and own 2 yachts
i agree ..there are so many variables from race to race that after three improving speed figs or a new top a horse is bound to regress.Usually after winning horses move up in class for one.Then you might get a disfavoring pace setup,a bad post.larger fields with more traffic problems,another horse runs a lifetime best,your running today against a track bias.