Form Cycle

[OverlayHunter]

Is there some consensus as to what constitutes the number of days a layoff should be such that the first race back would be considered the start of a new form cycle? Though I'd like to hear some thoughts about the topic in general, I'm particularly interested in low end tracks.

I'm not a horseman and my untrained mind is telling me that 30 days is sufficient if there was no significant injury. The DRF uses 45 days. What generally makes sense from the standpoint of the horse (I know they're individuals and one size won't fit all but where do most of them fit)? Or, am I asking the wrong question and some other factors need to be considered?

Thanks for the assistance.

[LLHorses]

I wouldn't call 30 days off (4 weeks) a layoff. For a lot of horses that's the normal time off between races, racing about 1 time per month.

45 days (about 6 weeks) and up is probably about right for the lower end of layoff times.

When a horse runs a big race, you're supposed to give them a lot of time to recover from it or they might bounce. 4 to 5 weeks at least.


I'm not a trainer though.

Time between races, time between workouts, time since last workout, that's all tricky stuff.

Over in Europe they bring horses back quickly, I've seen horses racing 2 days in a row in races over there. A lot of them race twice in a week. Treasure Beach is going to race in the Arlington Million after racing 9 days ago in Europe, and he's got a plane trip in between. And he's trained by one of the best trainers in the world, Aiden O'Brien.

[cj]

When a horse runs a big race, you're supposed to give them a lot of time to recover from it or they might bounce. 4 to 5 weeks at least.


This kind of wrong thinking is killing the sport.

[LLHorses]

This kind of wrong thinking is killing the sport.




Some people believe in the Bounce Theory and some don't. I believe in it, especially for older horses.

Ainslie believed in it. He mentions it many times in his book. Read his chapter on Fitness/Form/Condition.

[Robert Fischer]

Is there some consensus as to what constitutes the number of days a layoff should be such that the first race back would be considered the start of a new form cycle? Though I'd like to hear some thoughts about the topic in general, I'm particularly interested in low end tracks.

I'm not a horseman and my untrained mind is telling me that 30 days is sufficient if there was no significant injury. The DRF uses 45 days. What generally makes sense from the standpoint of the horse (I know they're individuals and one size won't fit all but where do most of them fit)? Or, am I asking the wrong question and some other factors need to be considered?

Thanks for the assistance.

I don't use a set number of days.

1. I look at the most recent race, and any training since that race.
2. I go to the 2nd most recent race, and any works between those 2 most recent races.
and so on...

If I see a significant break in the action I consider it a new form cycle.

Other than time, I look at performance cycles as well. A horse may have been running regularly since February, but has had a hot streak and a cold streak...

[cj]

Some people believe in the Bounce Theory and some don't. I believe in it, especially for older horses.

Ainslie believed in it. He mentions it many times in his book. Read his chapter on Fitness/Form/Condition.

Why would you give horses extra time off because they MIGHT bounce? I'm sure there are times horses feel the effects of a tough race, but it is a much overused excuse these days for losses as well as not bothering to run.

In Ainslie's time, horses ran much more often.

[Itamaraca]

In Ainslie's time, horses ran much more often.

I'm stunned that people repeatedly refer to Ainslie, and some other such author. Do people really look to these guys as experts of some sort? Do they think that they could actually learn about the game from Ainslie (and others)?

The common denominator with all these guys is that they couldn't beat the game.

[cj]

I'm stunned that people repeatedly refer to Ainslie, and some other such author. Do people really look to these guys as experts of some sort? Do they think that they could actually learn about the game from Ainslie (and others)?

The common denominator with all these guys is that they couldn't beat the game.

I just mentioned him because the other guy used him as some kind of barometer. What he said 30 years ago doesn't matter much today whether he won or lost.

[LRL Racing]

The best results we have had is 4-6 weeks between races. Especially for Stakes fillies/mares because the competition is stiff and they need time to recover.
Sometimes a race will knock a horse off their feed tub for days and after an especially hard race I have seen horses who never run good again.
You can occasionally run earlier.

[LRL Racing]

This kind of wrong thinking is killing the sport.

CJ; what do you mean?

[cj]

CJ; what do you mean?

I mean horses don't race often enough.

[thaskalos]

Is there some consensus as to what constitutes the number of days a layoff should be such that the first race back would be considered the start of a new form cycle? Though I'd like to hear some thoughts about the topic in general, I'm particularly interested in low end tracks.

I'm not a horseman and my untrained mind is telling me that 30 days is sufficient if there was no significant injury. The DRF uses 45 days. What generally makes sense from the standpoint of the horse (I know they're individuals and one size won't fit all but where do most of them fit)? Or, am I asking the wrong question and some other factors need to be considered?

Thanks for the assistance.

I don't like to see layoffs of more than 4 weeks (28 days) at the minor tracks. And the sharper the horse looks on paper...the more suspicious the layoff becomes, as far as I am concerned.

Playing the minor tracks is not the same as betting at the "major leagues"...and the horseplayer had better take notice of some of the unique characteristics that the minor tracks share.

I will seldom wager on a horse to repeat a winning effort off of a month-long layoff...and I am also a lot more forgiving of a horse's dull recent effort (or two) when I am assessing its current form.

Handicapping at the minor tracks is a whole new ballgame...IMO.

[Turkoman]

When a horse runs a big race, you're supposed to give them a lot of time to recover from it or they might bounce. 4 to 5 weeks at least.

LLHorses:

If the horse is not injured, what's so wrong with competing again in approximately 21 days?

[PhantomOnTour]

Why would you give horses extra time off because they MIGHT bounce? I'm sure there are times horses feel the effects of a tough race, but it is a much overused excuse these days for losses as well as not bothering to run.

In Ainslie's time, horses ran much more often.
Some barns use the Sheets, and a major tenet of Sheets 'capping is bounce (or regression) theory.

[cj]

Some barns use the Sheets, and a major tenet of Sheets 'capping is bounce (or regression) theory.

Yes, I know. It is a great excuse when high figure horses lose. Don't handicap, just toss out the word bounce. It sounds a lot better than calling the track "cuppy".

[JackS]

The bounce probably exists but for me it is always a revelation that comes after the race is run. Spend too much time trying to figure if a horse is going to bounce or not doesn't seem worth it to me. Cheap horses routinley bounce after a win but that probably wouldn't deter me from a bet if I thought that he might just put two wins together and the price was right.
I do remember quite a few years ago playing the California fairs and many horses who hadn't raced in months at the begining of the meet. Unblievable maybe, but sometimes 90% of these horses didn't even have a published work. Since these horses couldn't be handicapped, I tried to find a horse that had at least one recent work. If the horse worked good or bad, at least he had a trainer that did show some interest. Keep this paragraph in mind the next time your doing your best to figure a cardfull of 2500-3500 claimers
As for the bounce, unless you believe your pretty good at it, forget it.

[Speed Figure]

Handicapping minor tracks has really changed my game. It made me look at handicapping in a whole different way. I had to come up with a totally new way of picking pacelines. Evangeline Downs is really one of my favorite tracks to play!




I don't like to see layoffs of more than 4 weeks (28 days) at the minor tracks. And the sharper the horse looks on paper...the more suspicious the layoff becomes, as far as I am concerned.

Playing the minor tracks is not the same as betting at the "major leagues"...and the horseplayer had better take notice of some of the unique characteristics that the minor tracks share.

I will seldom wager on a horse to repeat a winning effort off of a month-long layoff...and I am also a lot more forgiving of a horse's dull recent effort (or two) when I am assessing its current form.

Handicapping at the minor tracks is a whole new ballgame...IMO.

[OverlayHunter]

Handicapping minor tracks has really changed my game. It made me look at handicapping in a whole different way. I had to come up with a totally new way of picking pacelines. Evangeline Downs is really one of my favorite tracks to play!

I'd appreciate hearing about some of your form cycle insights if they are not proprietary.

[OverlayHunter]

I don't like to see layoffs of more than 4 weeks (28 days) at the minor tracks. And the sharper the horse looks on paper...the more suspicious the layoff becomes, as far as I am concerned.

