Handicapping Myths [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

trying2win

11-28-2003, 06:01 PM

By now a lot of us horse players have read many thoroughbred handicapping books. I do question though, some of the handicapping statements that some of these authors espouse in their books. You get the impression that some of these authors are the ultimate authority and that their statements are some kind of edicts you must obey. A lot of the statements have command or absolute words or phrases in them like: "should", "ought to ", "must", "have to", "always", "never" etc.

Okay, having said the above, I think it would be great if PA members would list some handicapping statements they read in books, or heard from some annoying know-it-all at the racetrack,
and are questioning these sources about some of things read, or heard.

I've got one that I read, or heard many years ago. It went something like this:

"NEVER bet on any horse for the first two weeks of a new meet.
You OUGHT TO skip every race for this period because, you HAVE TO see what trends will develop first."

--No disrespect meant to these authors, but I like to decide for myself whether to believe their handicapping statements or not!
I will concede though, that in a case of a new race meet where most of the horses haven't run for for five or six months due to winter weather, I would skip the first few weeks of the meet. Same goes for the start of a meet, where a lot of the horses have been mainly racing at tracks out-of-province or state. Too many doubts for me in both cases, for the first few weeks of the new meet.

--However, where I disagree, is that if the start of a new meet features mainly horses that have been running recently on the same circuit, I'd be inclined to ignore the author's statement on new meets.

--Anybody got any opinions on things to do for a new race meet?
Maybe even my own beliefs about a new meet need to be changed on a thing or two. We can all learn from other handicappers about ideas we might not have thought about ourselves.

--Anyone else got any handicapping statements that they've read or heard, and could dispel them as fact or fiction? Maybe someone's got a question of their own, about handicapping statements, and another astute PA member could provide them with some viable answers.

Thanks,

Trying2win

trying2win

11-28-2003, 10:44 PM

Well nobody has replied yet to this thread, so I'll test my recollection of a few more "alleged handicapping truths" I've read or heard about. How about the following... can someone expound on whether any of the following are a myth or a fact?

1. You should never bet on a horse to win with less than 4 Quirin Speed Points.

2. You should always bet on the front runners on a muddy or sloppy track.

3. You should never bet on a 3-year old against older horses.

4. You should never bet on a horse with a layoff of more than 30 days.

5. You should never bet on more than one horse to win on a race.

Now let's see if some altruistic, astute, erudite handicappers will come forth and give us the benefit or their knowledge, and clarify some of the 5 items above.

Thanks,

Trying2win

kenwoodallpromos

11-29-2003, 02:48 AM

4- 90 days / 5- true / 1,2, 3- false. You have to have general rules, but be flexible. /
I like to bet a horse who in the last race- Threw a shoe / threw a jockey / threw the race from an outside post / threw mud at everyone else /// was through early because of: slow rail / fast rail / being a squeezed favorite / trainer scratch. /// I only play 1 horse for each finishing position at most (I do not bet against myself). I do not make or change bets after I leave home. /// I do not like black horses!! / My favorite odds are 5-1 to 8-1, and take a long look at all 2nd favorites in case the favorite has been overworked.

trying2win

11-29-2003, 03:36 AM

Thanks for your views, Ken.

It's interesting to see how you view past races in some out-of-the-ordinary ways. I commend you for that. If you can get an edge in some of those ways, and find your own niche, who cares what some the the so-called experts think or say, right?

Some of your strategies remind me of a quote from a very insightful handicapper from many years ago, named Isi "Rip" Newborn. He's the author of some old, out-of-print handicapping books like "If You're Going to Play the Races" and "Helpful Hints for Horseplayers". (I see they're still available at some of those online used book sellers). Anyways, he quoted something in one of his books that I thought was a great line, it went something like this..."In order to be successful at playing the races, you have to develop a rugged individualism." Right on Mr. Newborn!

If I remember correctly, "Helpful Hints for Horseplayers" was one of the first books I read on handicapping, back in the days when I was a teenager.

