The "Bounce" theory

[sammy the sage]

seems to work "sometimes"...ie....not reliable...50/50 if you like...

That said...Bodemeister just ran the "Monster" prep of this years 3yr. old crop...7.5 lengths faster than older...the race 30 mins. prior...

So he'll either win for fun like Big Brown or "Bounce"....

Thoughts on this topic in general...ie...amt of rest needed to avoid....do some trainer's not have bounces...ect...distance of race matter...ect

[lamboguy]

my thought is very simple, i had a horse that ran in ARLINGTON PARK once, and i was at a race track sitting with the guy that invented the bounce theory, LEN FREEDMAN. i showed him my horse and he looked at his sheets. he came up with the conclusion that my horse was a "prime bounce candidate". after the horse won the race and the horse was in the winner's circle, i said to LEN, the horse sure as hell is bouncing up and down in that winners circle.

[cj]

The bounce theory is great for those that think horses are machines and also get the same trip every time. Rather than actually do the hard work and handicap what happened, the bounce theory is tossed out there.

[thaskalos]

The bounce theory is great for those that think horses are machines and also get the same trip every time. Rather than actually do the hard work and handicap what happened, the bounce theory is tossed out there.

Exactly!

The bounce theory is valid, IMO...but it doesn't play the major role that most handicappers have assigned to it.

There are more reasons to explain a lackluster effort than just the bounce theory...

[raybo]

CJ and Gus have it right.

"Bounce" is real, but to make it accurate and consistent, for use in wagering real money, there are a whole lot of other factors that need to be considered first.

[burnsy]

the only time i like the theory is the second start back after a lay off. like any althete the horse may be a little stiff or sore after the first race. the training may be lighter and the second race could be a regression. i'm tempted to go against union rags but he fits this profile. the first race looked great but it may have taken a toll. if the florida derby was a tightener for a second race back....i will most likely get burned by that horse (in the derby). its not really a "bounce". its form cycle....first race back, the horse has been rested, second race the horse may regress a little bit, third race back the horse is ready to campaign for the season. this is how some of these guys "race" horses into shape without training them to death.

[lamboguy]

sometimes when horses come back off a layoff and are ready to run, they draw into a field that is very weak and they have no pressure at any point during the race and the horse wins by 5 lengths and it looks like its the best race the horse has ever run. he enters for his next race on a step up and has the best number from the last race, but has better contestants in the field and it looks like he runs bad and throws in a clunker. i think that's what they mean by the bounce.

it doesn't happen that often with good trainers. they know what their horse did or did not do in a race. they will train their horses with other good horses and have him ready the next time he runs.

[classhandicapper]

the only time i like the theory is the second start back after a lay off. like any althete the horse may be a little stiff or sore after the first race. the training may be lighter and the second race could be a regression.

A better variation of this is the horse with a lot of layoffs in his PPs where you can be fairly sure it has had physical problems. A lot of those will go bad next out after they run a big race off a layoff out because whatever had been bothering before comes back again after a tough race.

[PhantomOnTour]

A main consideration is how the horse responded to his last big race/figure, and under what circumstances...
class hike?
back quickly?
distance change?
trainer change?
new track?
etc.....

[turninforhome10]

Exactly!

The bounce theory is valid, IMO...but it doesn't play the major role that most handicappers have assigned to it.

There are more reasons to explain a lackluster effort than just the bounce theory...


A very strong reason IMO is movement through lifetime conditions. If a horse can run a better race in their first start after breaking maiden (not necessarily win) with similar conditions as the win, then I feel these types are more reliable.

Being a condition book handicapper of sorts, conditions are a big part of the bounce and really feel strongly about this angle. Maiden winners from big stables will continue to get pounded at the windows. Worst bet in racing IMO and it only took 10 years w|o a database and 4 months with a database to prove to it to my bankroll's waistline. State bred N2x into open N!x is the second worse bet and another big bounce prospect. Horses who pedigree says yes to a surface switch, but dam's produce record says otherwise.
Just some examples.