Thaskalos, thanks for the insights. When you get some free time, could you please share some of your reasoning.

[OverlayHunter]

Thanks for all the replies thus far. Very interesting and helpful discussion.

[traynor]

I'm stunned that people repeatedly refer to Ainslie, and some other such author. Do people really look to these guys as experts of some sort? Do they think that they could actually learn about the game from Ainslie (and others)?

The common denominator with all these guys is that they couldn't beat the game.

It may be more useful to look at the other side of the "couldn't beat the game" coin. It is that the common denominator is they profited from selling their advice, and therefore had a vested interest in creating the impression of "expertise."

An old saying is, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." It may be a bit like colleges and universities--the majority of faculty are there because no one will hire them for their expertise in the real world.

[traynor]

Handicapping minor tracks has really changed my game. It made me look at handicapping in a whole different way. I had to come up with a totally new way of picking pacelines. Evangeline Downs is really one of my favorite tracks to play!

If you ever get out west, you might consider TuP and Alb. Both are quite rewarding to those able to adapt to different circumstances and views, rather than attempting to apply the same techniques that might (emphasis on "might") work at Aqueduct or Belmont. Minor tracks offer some of the most consistent (and easiest, with a bit of study) profits available in pari-mutuel racing.

[traynor]

I mean horses don't race often enough.

In reality, as opposed to theory, that is a brilliant statement. Anyone who has ever engaged in consistent physical training understands quite well that continual "pushing the limits" is esential to improved performance, and few things will diminish capabilities as fast as a "long rest."

There is a good reason why standardbreds are required to run a qualifying race after a relatively short "layoff." And there is a good reason why many thoroughbred trainers believe that racing is the best form of training, as in "racing horses into condition."

[turninforhome10]

Not going into any big dissertation on how form is related to lifetime conditions,
but as you are handicapping today, notice how many horses in cheaper open claimers (i.e) Non- winners of date and weight allowance open races have only 3 or 4 wins. They have tapped their lifetime conditions and are struggling for a payday.
Also notice how many horses that regress when moving up in conditions.
n1x to Opt n2x is a big one I look for.

IMHO Form is related to trainer intent in that a good trainer is one who uses the horses condition eligibility to enhance the horses chances of getting the best paycheck each time out.

When discussing form cycle I relate the idea of what condition is the horse eligible for, and does the race today fit the bill. Then it comes down to looking at where the horse has been placed since their last win. I look for the horse that has run in similar conditions and in doing so ran as good if not better than their last win at a lower condition.
Look at the absolutely terrible 7th race at FP and try looking for what I call condition holes or a race whre a horse might hold an advantage from the conditions.
Do you look for a n2 since or the n3 since?
http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=FPK&race=7&date=2012-08-18
Try considering condition eligibility when looking at form.

[thaskalos]

It may be more useful to look at the other side of the "couldn't beat the game" coin. It is that the common denominator is they profited from selling their advice, and therefore had a vested interest in creating the impression of "expertise."

An old saying is, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." It may be a bit like colleges and universities--the majority of faculty are there because no one will hire them for their expertise in the real world.

Where is the evidence that some of these handicapping authors are not -- or were not -- beating this game?

IMO...Tom Ainslie deserves appreciation for what he brought to the art/science of handicapping.

His books were the first literal works on the subject...and they brought "sophistication" to the handicapping game...which was something that the game sorely needed at the time.

I have no problem believing that Ainslie was "beating the game"...and I also have no problem recognizing him as a "legitimate expert".

What we are forgetting is that the job of these gentlemen was not to "make us winners"...

Their job was to show us the way...like a map does to the traveler.

The effort to actually get there is the traveler's alone...

I liked Ainslie...and some of his advice rings in my ear even now.

[bob60566]

In reality, as opposed to theory, that is a brilliant statement. Anyone who has ever engaged in consistent physical training understands quite well that continual "pushing the limits" is esential to improved performance, and few things will diminish capabilities as fast as a "long rest."

There is a good reason why standardbreds are required to run a qualifying race after a relatively short "layoff." And there is a good reason why many thoroughbred trainers believe that racing is the best form of training, as in "racing horses into condition."
I am glad to see at last that someone agrees with me in the above and maybe this falls into pattern recognition???. When you handicap Mountineer and such tracks, low level claimers the above statement takes effect or would you rather handicap at major tracks with class horses with hidden workouts.

[Greyfox]

An old saying is, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." It may be a bit like colleges and universities--the majority of faculty are there because no one will hire them for their expertise in the real world.

Very debateable, and it's unfortunate that you would promote that myth.

Many faculty members of colleges and universities have tremendous expertise in the real world.
Unfortunately, their ability or interest in teaching is poor.

Yes, there may be some theoretical types in various Arts Departments (Philosophy and English) that would not survive well in the real world.

However, there are many in Faculties of Engineering, Medicine, Dentistry, Commerce, the Sciences and so on who are sought out for their expertise. As consultants they draw down handsome amounts outside what the Universities pay.

[traynor]

Very debateable, and it's unfortunate that you would promote that myth.

Many faculty members of colleges and universities have tremendous expertise in the real world.
Unfortunately, their ability or interest in teaching is poor.

Yes, there may be some theoretical types in various Arts Departments (Philosophy and English) that would not survive well in the real world.

However, there are many in Faculties of Engineering, Medicine, Dentistry, Commerce, the Sciences and so on who are sought out for their expertise. As consultants they draw down handsome amounts outside what the Universities pay.

Yup. And the only reason they are at universities is to further their consulting businesses by creating the aura of expertise in those clients who should know better. The only upside is that in most research universities the actual "teaching" tasks are turned over to TAs while the Great Ones tend to their Great Work. And their consulting practices.

[traynor]

I am glad to see at last that someone agrees with me in the above and maybe this falls into pattern recognition???. When you handicap Mountineer and such tracks, low level claimers the above statement takes effect or would you rather handicap at major tracks with class horses with hidden workouts.

Definitely pattern recognition. That may well be why people who rely on computer applications as their primary souce of information often do poorly at minor tracks.

[traynor]

Where is the evidence that some of these handicapping authors are not -- or were not -- beating this game?

IMO...Tom Ainslie deserves appreciation for what he brought to the art/science of handicapping.

His books were the first literal works on the subject...and they brought "sophistication" to the handicapping game...which was something that the game sorely needed at the time.

I have no problem believing that Ainslie was "beating the game"...and I also have no problem recognizing him as a "legitimate expert".

What we are forgetting is that the job of these gentlemen was not to "make us winners"...

Their job was to show us the way...like a map does to the traveler.

The effort to actually get there is the traveler's alone...

I liked Ainslie...and some of his advice rings in my ear even now.

I think Ainslie was great. My first form of coherent handicapping was a condensed version of the information scattered throughout his various writings. I agree wholeheartedly that the primary task of those "experts" is not to "make us winners." It is--first and foremost--to market their writings (or systems, methods, "private methods," or whatever). Regardless of how vociferously they may declare their altruistic intentions, the basic motivation is profit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with profit, nor is there anything wrong with seeking profit. However, it is often wise to add a bit to the admoniton to "consider the source" and that is to consider the motivation of the source. It is rarely altruism, and should not be (realistically) expected to be so.

That may be why so few people earning substantial incomes from wagering are inclined to give away the candy store to anyone with a pocketful of loose change, or to anyone willing to flatter them with a bit of recognition of their expert status. They don't need (and rarely want) the "recognition." They already have the money, and recognition is a poor substitiute for cash.

[thaskalos]

I think Ainslie was great. My first form of coherent handicapping was a condensed version of the information scattered throughout his various writings. I agree wholeheartedly that the primary task of those "experts" is not to "make us winners." It is--first and foremost--to market their writings (or systems, methods, "private methods," or whatever). Regardless of how vociferously they may declare their altruistic intentions, the basic motivation is profit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with profit, nor is there anything wrong with seeking profit. However, it is often wise to add a bit to the admoniton to "consider the source" and that is to consider the motivation of the source. It is rarely altruism, and should not be (realistically) expected to be so.