Cheerio,

Trying2win

sq764

11-29-2003, 09:31 AM

Tryin, my thoughts:

1. You should never bet on a horse to win with less than 4 Quirin Speed Points.

2. You should always bet on the front runners on a muddy or sloppy track.

3. You should never bet on a 3-year old against older horses.

4. You should never bet on a horse with a layoff of more than 30 days.

5. You should never bet on more than one horse to win on a race.

1) I think this is a bogus rule and should be ignored

2) Just last night I saw a sloppy track with a closer bias, so to say this generically is wrong

3) Again, all depends on the situation

4) I think there's some validity to this, but... I would ignore if the horse had a good 5 F workout in the past week, or if its a classy horse who's shown the ability to win off long layoffs.

5) I would be hating life if this were true :-) Last night I did this 3 times at the Meadowlands.. Caught a nice win bet when I had my 2 top choices at 5/1 on the board..

so.cal.fan

11-29-2003, 09:37 AM

Joe Takach wrote a whole series on this subject. You can read it on his website:
http://joe-takach.com/The_Laws_/the_laws_.html

paulc

11-29-2003, 10:11 AM

Here are my thoughts:

<<< 1. You should never bet on a horse to win with less than 4 Quirin Speed Points.

2. You should always bet on the front runners on a muddy or sloppy track.

3. You should never bet on a 3-year old against older horses.

4. You should never bet on a horse with a layoff of more than 30 days.

5. You should never bet on more than one horse to win on a race. >>>

I would change the "never" and "always" to "think before you"... in other words, these are angles to consider, but sometimes betting opportunities arise when others are handicapping with hard and fast rules. And here are a couple of others I've heard that fall into the same category:

6. You should never ask a horse to do something it's never done before.

7. You should always bet the horse who's dropping from MSW to maiden claiming if it has shown early speed at the higher level.

Number 7 actually used to be an angle I used... until everyone heard about it. And that's (IMO) the bottom line on some of these... if I'm the only one playing the rule, it may work, but if everyone is playing a rule then I want to look for opportunities to beat the rule. Which leads to another rule that I do follow:

8. Always bet against the false favorite!

The catch is knowing when it applies and who to switch to!!!

RonTiller

11-29-2003, 10:22 AM

trying2win,

Several things.

First, most "alleged handicapping truths" developed and took hold in the days before anybody had large databases to actually CHECK their validity. Anything beyond the expert's "edicts" was normally supported by anecdotal evidence, if supported at all. Why was/is Quirin so venerated? He was probably the first to systematically test a full range of "alleged handicapping truths", despite the fact that by today's standards, his sample sizes were miniscule. Today, many members of this board have databases with tens (and hundreds) of thousands of races.

Second, the way you phrase your examples of "alleged handicapping truths" strikes to the heart of the problem. They all begin "YOU should..." Handicappers frequently use the pronoun "you" when they should use "I". It happens so often that there should be a fallacy associated with it, like the fallacy of misplaced pronouns.

Example that I hear frequently:

"YOU can't make money betting horses if YOU ignore the trainer." Translation: I can't make money betting horses if I ignore the trainer."

"YOU have to take workouts into account before making bets."
Translation: "I have to take workouts into account before making bets."

"YOU can't make money just using speed ratings." Translation: "I can't make money just using speed ratings"

"YOU can't make any money using [Fill in the blank with favorite program or report]." Translation: "I can't make any money using [Fill in the blank with favorite program or report]."

Third, Barry Meadow and Ken Massa, in thier newsletters, have over the years subjected most of the TESTABLE old wives tales to statistical testing; they usually don't pass muster or have such a small positive or negative significance that they can have no practical use. And I might add that both these individuals test in order to improve their own handicapping and/or computer program. And I say "TESTABLE" because how do you test "YOU can't make money using speed ratings."? Some Ragozin Sheets and Thorograph players apparently DO make money using speed ratings almost exclusively, so I guess that is the test.

Ron Tiller
HDW

PS: I can't make money just using speed ratings. And my mother can't either. So to be scrupulously honest: At least 2 people can't make money just using speed ratings.

