"Horses for Courses" Theory

[trying2win]

--Is anyone a proponent of the "horses for courses" theory? I'm not talking about a "system" per se, but utilizing this theory along with other handicapping factors, when deciding on a tie-breaker in a race.

--I remember reading a chapter in a Mark Cramer handicapping book about the "horses for courses" theory (it might have been in the book entitled "Thoroughbred Cycles", I can't remember for sure).

Trying2win

[lsbets]

It has helped me find some nice winners, especially when a circuit moves to a new track, like when Belmont moves to Saratoga. Its far from the only factor, but gives me a good reason to use a higher prices horse that I think might have a chance.

[so.cal.fan]

Joe Takach has an interesting theory. He puts a lot of stock in specific breeding for specific tracks.
While one can argue that much of this is coincidence.....not all of it is.
I noticed way back in the 1960's that certain sires won only at Del Mar for the most part. It is pretty much true today, that certain breeds do well at certain tracks or turf courses more often, and I don't know if it is the climate, the track contour itself, atmospheric conditions of the area, or whatever. It just seems to be more than coincidence.

[Valuist]

I think it applies to all tracks but seems to apply the most (IMO) to the inner at Aqu and Turfway. I completely disregard any speed figure earned on the inner dirt when a horse runs at a different track. You see many horses who run 95s or 100s on the inner dirt and they can't hit the 80 mark at Bel or even the regular Aqu.

[LOU M.]

I would assume a Cal. bred would have more wins on Cal. tracks skewing the stats. How about a twelve year old sire verses a three year old.How could you just add up the wins for the three producers as Takich suggest and have that be a rating. A preference for a surface or distance yes, but , IHMO location ,is to controlled by a horses' connections..

[navrah]

Previous winners at the same track will win more often - incidentally though. But it won't improve the bottom line as the angle has been overplayed as the information is so readily available. You're generally better off figuring out which trainers are gearing their horses up for a particular meet thus leading to which horses are "in form" for this course. Put "horse for course", the trainers "intentions", find the "in form" horse along with the one whose capable of producing the "best speed" today and we've got our winner. :) Mike Warren where are you? Slick Twitchell where are you? In all seriousness they're only several percentage points difference in producing more winners yet loosing more on the dollar. I forget how much but not important...like any study less is less.

[alysheba88]

I think its overrated myself. People will look at a horse's pp's and see he was 2-2 at a certain track and then conclude he loves the track. The mistake is in not looking at those two wins. Did someone thing unusual happen that didnt in other races? Maybe the horse got loose on the lead those two times? In which case the track would probably have not mattered? Maybe it was a sloppy track?

Converesely a horse who is 0-4 at a track may not dislike it at all. Maybe he/she had bad trips? Was entered off a layoff? At an inappropriate distance? The sample size is so small in these situations that making them the basis for a wager is a losing strategy to me.

[Niko]

I agree alysheba. I've found it's more important to determine where the horse was in its form cycle, at what class level and conditions the horse ran at, the condition of the horse today and the record of the trainer at the past meet and this meet.
Followed the horse for course for a few meets and gave up on it. There are a few horses that seem to pop up at good price but I get better bang for the buck concentrating on trainers that point for a meet.