That may be why so few people earning substantial incomes from wagering are inclined to give away the candy store to anyone with a pocketful of loose change, or to anyone willing to flatter them with a bit of recognition of their expert status. They don't need (and rarely want) the "recognition." They already have the money, and recognition is a poor substitiute for cash.

"Altruism"..."giving away the candy store"...

These are totally unrealistic expectations...and they detract from the seriousness of a conversation.

It's not a question of altruism, or of giving away the candy store. It's about giving people value in return for the price that you charge them. And some gambling authors have done that...

I pay a swimming coach to make my son a decent swimmer...not to turn him into Michael Phelps.

[traynor]

"Altruism"..."giving away the candy store"...

These are totally unrealistic expectations...and they detract from the seriousness of a conversation.

It's not a question of altruism, or of giving away the candy store. It's about giving people value in return for the price that you charge them. And some gambling authors have done that...

I pay a swimming coach to make my son a decent swimmer...not to turn him into Michael Phelps.

And every semester tens of thousands of graduating college and university students--up to their ears in student loan debt--join the ranks of the unemployed and unemployable because the "degrees" they believed would guarantee them a decent paying job are relatively worthless in the real world. That is, they did NOT get the value in exchange for the price they were charged that they were led to believe they would get.

One of the greatest myths in the world--carefully nurtured by marketing and sales professionals--is that "you get what you pay for." Perhaps in the "kinder, gentler world" envisioned by Bush, Sr. Not in this one.

[LLHorses]

LOL at these people disrespecting Tom Ainslie. Hilarious. The guy had more horse racing and gambling knowledge in his pinkie finger than you clowns will ever have.

Here, check out some of his books over at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Ainslie/e/B001IODKVI).


That's not all of them either. Why don't you go ask Andy Beyer and Davidowitz and Quirin and Quinn and Brohamer and Steve Christ and Dick Mitchell and Mark Cramer if they read his book and thought it was good. I guarantee you every one of them is going to say yes to both questions.

Ainslie's "Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing" has been read by millions and bought by millions. It's one of the most famous books ever written on this sport.

When you big mouths accomplish something like that, I'll start listening to you. Until then you're just internet keyboard warriors. There's some on every website I go to. Proven nothing in real life but bigshots with big mouths on the internet. Too Funny. :lol:

Ainslie would probably be cleaning up at the track if he were alive today going against all these young punks who are obsessed with speed figures. :lol:

[traynor]

I don't want to wander too far off-topic. I think the point being overlooked is that very few people would attend or be interested in the outcome of horse races if there were no betting. With betting as the primary goal, the emphasis should reasonably be on winning. "Beating the game" in horse racing is a bit like don Quixote jousting with windmills--it is far easier to "beat the game" in any but the most corrupt casinos, with far less probability of protracted losses.

What does that have to do with form cycles? Basing one's knowledge on the expressed opinions of published authors or other experts is reasonable only when those opinions produce superior results. In the case of horse racing, again reasonably, those superior results should translate directly into increased profit.

[Itamaraca]

I read Ainslie's book, like just about everyone else starting out at the time. Can't really say I got much out of it. Then I started trip handicapping and realized how little Ainslie really knew about the game. Sure, he could describe a lot of things but he couldn't break down a race well enough to make money. He was clueless when it came to setups and how races played out. He provided a lot of FLUFF and TERMINOLOGY but nothing of substance. In that sense, whatever 'education' he provided was USELESS.

I'm all for providing a strong foundation when one is starting out in a new endeavor/interest. But, essentially, considering Ainslie a relative equal to Plato, say, for someone starting out in Philosophy, is a FLAT OUT JOKE.

I could care less what people do when it comes to their interests. If they want to waste their time reading this garbage rather than actually learning about the game: hey, more money for me.

[thaskalos]

I don't want to wander too far off-topic. I think the point being overlooked is that very few people would attend or be interested in the outcome of horse races if there were no betting. With betting as the primary goal, the emphasis should reasonably be on winning. "Beating the game" in horse racing is a bit like don Quixote jousting with windmills--it is far easier to "beat the game" in any but the most corrupt casinos, with far less probability of protracted losses.

What does that have to do with form cycles? Basing one's knowledge on the expressed opinions of published authors or other experts is reasonable only when those opinions produce superior results. In the case of horse racing, again reasonably, those superior results should translate directly into increased profit.

I have been frequenting tracks and OTBs for 30 years, and the two best handicappers I have ever seen in my life are both broke and out of action.

They are broke not because they cannot dissect a race better than anybody else...but because they are compulsive bettors -- who play every race and chase their losses.

Does that make them bad candidates for the position of "handicapping teacher"?

Of course not. They are both FANTASTIC handicappers...even if they are habitual losers.

Just don't take any betting advice from them.

That's why I always say that there is a WORLD of difference between a good handicapper and a good horseplayer.

Some of the best lessons I have ever learned have been taught to me by some of the biggest losers.

So, I have to disagree with your point here.

There is plenty that some losers can teach us about a horse's form...

[LLHorses]

I read Ainslie's book, like just about everyone else starting out at the time. Can't really say I got much out of it. Then I started trip handicapping and realized how little Ainslie really knew about the game. Sure, he could describe a lot of things but he couldn't break down a race well enough to make money. He was clueless when it came to setups and how races played out. He provided a lot of FLUFF and TERMINOLOGY but nothing of substance. In that sense, whatever 'education' he provided was USELESS.

I'm all for providing a strong foundation when one is starting out in a new endeavor/interest. But, essentially, considering Ainslie a relative equal to Plato, say, for someone starting out in Philosophy, is a FLAT OUT JOKE.

I could care less what people do when it comes to their interests. If they want to waste their time reading this garbage rather than actually learning about the game: hey, more money for me.







Ever hear of a mental illness called "Delusions Of Grandeur"? You might want to get yourself checked for that. :lol:



A lot of horseplayers seem to have it. :D

[thaskalos]

I read Ainslie's book, like just about everyone else starting out at the time. Can't really say I got much out of it. Then I started trip handicapping and realized how little Ainslie really knew about the game. Sure, he could describe a lot of things but he couldn't break down a race well enough to make money. He was clueless when it came to setups and how races played out. He provided a lot of FLUFF and TERMINOLOGY but nothing of substance. In that sense, whatever 'education' he provided was USELESS.

I'm all for providing a strong foundation when one is starting out in a new endeavor/interest. But, essentially, considering Ainslie a relative equal to Plato, say, for someone starting out in Philosophy, is a FLAT OUT JOKE.

I could care less what people do when it comes to their interests. If they want to waste their time reading this garbage rather than actually learning about the game: hey, more money for me.

The best thing about "trip handicapping" is that it can be counted upon to supply a convenient excuse for every one of the trip handicapper's losers...as you have so ably demonstrated with your picks in the "selections" threads.

[Tom]

To answer the original poster, I use 60 most of the time.
Seems too many are off over 30 nowadays, and 90 seems like a lot, unless workouts have been continuing at regular intervals.

[cj]

LOL at these people disrespecting Tom Ainslie. Hilarious. The guy had more horse racing and gambling knowledge in his pinkie finger than you clowns will ever have.

I meant no disrespect in my post, for the record. I was just saying the game has changed immensely. If you try to use the fundamentals he laid out many years ago, any bettor would fail miserably today.

[traynor]

I have been frequenting tracks and OTBs for 30 years, and the two best handicappers I have ever seen in my life are both broke and out of action.

They are broke not because they cannot dissect a race better than anybody else...but because they are compulsive bettors -- who play every race and chase their losses.

Does that make them bad candidates for the position of "handicapping teacher"?

Of course not. They are both FANTASTIC handicappers...even if they are habitual losers.

Just don't take any betting advice from them.

That's why I always say that there is a WORLD of difference between a good handicapper and a good horseplayer.

Some of the best lessons I have ever learned have been taught to me by some of the biggest losers.