JohnGalt1

11-29-2003, 11:37 AM

Interesting topic.

I've probably read at least 30 books and subscribe to ATM and horesplayer and read many websites.

When I buy a new book on handicapping I'm not looking for a totally new method, but just to find one new nugget of insight.

The older books' authors are the ones more likely to use should, and never in their rules. Newer authors can be summed up by Mike Pizzola who's rule about doing speed figures on a horse is to "always use the most recent line, except when you shouldn't." And then he list reasons not to use the last line, which was the most valuable nugget for me in "Handicapping Magic."

Newer authors ususually state their rules as guidelines.

Never bet any race for the first two weeks of a meet?

I do my best during the first month of Canterbury's meet because so many horses are off 6 month layoffs and others come from Tup, Fonner, Beulah, Oaklawn, Tampa Bay, and Kentucky. Some trainers bring in their horses ready knowing that many will race into condition. After a month everyone has some sort of form.

Lefty

11-29-2003, 11:57 AM

One of the biggest myths, I think, is: "never bet a horse to do something its never done before."
But as Gordon Jones says:" That's when you get the price."

11-29-2003, 01:04 PM

Lefty,

I've always heard it as "Never bet a FAVORITE to do something its never done before" and I follow it to this day.

kingfin66

11-29-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Lefty,

I've always heard it as "Never bet a FAVORITE to do something its never done before" and I follow it to this day.

That's how I heard it too. This is a mark of a very vulnerable favorite.

trying2win

11-29-2003, 04:57 PM

Thanks to everyone for the great feedback on this topic. There were notes on some things I never thought of before.

Trying2win

JimL

11-29-2003, 06:15 PM

Pizzolla, on thirty day lay-offs,"If he is 5/2 he is not ready. 20/1 he is knocking down the barn door. JimL

Shacopate

11-30-2003, 02:49 AM

I think layoffs.

On turf, it doesn't seem to matter how long. As long there's some back class.

Even dirt racing, Dave Schwartz provides an interesting study on his website, www.horsestreet.com.

RonTiller

11-30-2003, 10:56 AM

Never bet a FAVORITE to do something its never done before

I tested 1st turf and 1st route on all race in North America since Jan 1 2000:

Favorites running in routes for first time: 33.48%
All Favorites running in routes: 33.49%

Identical. Apparently this is one of the myths that promted this thread.

Favorites running on turf for first time: 27.55%
All Favorites running on turf: 31.69%

A small difference but a clear difference nonetheless. Whether this merits never betting first turfer favorites is another question.

Pizzolla, on thirty day lay-offs,"If he is 5/2 he is not ready. 20/1 he is knocking down the barn door.

I'm not sure what this means, but I took a stab at one possible interpretation, again with all North American races since Jan 1, 2000:

Odds between 2 and 3 PLUS >30 DSLR: 23.37%
Odds between 2 and 3 - All horses: 23.52%

Odds between 19 and 21 PLUS >30 DSLR: 3.27%
Odds between 19 and 21 - All horses: 3.60%

This makes the 5/2 range impact values virtually 1 and the 20/1 range ever so slightly negative, so maybe I misinterpreted this.

Ron Tiller
HDW

kenwoodallpromos

11-30-2003, 12:51 PM

Some impact values make some rules variable- always good to consider odds=ROI compared to likelyhood of rule holding in current race.

Valuist

11-30-2003, 01:37 PM

I would have to say the worst one is "only bet Grade 1 winners in Grade 1 races, only bet either Grade 1 or 2 winners in Grade 2 races, etc." I've seen so many exceptions to this rule that its laughable and I believe this thinking has created big overlays on horses who figured speed figure wise, but without the Grade 1 or 2 credentials.

I think most of the authors have NOT said to never bet against 3 YOs against older horses. This is more of a racetrack myth by the guys who've never opened a book in their lives than by the smarter betting population. If anything, I think most intelligence bettors would almost always take a lightly raced 3YO in a conditioned allowance over a perenial loser at the condition.