[Blenheim]

Nice race by the Bode in the Arkansas! When he was runnin' down the bckstretch, had a flashback Spend A Buck . . . was a great one to watch and what horse racing is all about.

~

Here is what I've got regarding the bounce, quoted from Betting Thoroughbreds for the 21st Century, Steve Davidowitz:

It is the esteemed New York handicapper Len Ragozin's contention that horses tend to "bounce," or drop off in their form, as a consequence of two interrelated factors:

* When they have exerted "an effort" that taxes their physical limitations.
* When they are brought back to the races too soon for full recovery to occur.

Hard to know if the race taxed his physical limitations, but I count 20 days between the Arkansas and the Kentucky . . . I'm leanin' towards the bounce, if not the bounce, I think he reached the peak in his form cycle in the Arkansas and is likely gonna turn downwards.

[sammy the sage]

the "Bellamy Roads" Woods/Derby scenerio is popping up in my head...

[cj]

the "Bellamy Roads" Woods/Derby scenerio is popping up in my head...

Sure looked like a case of a very good horse going from a cupcake trip to a brutal one.

[RXB]

the only time i like the theory is the second start back after a lay off. like any althete the horse may be a little stiff or sore after the first race. the training may be lighter and the second race could be a regression. i'm tempted to go against union rags but he fits this profile. the first race looked great but it may have taken a toll. if the florida derby was a tightener for a second race back....i will most likely get burned by that horse (in the derby). its not really a "bounce". its form cycle....first race back, the horse has been rested, second race the horse may regress a little bit, third race back the horse is ready to campaign for the season. this is how some of these guys "race" horses into shape without training them to death.

I don't agree that Union Rags' form cycle regressed in his second start. The FoY was an easy win over soft opposition with a nice trip on the favourable part of the track that day. Whereas in the Fla Derby, he ran against stronger opposition, he was hemmed in much of the way and thus came off the turn near the back of the pack on a day when front horses were doing most of the damage, in a race where the pace was rather modest, and still he finished quite well. I saw nothing that made me think that he was physically less capable in his second start; it was just a case of going from favourable to unfavourable circumstances.

[aaron]

Bellamy Road was on a gold rail in the Wood. He was questionable at the distance.
Using the Kentucky Derby as an example of the bounce theory is probably the worst race to use as an example. None of the horses have ever gone the distance. They are young horse and in many cases they have not established their class or number.Many of the horses only have 3-4 races.

[Valuist]

Even if Bodemeister is off the board in Louisville, does it necessarily mean it was because of a bounce? I would be more concerned about the likely pace scenario. If he's contending thru a 45 4/5 half and 1:10 2/5 6f, he can be off the board but not necessarily be the victim of an alleged bounce.

[MitchS]

CJ and Gus have it right.

"Bounce" is real, but to make it accurate and consistent, for use in wagering real money, there are a whole lot of other factors that need to be considered first.


Said exactly right! Bounce is valid but many other factors need to be analyzed along side. Pattern recognition just like stock market trends. I'm working on a new sheet to help with recognizing these situations. Its very tricky but valid for sure, IMHO.

[PhantomOnTour]

Said exactly right! Bounce is valid but many other factors need to be analyzed along side. Pattern recognition just like stock market trends. I'm working on a new sheet to help with recognizing these situations. Its very tricky but valid for sure, IMHO.
Form cycle analysis :ThmbUp:

We can all read a pace & speed fig and see who ran faster than whom, but how are they going to run today?

[setup]

I think there's validity to the 'bounce' as defined by its creator. Of course, for the 'bounce' to be valid as intended, which means the horse needs to be 'knocked out' by the race, it would follow that backstretch knowledge, that the horse didn't eat up after the race, had to be walked for a few days after rather than galloping, etc., is incorporated into the equation. Is this information a component of the figures of the creator of the 'bounce' ?