So, I have to disagree with your point here.

There is plenty that some losers can teach us about a horse's form...

Like the man said, "A difference of opinion is what makes a horse race."

I think the solution to all the confusion is a very simple one. Ignore the admonitions to regard horse racing as a "sport" or "spectacle" or "entertainment" and look at it strictly as an opportunity to make a profit. That simple change in perspective will do wonders to clarify both intent and purpose.

I agree that there are things to be learned from losers. Mainly, what NOT to do and how NOT to do it. It is much like studying the tactics and strategies used by the losers in war. The purpose of the study is not emulation. It is avoidance of that which caused them to be losers.

[thaskalos]

Like the man said, "A difference of opinion is what makes a horse race."

I think the solution to all the confusion is a very simple one. Ignore the admonitions to regard horse racing as a "sport" or "spectacle" or "entertainment" and look at it strictly as an opportunity to make a profit. That simple change in perspective will do wonders to clarify both intent and purpose.

I agree that there are things to be learned from losers. Mainly, what NOT to do and how NOT to do it. It is much like studying the tactics and strategies used by the losers in war. The purpose of the study is not emulation. It is avoidance of that which caused them to be losers.

You can't win at the track by just trying to "emulate" the winners...I don't care WHAT Tony Robbins says...

The most important qualities that winners share cannot be seen with the naked eye...and cannot be emulated.

[traynor]

You can't win at the track by just trying to "emulate" the winners...I don't care WHAT Tony Robbins says...

The most important qualities that winners share cannot be seen with the naked eye...and cannot be emulated.

And yet people seem to believe that simply reading a book of horsey sayings and vicarious experiences will somehow magically transform them into trip handicappers or speed handicappers or whatever else. Probably goes back to Vance Packard and The Status Seekers, in which readers were led to believe that emulating the behavior and accessories of the successful would make the readers successful. It was a great year for gold Parker 51s and Brooks Brothers suits. One can only wonder at the number of attache cases that never held anything more significant than lunch.

[traynor]

I think the source of confusion for many may be in the failure to distinguish between "descriptive" and "prescriptive." Most writers are simply describing their own opinions and experiences, rather than offering prescriptions of what the reader can do to achieve an equivalent amount of success. For example, while there may be admonitions to do thus and so for generic recommendations, I don't think Beyer ever explicitly stated that The Winning Horseplayer was intended to be prescriptive (as opposed to a very entertaining description of his experiences with trip handicapping).

[traynor]

You can't win at the track by just trying to "emulate" the winners...I don't care WHAT Tony Robbins says...

The most important qualities that winners share cannot be seen with the naked eye...and cannot be emulated.

My choice of the word "emulate" rather than "imitate" was not accidental.

[thaskalos]

My choice of the word "emulate" rather than "imitate" was not accidental.
I noticed...

But isn't emulation usually done through imitation? :)

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, thanks for the insights. When you get some free time, could you please share some of your reasoning.
Of course.

The horses are raced more often at the minor tracks.

Perhaps it's because the racing menu isn't as varied as that of the major tracks...and there are more claiming races offered...which gives trainers more opportunities to enter their horses more frequently.

Or, maybe the smaller purses offer less of an incentive for the trainers to play the "waiting game".

In any case, the 30-day layoff is not as acceptable at the minor tracks, IMO...especially if the horse is in what seems to be sharp recent form.

[Maximillion]

Of course.

The horses are raced more often at the minor tracks.

Perhaps it's because the racing menu isn't as varied as that of the major tracks...and there are more claiming races offered...which gives trainers more opportunities to enter their horses more frequently.

Or, maybe the smaller purses offer less of an incentive for the trainers to play the "waiting game".

In any case, the 30-day layoff is not as acceptable at the minor tracks, IMO...especially if the horse is in what seems to be sharp recent form.

I agree.....and "sharp recent form" can be a fleeting thing for many of these....I dont want additonal "questions" when placing a bet on these type of horses.

[traynor]

I noticed...

But isn't emulation usually done through imitation? :)

Not really. Emulation is to equal and surpass, implying that one learns, then applies that learning to do even better. Imitation is simple mimicry. That is why I referred to Vance Packard. Many believed that by simply "going through the motions" and pretending to do what they saw others doing (or what they thought others were doing) they would be successful (at whatever task). It is the same mindset used in social learning. It works for some things, but betting on horses is not one of them.

I could write a book on the weird people I have encountered who thought they were expert blackjack players because they had read a book or two, practiced counting cards at the kitchen table for a couple of hours, and then believed themselves ready for serious wagering. The same type of people, with exactly the same mindset, wander around race tracks--sometimes for years--believing that the combination of reading a few books or playing with a software app makes them experts.

However, using the money out, money in calculations removes that self-perception of being experts, and all the ego-flattering, self-administered "strokes" that are associated with it. So the view of racing as a means of earning an income is replaced by a view of racing as a "grand sport" or as "entertainment" to protect the ego.

I asked a person some years ago what he did. He said he was the guitarist in a rock band. But that for money, he worked at Wal-Mart. Strange people.

[traynor]

Of course.

The horses are raced more often at the minor tracks.

Perhaps it's because the racing menu isn't as varied as that of the major tracks...and there are more claiming races offered...which gives trainers more opportunities to enter their horses more frequently.

Or, maybe the smaller purses offer less of an incentive for the trainers to play the "waiting game".

In any case, the 30-day layoff is not as acceptable at the minor tracks, IMO...especially if the horse is in what seems to be sharp recent form.

Trainers get a share of purses, yes, so they have an interest in horses in their charge winning. However, they are paid monthly "training fees." The more horses in their stable, the more training fees. For many trainers, the training fees--rather than purses won--are their primary source of income.

Horses generally tend to race more frequently at minor tracks because that may be their primary form of conditioning. Rather than frequent workouts with exercise riders, their training regimens are almost exclusively races. Once one gets used to the system, it is fairly easy to predict when an entry is "well-meant" and when it is simply in the race for a workout. A bit of study of the trainers and trainer patterns at smaller tracks can be quite profitable.

[cj]

Trainers get a share of purses, yes, so they have an interest in horses in their charge winning. However, they are paid monthly "training fees." The more horses in their stable, the more training fees. For many trainers, the training fees--rather than purses won--are their primary source of income.

Horses generally tend to race more frequently at minor tracks because that may be their primary form of conditioning. Rather than frequent workouts with exercise riders, their training regimens are almost exclusively races. Once one gets used to the system, it is fairly easy to predict when an entry is "well-meant" and when it is simply in the race for a workout. A bit of study of the trainers and trainer patterns at smaller tracks can be quite profitable.

It still seems to me that you have to race more often at smaller tracks to recoup some of those "training fees" for the owner, or you won't be training for that owner very long.

[traynor]

It still seems to me that you have to race more often at smaller tracks to recoup some of those "training fees" for the owner, or you won't be training for that owner very long.

Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite--it is frequently used as a tax shelter. That is, something superficially intended to be "profitable" but designed to offset money earned elsewhere. The IRS apparently frowns on the practice and has instituted policies to diminish its effectiveness, but owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money.

[cj]

Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite--it is frequently used as a tax shelter. That is, something superficially intended to be "profitable" but designed to offset money earned elsewhere. The IRS apparently frowns on the practice and has instituted policies to diminish its effectiveness, but owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money.

I don't think it is that way at all at the smaller tracks, especially racinos.

[tbwinner]

Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite--it is frequently used as a tax shelter. That is, something superficially intended to be "profitable" but designed to offset money earned elsewhere. The IRS apparently frowns on the practice and has instituted policies to diminish its effectiveness, but owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money.

This may have been true 20 years ago, but less than 1% of owners today are using this business for a tax shelter purposes.

[PICSIX]

You can't win at the track by just trying to "emulate" the winners...I don't care WHAT Tony Robbins says...

The most important qualities that winners share cannot be seen with the naked eye...and cannot be emulated.

Agree 100%!!!! Winners have that intangible quality, you know it when you see it but you cannot even begin to explain it!