Definitely agree on the betting against a favorite who's trying to do something its never done before. That one will probably stand the test of time.

andicap

12-01-2003, 02:27 PM

He meant because of the value -- the high odds -- the 20/1 shot is "ready" to him. But the 5/2 horse is not. He's being a bit ironic.

Originally posted by RonTiller
I tested 1st turf and 1st route on all race in North America since Jan 1 2000:

Favorites running in routes for first time: 33.48%
All Favorites running in routes: 33.49%

Identical. Apparently this is one of the myths that promted this thread.

Favorites running on turf for first time: 27.55%
All Favorites running on turf: 31.69%

A small difference but a clear difference nonetheless. Whether this merits never betting first turfer favorites is another question.

I'm not sure what this means, but I took a stab at one possible interpretation, again with all North American races since Jan 1, 2000:

Odds between 2 and 3 PLUS >30 DSLR: 23.37%
Odds between 2 and 3 - All horses: 23.52%

Odds between 19 and 21 PLUS >30 DSLR: 3.27%
Odds between 19 and 21 - All horses: 3.60%

This makes the 5/2 range impact values virtually 1 and the 20/1 range ever so slightly negative, so maybe I misinterpreted this.

Ron Tiller
HDW

trying2win

12-01-2003, 06:14 PM

Hmm...let's see now...Maybe I can start one of my own handicapping myths. Actually, it probably should be in a category called "Betting Truth or Myth?" ...anyways here it is:

"The next day after you have one of those infrequent 'SUPER PROFIT DAYS' at the track, bet very little if anything, because the next day is usually the exact opposite!"

That seems to happen to me about 98% of the time..i.e. If I have one of the those better-than-average days at the track maybe once or twice a month, then the next day I usually get zilch or next-to-nothing after making my bets. How come? I call it one the "MYSTERIES OF THE RACETRACK". I can only remember once in the last several years, when I had two super-days-in-a-row at the track. I know I shouldn't be superstitious about certain things that happen when betting the races...but....

The above reminds me of the old comic strip that the late, Jimmy Hatlo use to produce for newspapers many years ago. It was about the little ironies of everyday life. The comic strip was called
"They'll Do It Every Time Department". Sometimes there was a sub-section called the "How Come Department?"...That's the department, where my results the day after a bonanza day at the racetrack, would fit in."

Anybody else have any irony stories or happenings at the racetrack, that would fit in the categories of 'MYSTERIES OF THE RACETRACK' or 'HOW COME DEPARTMENT'?

Thanks,

Trying2win

JohnGalt1

12-01-2003, 08:46 PM

trying2win,

Your observation about following a great day with horrible day I have experienced more than once.

For me it wasn't mysticism, i.e.--the odds must even out. The great day was because I played the horse(s) my handicapping said was the best and bet them correctly, (and getting some good breaks, or did my betting my horses correctly create the breaks?) Then the follwing day and feeling superior I get toasted. Upon review I didn't adhere to the same guidelines I used diring the good day. And by not playing the same types of horses, the breaks don't fall my way.

I have to constantly remind myself after a good day, that the races I won was because I bet the horse that won, not that the horse won because I bet on it.

I recently posted the results of my 2001 season broken down by type of race, money W/L and win pct. to see where I'm stong and weak. I am currently doing 2002. One thing I noticed as on good days I played the horses that I felt had the best chance to win. On the losing days I tried to make things happen. Of course I didn't think I was doing that on that day. Lack of discipline at not having enough legitimate plays on that day I suppose.

trying2win

12-01-2003, 10:15 PM

Jgalt1,

Interesting observations on your part.

Another irony at the racetrack that many horse players will tell you, is that had to go through many years of losing before they became long-term winners. It just didn't happen overnight because of some mail-order system. They paid their dues! A lot of study, trial-and-error, and persistence before they reached the status of a long-term winner.

Guess I didn't get the name of Jimmy Hatlo's comic strip quite right in my last post. It should have read "They'll Do it Every Time". He had another comic strip named "There Oughta Be A Law", although I don't remember this latter one. There's probably a PA member who's a old-timer, and would remember some of these old-time comic strips.

Trying2win

kenwoodallpromos

12-02-2003, 03:32 AM

Does not work well from the stands in any sport! but good observations! / Discipline! Control!

andicap

12-02-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by trying2win
Jgalt1,

Interesting observations on your part.

Another irony at the racetrack that many horse players will tell you, is that had to go through many years of losing before they became long-term winners. It just didn't happen overnight because of some mail-order system. They paid their dues! A lot of study, trial-and-error, and persistence before they reached the status of a long-term winner.

Guess I didn't get the name of Jimmy Hatlo's comic strip quite right in my last post. It should have read "They'll Do it Every Time". He had another comic strip named "There Oughta Be A Law", although I don't remember this latter one. There's probably a PA member who's a old-timer, and would remember some of these old-time comic strips.

Trying2win

I'm not an old timer by any stretch, but I remember Jimmy Hatlo from when I was a kid. I loved that strip. "they'll do it every time": People who pass you on the road and then slow down in front of you.,

At the track: The guy in front of me in line is betting every conceivable combination on the SAM machines -- and then goofs and has to do it all over again.

trying2win

12-02-2003, 01:03 PM

Andicap,

Good stories you related for the "They'll Do It Every Time" category. How about this one at the racetrack?...

--You're a little behind schedule. There's two minutes to go to post time for the track you want to bet. You see two lines at the parimutuel windows -- one short and one long one. So naturally you go to the short line. There are three people ahead of you in line. The first two get their tickets quickly and are gone. Then the last guy in front of you with one minute to post, starts handicapping at the wicket...."Let's see now, what looks good...ah yes, I'll take a $2 exactor 3, with 5 and 6...hmm what else...well uh.....

Then of course you usually get shut out, the race is off, and the longshot you originally wanted to bet to win, comes in first and and pays a boxcar figure!

--Speaking of exactors, I've seen this advice in a handicapping book..."Never bet favorites on top of your exactors, because the potential payoffs are generally underlays. Only play them on the underneath position on your tickets." Yet, you might see some advice in another handicapping book that says "Never bet a favorite you like to win. Instead, convert this potential $5.00 win payoff into a $30.00 or $40.00 exactor, by keying this favorite on top of several longshots."

Thanks,

Trying2win

JohnGalt1

12-02-2003, 04:51 PM

After my grandfather passed away in 1964 my grandmothr gave me a paperback of "They'll Do it Everytime." that was written in the 1940's. I read it every few years. And it's still accurate.

I sit at a table of handicappers during simulcasts. The "They'll do it Evertime" moments happen after every race they lose.

One always says, "I had that horse. See the Form. I have a mark by his name." Of course he has a mark by 80% os the horses.

Another says, "I knew that would happen." But he never bets it that way.

Another says, "I woulda hit the tri, but the gates opened before I got the whole bet out." But he never goes to the window any earlier.

And another plays his tri's A/BC/BC straight. Of course it comes in CAB. "I had the horses. I shoulda boxed 'em for $6." Of course he never does.

Another one I sit with has a Russell Baze/Pat Day fixation. "He always wins when I don't bet him. He always loses when I need him."

What are we to say to these friends? "Would you like some crackers with your whine?"

Of course I don't. Nothing would change.

Does anyone here sit with anyone who consistantly complains about the same thing after every race?

ranchwest

12-02-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by trying2win

3. You should never bet on a 3-year old against older horses.

Thanks,

Trying2win

One example should do. Very Subtle in the BC sprint. Not only a 3 yo, but a filly to boot. Beats the older boys including Groovy. If my memory is correct, Groovy had won 6 G1's that year. Back then, each track had its own odds on most simulcasts and at EVD Very Subtle was 20/1 (yes, I had it).