Take soccer, for example. Two offensive players can have equal talents but one of them has that nose for the goal & will score in clutch situations. The second player just can't quite get it done even though his talents are equal.

[traynor]

This may have been true 20 years ago, but less than 1% of owners today are using this business for a tax shelter purposes.

That all depends on your definition of "tax shelter." In the formal IRS definition, it would be an activity conducted solely for tax benefits. In horse racing, the tax "sheltering" effect is the same for owners without being explicit. That is, it cannot be directly proven that the ONLY reason the owner engages in the ownership of race horses is to avoid taxes.

I have no idea where you get your figures from, but stating a definite percentages implies that you have definitive information on the topic from some reliable, reputable source. Please share that source with the readers.

Again, it could reasonably be argued that ANY owner of race horses who does not generate a profit on that activity is enjoying the benefit of the "tax sheltering" aspect of that activity. Simple semantics.

[traynor]

I don't think it is that way at all at the smaller tracks, especially racinos.

It would be interesting to find some reputable, reliable figures on the number of owners of race horses who actually derive a profit (directly) from that ownership. That would, naturally, exclude uncontrollable variables like wagering, social benefits, etc.

I think the average bettor would be quite surprised to discover the actual cost of owning a race horse, when contrasted with the earnings actually derived directly from that ownership.

That is not to say that some owners do not profit from owning race horses. It is to say that earning a profit is not their primary interest in owning race horses.

[Tom]

Again, it could reasonably be argued that ANY owner of race horses who does not generate a profit on that activity is enjoying the benefit of the "tax sheltering" aspect of that activity. Simple semantics.

But data would go so much further. Everyone's opinion sounds reasonable to himself.

How may trainers have you surveyed, at which tracks, and how recently?

[traynor]

Agree 100%!!!! Winners have that intangible quality, you know it when you see it but you cannot even begin to explain it!

Take soccer, for example. Two offensive players can have equal talents but one of them has that nose for the goal & will score in clutch situations. The second player just can't quite get it done even though his talents are equal.

That is an interesting statement. An inability to explain something is generally based on incomplete understanding or incomplete description. Something that is "known without knowing how it is known" is usually a subjective interpretation of a subjective perception that may be quite different from reality, and quite different from the subjective interpretation of a subjective perception made by others.

The difference between subjective impressions and objective reality is one that successful bettors have learned to distinguish through an extended process of self-calibration. That is, a process of continually refining the decision-making criteria used to increase the overall accuracy. That, in turn, requires that the criteria used be made explicit.

[Greyfox]

It would be interesting to find some reputable, reliable figures on the number of owners of race horses who actually derive a profit (directly) from that ownership. .

The Daily Racing Form gives each horses earnings for the year.
Factor the trainer,vet, travel expenses and you can get a rough idea.
(Of course there are expenses in the first couple of years of colt's life when no income is coming in.)
Most owners aren't lucky enough to get an "I'll Have Another" in their barn.
For many owning a horse is a losing proposition.

[traynor]

But data would go so much further. Everyone's opinion sounds reasonable to himself.

How may trainers have you surveyed, at which tracks, and how recently?

How many trainers have YOU surveyed, at which tracks, and how recently? And how many of the respondents can you guarantee provided you with accurate, objective "information" uncorrupted by the design of the research instrument?

I said it would be interesting to find some reputable, reliable figures on the topic. I did not say I had such figures. I also--quite clearly--stated my personal opinion, prefaced with the words "I think."

[traynor]

The Daily Racing Form gives each horses earnings for the year.
Factor the trainer,vet, travel expenses and you can get a rough idea.
(Of course there are expenses in the first couple of years of colt's life when no income is coming in.)
Most owners aren't lucky enough to get an "I'll Have Another" in their barn.
For many owning a horse is a losing proposition.

It is in the "factor the trainer,vet, travel expenses, etc." part that the process breaks down. An accurate evaluation would require (in the real world) the profit/loss tax documents filed with the IRS by every owner, and only then if the document(s) were not confounded by the inclusion of other positive or negative cash flows associated with the ownership of a race horse.

[traynor]

A quick, easy (and in PowerPoint, no less) explanation of why one should be skeptical of many "statistics" offered as "proof" of something the source wants to "prove."

http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf

Statistics are interesting, if used appropriately, and if they pass the first and second tests of data routinely used by business analysts (and that should probably be used by bettors interested in winning):

1) Does this stuff make sense?

2) Does this stuff really mean what we think it means?

[cj]

I was responding to the part about owning horses being some sort of status symbol. If you've been to CharlesTown, or Delaware, or Parx, that really isn't the case 99% of the time. At Saratoga or Delmar, sure.

[traynor]

I was responding to the part about owning horses being some sort of status symbol. If you've been to CharlesTown, or Delaware, or Parx, that really isn't the case 99% of the time. At Saratoga or Delmar, sure.

I have been to quite a few minor tracks, including CharlesTown and Delaware Park, and I think it is more a case that the ownership of race horses is used as a display of wealth and social standing rather than a profit-making opportunity.

That is not a casual opinion, nor is it based on casual observation. Reality is that making a profit owning race horse is substantially more difficult than making a profit betting on those horses--and that is considered by most as next to impossible. I cannot immediately recall even one instance in which owning race horses was suggested because of the potential profit (directly from earnings) involved. Not just personally, but in business, and in the immense literature on that topic.

If you have some definitive information to the contrary, I would really like to see it. If there is a profit potential in race horse ownership, it should be fairly easy to set up an LLC and sell shares to racing fans interested in such. I would like to see the prospectus and projected earnings for such a project. I would even volunteer to help write the prospectus--if some definitive figures indicating profit potential can be produced.

[cj]

I have been to quite a few minor tracks, including CharlesTown and Delaware Park, and I think it is more a case that the ownership of race horses is used as a display of wealth and social standing rather than a profit-making opportunity.

That is not a casual opinion, nor is it based on casual observation. Reality is that making a profit owning race horse is substantially more difficult than making a profit betting on those horses--and that is considered by most as next to impossible. I cannot immediately recall even one instance in which owning race horses was suggested because of the potential profit (directly from earnings) involved. Not just personally, but in business, and in the immense literature on that topic.

If you have some definitive information to the contrary, I would really like to see it. If there is a profit potential in race horse ownership, it should be fairly easy to set up an LLC and sell shares to racing fans interested in such. I would like to see the prospectus and projected earnings for such a project. I would even volunteer to help write the prospectus--if some definitive figures indicating profit potential can be produced.

I don't see a lot of status symbols walking around CharlesTown. I know a bunch of owners there, and they are in it for the money and to win races. I'm not saying they all expect to win, but they aren't letting horses sit around the barn for 40 days waiting for just the right spot either.

[Greyfox]

the ownership of race horses is used as a display of wealth and social standing rather than a profit-making opportunity.

.

Really.
At our local track if a man walks by and someone says he owns "so and so,"
most of us don't give a tinkers damn.
If what you say is true, I don't know anyone who is impressed by that sort of display of wealth and social standing.

[traynor]

I don't see a lot of status symbols walking around CharlesTown. I know a bunch of owners there, and they are in it for the money and to win races. I'm not saying they all expect to win, but they aren't letting horses sit around the barn for 40 days waiting for just the right spot either.

"Status" depends on context. "Conspicuous consumption" can range from a week in Bermuda or Maui (probably the most boring places on the planet) to chrome tailpipes or rims on a pickup. It all depends on the context, audience, and purpose. Among the owners of race horses at a minor track, it is unlikely that many would openly admit to maintaining horses as a status symbol--that would imply a lack of self-confidence and a desire to elevate one's position and standing in the eyes of others. That, however, does little or nothing to alter the realities of the situation.

It would be the equivalent of a bettor declaring himself or herself a "winner" because she or he wins a few races--despite horrendous and ongoing losses over many years. One of the nasty side effects of too much of that Tony Robbins "positive thinking" nonsense. Sartin advocates are particularly prone to that view.