That one taught me to always keep an open mind, each race is a new puzzle.

so.cal.fan

12-02-2003, 06:36 PM

jgalt1

I smiled reading your post!
I have been attending the races for over 40 years and nowadays I am even bored at Santa Anita, my favorite track!
Now I know WHY!!!! LOL
I think we should all take a vow to try to correct this horrible habit of complaining/ redboarding/reciting repetitious sentences everyone has heard hundreds, if not thousands of times!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

PaceAdvantage

12-03-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by andicap
I'm not an old timer by any stretch

Come on Andy, don't sell yourself short!! ;)

andicap

12-03-2003, 12:47 PM

Never, ever, take a date to the racetrack if you are trying to bet serious money.

You will lose guaranteed -- probably every single race.

trying2win

12-08-2003, 12:09 AM

--For years my favorite kind of races to bet on the dirt track at the thoroughbred races, were claming races. I didn't care for maiden races, allowance races, or handicap races.

--In the old days before the advent of simulcasts, there were no turf races on our local circuit, so I couldn't bet them.

--Since simulcast racing arrived, I've changed my preferences at the races a bit. I now like betting on turf races. Over the last year, I've obtained my best results on these kind of races. I used to avoid dirt maiden races. I took the time to learn about maiden races, and have improved a little bit in this area. I still usually skip handicap, stakes, and allowance races though.

--One reason I don't like dirt handicap and stakes races, is because they are so competitive. Takes too long to separate the contenders in some of those fields. Even with the competitive fields, too many low-priced horses seem to win in these divisions.

--Which leaves the dirt allowance race. It's hard to explain why, but I have this belief (erroneous or not) that these allowance races are too hard to figure out. When I see some of the allowance race conditions such as: Non-winner this or non-winner that blah, blah, blah...and then look at some of the horses' past performances and notice that they've run most recently in maiden races, or N2L, or NWX1 allowance, or whatever...I find it too confusing to figure out things like... who's got a class edge etc?...and so I usually skip these kind of races.

--So, my question to PA members is: In your opinion, is it a handicapping myth or reality, that allowance races are too difficult to handicap and should be avoided?

Thanks,

Trying2win

kenwoodallpromos

12-08-2003, 01:04 AM

Avoid hcp, stakes, claimers, alw, md, dirt, and turf and I guarantee you will never lose another bet unless they start racing in the horse swimming pool at San Luis Rey!!LOL!!

Tom

12-08-2003, 09:19 PM

I think they are very playable. the only thing I would advise is not to handciap them like you would a claimer. Don't compare horse to horse and bet the best. Compare each horse to the conditions of the race, the development of the horse agisnt previous conditions, and where it might be in it's form cycle. You will often find class stickouts in allowance races that the crowd will never uncover. It is much more obvious in claimers.

trying2win

12-09-2003, 01:49 AM

TOM,

Thanks for the advice. I never thought of looking at Allowance races from that perspective.

Regards,

Trying2win

so.cal.fan

12-09-2003, 10:37 AM

Tom:
In regards to Alw. races:
Do you think that a good knowledge of sires and dams is a possible way to classify some of these horses?

JustRalph

12-09-2003, 01:00 PM

In my opine, the bloodline and the ability of the trainer to bring them along, is crucial in knowing how fast they are going to move thru a condition or an allowance level. I think Cole Norman is a great example of this. he takes some decent horses and wins more than his share of better than decent races with them. I also like trainers like Pletcher who seem to not give up on a horse. I think the way he has handled Balto Star has been downright masterful from an owners standpoint. He could have fizzled away (but he is a gelding, so he had no choice but to race) and ended up pushed too hard etc. But Pletcher has made some really great money with a horse that is truly very much one dimensional.........but he has handled him in a manner that has maximized his earning potential to the owners. After Balto helped setup the Derby for Monarchos I thought he might disappear. Not on Pletchers watch. I think he is close to a 2 million winner.

when these guys have a lessor horse and they start moving them up thru allowance company.....you have to pay attention.

trying2win

12-09-2003, 03:44 PM

JUST RALPH,

I use pedigree info, along with other factors when handicapping turf races. I never thought of considering pedigree and trainer expertise in allowance races before. With the handicapping tips garnered from Tom and you, I might have to set aside my prejudice on allowance races and take a second look. Of course if I'm wise, I'd better do a paper test on these ideas first, to see if I can show a positive ROI! Thanks.

Trying2win

Tom

12-10-2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Tom:
In regards to Alw. races:
Do you think that a good knowledge of sires and dams is a possible way to classify some of these horses?

I use MikeHelms pedigree ratings-one of them is general class rating. But more importantly is the horse's record-if it took 13 starts to break its maidne, I am not too excited about it winning a NW1 real soon, but there is that horse that suddenly puts it all together and strings out wins. A slant on this is the proven loser at NYRA, 1 for 35 or 0 for 29, comes to town, runs second, then wins two in a row, then moves right up the ladder. I draw a line at his last NYRA start and look at its career from the time it took exit 44 off the thruway.
Quinn's chapters on developing three olds has some good ideas about how to look at the PPs on the NW allowance horses and where they might end up.

GARY Z

12-11-2003, 04:49 AM

the so called elite handicappers should admit,based
upon whatever tools they use,such as sheets/pace figures/
drf/their brains,etc.. that when all is said and done, value
betting is key to walking away with a profit on any race.

throw in weather conditions,change of racing surface,
eratic form cycles and unfortunately,questionable
trainers, and you will soon see the dynamics influencing
odds and the bet you are making should be tempered
by the thought that "never" may not exist in today's
race

JustRalph

12-28-2003, 06:41 AM

From 12-9-03

Originally posted by JustRalph
I also like trainers like Pletcher who seem to not give up on a horse. I think the way he has handled Balto Star has been downright masterful from an owners standpoint. He could have fizzled away (but he is a gelding, so he had no choice but to race) and ended up pushed too hard etc. But Pletcher has made some really great money with a horse that is truly very much one dimensional.........but he has handled him in a manner that has maximized his earning potential to the owners. After Balto helped setup the Derby for Monarchos I thought he might disappear. Not on Pletchers watch. I think he is close to a 2 million winner.

Pletcher does it again........

Saturday, December 27

Balto Star all the way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Welsch
Daily Racing Form

MIAMI -- Trainer Todd Pletcher had little doubt Balto Star could stay 1 1/2 miles "under the proper circumstances," and those circumstances presented themselves at Calder on Saturday, when Balto Star led throughout to post a 1 1/2-length victory over California invader Continuously in the $200,000 W L McKnight Handicap. The Grade 2 McKnight was one of four stakes presented on Saturday's Grand Slam 2 program.

The "circumstances" got a lot better for Balto Star and Pletcher after Gran Cesare, the one horse expected to press Balto Star for the lead, was scratched from the McKnight lineup earlier in the day. That left Balto Star and jockey John Velazquez alone on an easy lead and they made the most of the opportunity. Balto Star was able to set relatively slow fractions of 48.95 seconds, 1:13.60, and 1:37.54, then had enough left in the charge to the wire to hold off strong bids from Continuously and Rowans Park.

Continuously came into the McKnight off a victory in the Grade 1 Hollywood Gold Cup. After biding his time near mid-pack for the opening mile, he launched a furious bid while angling four wide into the stretch to move within easy striking distance of Balto Star. But Balto Star had plenty in reserve and was able to surge clear once again as they approached the finish line.

Rowans Park also loomed a major threat in early stretch but faltered late and finished another half length behind Continuously.

Balto Star, a son of Glitterman owned by Stuart Subotnick, paid $6.60. His final time of 2:24.87 was nearly two seconds faster than the time Volga posted winning the La Prevoyante over the same distance earlier on the card.

Balto Star, who won the Grade 1 United Nations and Grade 2 Red Smith handicaps in similar wire-to-wire fashion, is now less than $50,000 shy of reaching the $2 million mark in career earnings.

"He was the speed of the race after the other speed [Gran Cesare] scratched," said Velazquez. "It worked out pretty well for me. He gets brave and gets a big heart when he gets loose on the lead like that."