In both cases, the bottom line (net profit or loss) expresses reality--not the statements made by the participants about that activity.

[traynor]

Really.
At our local track if a man walks by and someone says he owns "so and so,"
most of us don't give a tinkers damn.
If what you say is true, I don't know anyone who is impressed by that sort of display of wealth and social standing.

Peers. Not the general public, who are considered beneath the interest of such Very Important People. No one really cares what they think.

[Greyfox]

Peers. Not the general public, who are considered beneath the interest of such Very Important People. No one really cares what they think.

Really. Owners are a "hoity toity" group eh.

[rastajenk]

To answer the original poster, I use 60 most of the time.
Seems too many are off over 30 nowadays, and 90 seems like a lot, unless workouts have been continuing at regular intervals.Nice try at re-direction, Tom, but this thread seems hopelessly off the rails. :p

I've met more owners than all the contributors to this thread combined, and traynor's cocky assertions about them are some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and/or baseless observations I've seen in this community, and that's saying a lot. There is a very wide range of reasons to engage in horse ownership, and sweeping generalizations reveal more about those making them than those who are being generalized.

[thaskalos]

I have been to quite a few minor tracks, including CharlesTown and Delaware Park, and I think it is more a case that the ownership of race horses is used as a display of wealth and social standing rather than a profit-making opportunity.

That is not a casual opinion, nor is it based on casual observation. Reality is that making a profit owning race horse is substantially more difficult than making a profit betting on those horses--and that is considered by most as next to impossible. I cannot immediately recall even one instance in which owning race horses was suggested because of the potential profit (directly from earnings) involved. Not just personally, but in business, and in the immense literature on that topic.

If you have some definitive information to the contrary, I would really like to see it. If there is a profit potential in race horse ownership, it should be fairly easy to set up an LLC and sell shares to racing fans interested in such. I would like to see the prospectus and projected earnings for such a project. I would even volunteer to help write the prospectus--if some definitive figures indicating profit potential can be produced.

Some of what you say cannot be taken seriously...unless you are intentionally exaggerating just to make a point.

It is easier to make money by BETTING on horses than it is by owning them?

How can you possibly be serious about this?

We don't even know if there is 1% of the horse-betting population out there that beats the horses on a regular basis by betting on them...and you think that being an owner is a more difficult endeavor?

Of course no one would ever suggest horse ownership as a money-making venture. That's hardly surprising, given the risk envolved. Would anyone suggest BETTING on horses as a reasonable investment option?

IMO...the small-time horse owners at the minor tracks are not doing it for ego-gratification. They are doing it because they are hooked on the "gambling" aspect of the game...just like the horseplayers are.

Most of them have no doubt started as players themselves...and were convinced somewhere down the line that "owning the casino" was better than being on the other side of the table.

Some view horse ownership as an extenuation of their careers as gamblers. They think that there are "secrets" out there...that only the "insiders" are privy to. I fell for that myself...

And then, once you get into it, it is hard to get out...as all the horseplayers have themselves found out.

In that aspect...the owners are as "hooked" on this game as the players are. They just prefer to play it a little differently...

It's not a matter of "prestige"...

I see the prestige in owning a Stakes horse or two...

But prestige in owning a few bottom claimers at Portland Meadows or Fairmont Park?

[traynor]

Really. Owners are a "hoity toity" group eh.

No more than the typical doctor, banker president, new car dealer, senior business executive, successful entrepreneur, or millionaire. No more than the people in the VIP box or a private section of the turf club.

That whole idea that they are "just plain folks" is a carefully nurtured myth milked to the max for its business advantage. When you encounter one who you can "identify with, because they are just like you" it is fairly certain that your chain is being yanked by an expert at manipulation.

I didn't make the world the way it is. I just have a greater interest in how it works than most.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't see a lot of status symbols walking around CharlesTown. I know a bunch of owners there, and they are in it for the money and to win races. I'm not saying they all expect to win, but they aren't letting horses sit around the barn for 40 days waiting for just the right spot either.

It's funny that someone is arguing the other side of this.

[traynor]

Nice try at re-direction, Tom, but this thread seems hopelessly off the rails. :p

I've met more owners than all the contributors to this thread combined, and traynor's cocky assertions about them are some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and/or baseless observations I've seen in this community, and that's saying a lot. There is a very wide range of reasons to engage in horse ownership, and sweeping generalizations reveal more about those making them than those who are being generalized.

Isn't it great that whatever one says can be expressed as if it were true, without a shred of credible support? I expressed my personal, subjective opinion. You expressed your personal, subjective opinion. Not much difference, other than the rather grandiose statement that you have "met more owners than all the contributors to this thread combined."

Perhaps you could follow Tom's suggestion, and produce credible evidence of such? A list of affidavits from those owners stating they are personally acquainted with you would be a good beginning. Or are we expected to simply accept such statements as more than your personal, subjective opinion?

[Solid_Gold]

Traynor, I know you from another site and you didn't know your ass from 3rd base there either.

Stop with your BS.

[traynor]

Some of what you say cannot be taken seriously...unless you are intentionally exaggerating just to make a point.

It is easier to make money by BETTING on horses than it is by owning them?

How can you possibly be serious about this?

We don't even know if there is 1% of the horse-betting population out there that beats the horses on a regular basis by betting on them...and you think that being an owner is a more difficult endeavor?

Of course no one would ever suggest horse ownership as a money-making venture. That's hardly surprising, given the risk envolved. Would anyone suggest BETTING on horses as a reasonable investment option?

IMO...the small-time horse owners at the minor tracks are not doing it for ego-gratification. They are doing it because they are hooked on the "gambling" aspect of the game...just like the horseplayers are.

Most of them have no doubt started as players themselves...and were convinced somewhere down the line that "owning the casino" was better than being on the other side of the table.

Some view horse ownership as an extenuation of their careers as gamblers. They think that there are "secrets" out there...that only the "insiders" are privy to. I fell for that myself...

And then, once you get into it, it is hard to get out...as all the horseplayers have themselves found out.

In that aspect...the owners are as "hooked" on this game as the players are. They just prefer to play it a little differently...

It's not a matter of "prestige"...

I see the prestige in owning a Stakes horse or two...

But prestige in owning a few bottom claimers at Portland Meadows or Fairmont Park?

I am quite serious about it. Perhaps I associate with a different group of people than most bettors, but earning a profit by wagering on horse races is definitely not considered some impossibly difficult task.

Perhaps those people were missed by the research that popped up the "1%" figure mentioned?

A former employee of mine (who has been unemployed for six months or more) recently held a barbecue, at which he served his admiring, very impressed guests with $26 a pound yellowfin tuna--purchased with his girl friend's food stamps. "Prestige" and the desire to impress manifest differently depending on context, audience, and purpose.

If you have some spare time, you would probably be interested in a book by one of my former psych professors, Bob Cialdini.
http://micco.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Robert-Cialdini-INFLUENCE-Science-and-Practice.pdf

Well worth reading.

[traynor]

Traynor, I know you from another site and you didn't know your ass from 3rd base there either.

Stop with your BS.

I know you from way back when, and I understand fully why anyone who reads your postings dismisses the content as irrelevant nonsense.

[Greyfox]

Isn't it great that whatever one says can be expressed as if it were true, without a shred of credible support?

rastajenk said that you make sweeping generalizations that are "misinformed, inaccurate and baseless."

His support are the posts that you've been making on this board in this thread.
We can draw our own conclusions as to whether or not rastajenk was correct.

Personally, I think that you are a smart guy who has an education that most here would envy.
Unfortunately, your comments about teachers and Universities, shows that you are not very appreciative of what you've received at various institutions.
Also, you do make sweeping generalizations. They may have a grain of truth in part, but for the most part they do miss the mark.
I suspect that your strength is playing the ponies and I respect your comments when they are limited to that area.

[traynor]

rastajenk said that you make sweeping generalizations that are "misinformed, inaccurate and baseless."

His support are the posts that you've been making on this board in this thread.
We can draw our own conclusions as to whether or not rastajenk was correct.

Personally, I think that you are a smart guy who has an education that most here would envy.
Unfortunately, your comments about teachers and Universities, shows that you are not very appreciative of what you've received at various institutions.
Also, you do make sweeping generalizations. They may have a grain of truth in part, but for the most part they do miss the mark.
I suspect that your strength is playing the ponies and I respect your comments when they are limited to that area.

Specifically, the comment I was addressing was:
"I've met more owners than all the contributors to this thread combined, and traynor's cocky assertions about them are some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and/or baseless observations I've seen in this community, and that's saying a lot. There is a very wide range of reasons to engage in horse ownership, and sweeping generalizations reveal more about those making them than those who are being generalized."

That sounds to me like a pretty sweeping generalization.

[Greyfox]

Specifically, the comment I was addressing was:
"I've met more owners than all the contributors to this thread combined, and traynor's cocky assertions about them are some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and/or baseless observations I've seen in this community, and that's saying a lot. There is a very wide range of reasons to engage in horse ownership, and sweeping generalizations reveal more about those making them than those who are being generalized."

That sounds to me like a pretty sweeping generalization.

rastajenk, with respect to those red remarks above, was using hyperbole.

The main point was his comment that you are perceived by him as making some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and baseless observations that he has encountered on this board.
The rest of us are in a position to judge the merit of rastajenk's opinion by simply reviewing your posts here.

[traynor]

rastajenk, with respect to those red remarks above, was using hyperbole.

The main point was his comment that you are perceived by him as making some of the most misinformed, inaccurate, and baseless observations that he has encountered on this board.
The rest of us are in a position to judge the merit of rastajenk's opinion by simply reviewing your posts here.

More specifically, the comments are a generalization on the extent of contributors having met or being acquainted with the owners of race horses. I think (my personal opinion, so labeled) that is one of the "most misinformed, inaccurate, and baseless observations" I have ever encountred.

I am not particularly interested in your statement that the "rest of us are in a position to judge the merit of rastajenk's opinion," nor in the attempted impression that you are a spokesperson for everyone on this forum, and they should fall into line behind you in lockstep with your opinion or observations.

We are all simply expressing internal, subjective opinions with little or no evidence of correlation with external reality. The world you see, the world that rastajenk sees, and the world that I see, are all fundamentally different, interpreted through lenses of subjective belief, experience, and opinion. NONE accurately represent external reality. They are only opinions.

[Tom]

That whole idea that they are "just plain folks" is a carefully nurtured myth milked to the max for its business advantage. When you encounter one who you can "identify with, because they are just like you" it is fairly certain that your chain is being yanked by an expert at manipulation.

That sounds to me like a pretty sweeping generalization.

Thank you for commenting on your own post.

[Greyfox]

I am not particularly interested in your statement that the "rest of us are in a position to judge the merit of rastajenk's opinion," nor in the attempted impression that you are a spokesperson for everyone on this forum, and they should fall into line behind you in lockstep with your opinion or observations.

I am not the spokesperson for anyone on this forum but myself.
Members of this board are brighter than you give them credit for if you think that they are going to fall lockstep in behind me or anyone else.


We are all simply expressing internal, subjective opinions with little or no evidence of correlation with external reality. The world you see, the world that rastajenk sees, and the world that I see, are all fundamentally different, interpreted through lenses of subjective belief, experience, and opinion. NONE accurately represent external reality. They are only opinions.

Textbook Philosophy 101. (If even that level.)

[VastinMT]

Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite . . . owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money.

I've actually been trying to find a way to incorporate this in my handicapping. Making this assumption is leading to some interesting ideas about trainer intent for me, but nothing to use yet, if ever.

Provocative ideas are like that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've actually been trying to find a way to incorporate this in my handicapping. Making this assumption is leading to some interesting ideas about trainer intent for me, but nothing to use yet, if ever.

Provocative ideas are like that.

Is the "this" the following? "Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite . . . owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money."

If so, how would this impact one's handicapping? I'd love to hear one example. Thanks.

[bob60566]

I've actually been trying to find a way to incorporate this in my handicapping. Making this assumption is leading to some interesting ideas about trainer intent for me, but nothing to use yet, if ever.

Provocative ideas are like that.

What ideas do you have at present on trainer intent at smaller tracks and with form cycle or intent based on past performance pecentages when winning.

[traynor]

I am not the spokesperson for anyone on this forum but myself.
Members of this board are brighter than you give them credit for if you think that they are going to fall lockstep in behind me or anyone else.



Textbook Philosophy 101. (If even that level.)

Whatever. I'm bored with this nonsense.

I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the members of this board, and for horse players in general. I only wish that more of those who have knowledge on the subject would willingly share that knowledge. Preferably for the benefit of all, rather than for personal aggrandizement.

[thaskalos]

Whatever. I'm bored with this nonsense.

I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the members of this board, and for horse players in general. I only wish that more of those who have knowledge on the subject would willingly share that knowledge. Preferably for the benefit of all, rather than for personal aggrandizement.

Well...after your recent comment alleging that "those who can, do...and those who can't, teach"...I doubt that we'll see too many handicappers lining up to share their knowledge. :)

[rastajenk]

rastajenk, with respect to those red remarks above, was using hyperbole.No, I wasn't.

I license them. It's my job.

[Maximillion]

Talk about an unusual form cycle...Barbatina, the winner of yesterdays 2nd race at Ellis. Nine year old mare returns from an 8 month layoff and wins(off 3 dreadful races prior to it)

What made it interesting, she did the same thing last year (11 month layoff)....
on the exact same day. :)

Seriously though,I have read here and elsewhere that fillies and mares(even "aged" ones) may have different form cycles or patterns.

Interested on thoughts on this?

[mountainman]

I don't like to see layoffs of more than 4 weeks (28 days) at the minor tracks. And the sharper the horse looks on paper...the more suspicious the layoff becomes, as far as I am concerned.

Playing the minor tracks is not the same as betting at the "major leagues"...and the horseplayer had better take notice of some of the unique characteristics that the minor tracks share.

I will seldom wager on a horse to repeat a winning effort off of a month-long layoff...and I am also a lot more forgiving of a horse's dull recent effort (or two) when I am assessing its current form.

Handicapping at the minor tracks is a whole new ballgame...IMO.

When sizing up short -and even intermediate-layoffs at smaller tracks, the condition book is often the key factor. A horse may have been absent simply because its spot failed to fill (or OVERFILLED with the animal excluded). Or the connections might have waited for a specific "date" condition. Another innocuous reason for a rest would be the barn having another horse for the same specific race (Dale Baird NEVER deviated from rotating stock pointed for the same condition. It didn't matter which horse was in better form or crying to run.) Also, outfits not stabled on the grounds tend to space a horse's races more than barns quartered at the track. Invading trainers, in fact, often "pull" the entry on a live runner simply because a stablemate's event failed to fill, and
they won't make the drive to run just one horse.

I'm not sure most handicappers realize when dealing with comebackers and form -cycles that the underlying concern should ALWAYS be soundess, and some attempt, however speculative, to assess a horse's soundness is a vital part of the handicapping process.

[Grits]

Whatever. I'm bored with this nonsense.

I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the members of this board, and for horse players in general. I only wish that more of those who have knowledge on the subject would willingly share that knowledge. Preferably for the benefit of all, rather than for personal aggrandizement.

I'm sorry, but you don't have a corner in the knowledge department here. Of late, no one has spent more time typing and droning on for the above stated purpose than yourself.

You think you're bored? Try the rest of us.

I'm inclined to feel you are not an expert as to why anyone chooses to own horses, buy property or anything else for investment, for tax breaks, or whatever. THIS one little note told far more about you--you know, the old "company you keep" adage, (poor dude, though, down and out, but still out to impress) -- than your pysch professor, whom you suggest we all read, could ever teach.

"A former employee". How very trite. :lol:

Y'all carry on now; I'm going to the races.

A former employee of mine (who has been unemployed for six months or more) recently held a barbecue, at which he served his admiring, very impressed guests with $26 a pound yellowfin tuna--purchased with his girl friend's food stamps. "Prestige" and the desire to impress manifest differently depending on context, audience, and purpose.

If you have some spare time, you would probably be interested in a book by one of my former psych professors, Bob Cialdini.
http://micco.se/wp-content/uploads/...nd-Practice.pdf (http://micco.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Robert-Cialdini-INFLUENCE-Science-and-Practice.pdf)

[VeryOldMan]

When sizing up short -and even intermediate-layoffs at smaller tracks, the condition book is often the key factor. A horse may have been absent simply because its spot failed to fill (or OVERFILLED with the animal excluded). Or the connections might have waited for a specific "date" condition. Another innocuous reason for a rest would be the barn having another horse for the same specific race (Dale Baird NEVER deviated from rotating stock pointed for the same condition. It didn't matter which horse was in better form or crying to run.) Also, outfits not stabled on the grounds tend to space a horse's races more than barns quartered at the track. Invading trainers, in fact, often "pull" the entry on a live runner simply because a stablemate's event failed to fill, and
they won't make the drive to run just one horse.



I wouldn't mind some more education on this point - my only few data points are from a friend who is a micro scale owner-breeder and I know that there were times his fillies (Maryland based) went longer between races than he wanted because of fields not filling and the vagaries of the condition book. Are there particular tracks, types of races, times of year, conditions, etc. that are most susceptible to this type of involuntarily long layoff that we should keep in mind?

[castaway01]

I wouldn't mind some more education on this point - my only few data points are from a friend who is a micro scale owner-breeder and I know that there were times his fillies (Maryland based) went longer between races than he wanted because of fields not filling and the vagaries of the condition book. Are there particular tracks, types of races, times of year, conditions, etc. that are most susceptible to this type of involuntarily long layoff that we should keep in mind?

Very Old Man, how was Man O' War back in the day? If he was laid off more than a week, did you panic and try to find a bookmaker who would lay 8-1, dagnabit, or did you just listen to more Al Jolson and not worry about it?

[VeryOldMan]

Very Old Man, how was Man O' War back in the day? If he was laid off more than a week, did you panic and try to find a bookmaker who would lay 8-1, dagnabit, or did you just listen to more Al Jolson and not worry about it?

Get off my lawn and get back to my question! :)

[RXB]

When sizing up short -and even intermediate-layoffs at smaller tracks, the condition book is often the key factor. A horse may have been absent simply because its spot failed to fill (or OVERFILLED with the animal excluded). Or the connections might have waited for a specific "date" condition. Another innocuous reason for a rest would be the barn having another horse for the same specific race (Dale Baird NEVER deviated from rotating stock pointed for the same condition. It didn't matter which horse was in better form or crying to run.) Also, outfits not stabled on the grounds tend to space a horse's races more than barns quartered at the track. Invading trainers, in fact, often "pull" the entry on a live runner simply because a stablemate's event failed to fill, and
they won't make the drive to run just one horse.

I'm not sure most handicappers realize when dealing with comebackers and form -cycles that the underlying concern should ALWAYS be soundess, and some attempt, however speculative, to assess a horse's soundness is a vital part of the handicapping process.

Excellent post, Mark.

[castaway01]

I wouldn't mind some more education on this point - my only few data points are from a friend who is a micro scale owner-breeder and I know that there were times his fillies (Maryland based) went longer between races than he wanted because of fields not filling and the vagaries of the condition book. Are there particular tracks, types of races, times of year, conditions, etc. that are most susceptible to this type of involuntarily long layoff that we should keep in mind?

I can't speak to what you specifically refer to because I don't know who can't get their horses into races because of their condition book. However, you do ask a good question. I'll say this.

Sometimes you might see a trainer who goes 8/35 off 6-month or longer layoffs. Good percentage, right, more than 20 percent wins. However, if you look more closely, the trainer is actually 7/19 with turf horses after 6-month layoffs. That's because the trainer sits his horses out from when turf racing closes in the fall but has the horses ready when it opens in the spring at the same track, yet runs some dirt horses off layoffs that he isn't really trying with. However, focusing on the turf horses (usually in the spring) leads to some nice profits.

Sometimes it's second off the layoff.

That's when layoffs actually mean something and when you can make some money with them.

[VeryOldMan]

Sometimes you might see a trainer who goes 8/35 off 6-month or longer layoffs. Good percentage, right, more than 20 percent wins. However, if you look more closely, the trainer is actually 7/19 with turf horses after 6-month layoffs. That's because the trainer sits his horses out from when turf racing closes in the fall but has the horses ready when it opens in the spring at the same track, yet runs some dirt horses off layoffs that he isn't really trying with. However, focusing on the turf horses (usually in the spring) leads to some nice profits.

Good stuff, thanks for the response.

[cj's dad]

When a horse runs a big race, you're supposed to give them a lot of time to recover from it or they might bounce. 4 to 5 weeks at least.

LLHorses:

If the horse is not injured, what's so wrong with competing again in approximately 21 days?

When I first got involved in the late 80's, it was common at laurel and Pimlico for horses to race every 14-21 days.

[jorcus99]

I wouldn't mind some more education on this point - my only few data points are from a friend who is a micro scale owner-breeder and I know that there were times his fillies (Maryland based) went longer between races than he wanted because of fields not filling and the vagaries of the condition book. Are there particular tracks, types of races, times of year, conditions, etc. that are most susceptible to this type of involuntarily long layoff that we should keep in mind?

I listen to trainer interviews every chance I get and this seems to be one of the biggest problems they have. The turf horses are obvious problems as they get taken off or they over fill and the horse ends up on the AE list. The other conditions they complain about are the ALW nw 3x. Most of those races do not seem to fill which leaves the optional claimer or overnight stakes for a horse that you do not want to drop in for a tag. At some tracks it's hard to get a ALW NW 2x to fill and it's never at the distance you want to run. The better the horse the harder it is to find a race without shipping.

[turninforhome10]

I listen to trainer interviews every chance I get and this seems to be one of the biggest problems they have. The turf horses are obvious problems as they get taken off or they over fill and the horse ends up on the AE list. The other conditions they complain about are the ALW nw 3x. Most of those races do not seem to fill which leaves the optional claimer or overnight stakes for a horse that you do not want to drop in for a tag. At some tracks it's hard to get a ALW NW 2x to fill and it's never at the distance you want to run. The better the horse the harder it is to find a race without shipping.
When training, my boss called these bear traps. You have a horse who just won his N2x and when the n3x finally goes you are facing 2 or 3 old class horses who have won stakes looking to run without a tag. Managing turf horses and old class horses with a n2x win are some of the toughest to find races for and did a lot of traveling to Chicago and Minnesota when running at Prairie Meadows.
Sometimes with these types of horses, it can be a challenge to keep them fit, when you are having trouble finding races to go. It never fails that when the horse is thriving the races don't fill and when the horse gets a problem 2 or 3 races will go with 5 or 6 head.
These are the kind of races where you can find horses that might be running because the trainer a)does not want to loose the horse so they are running over their head. b) prepping for something else next out c) no other condition eligibility.
This is especially true when dealing with accomplished fillies and mares that have residual sale value because of family or racing record. You can be forced to run a mare over their head due to economic factors including pedigree and owners intent to keep for breeding purposes.
On a side note regarding mares. The biggest coup I ever saw at a sale was this.A lady I know found an IA bred mare by Storm Boot out of a multiple stakes producing and stakes winning mare running at MNR for a 5k tag. The filly was claimed from Prairie and ended up at the bottom in WV. The lady claimed the mare for 5k. Took her home fattened her up and ran her back through the Kee Nov sale for 63k. 2 months work and netted around 55k for her trouble. The mare was a star in IA, but an IA bred everywhere else, that is except when being paraded in front of KY breeders.

[VastinMT]

Is the "this" the following? "Most owners--especially at smaller tracks--are not motivated by profit from racing. Quite the opposite . . . owning a stable of thoroughbreds is often more a display of wealth and social status than a way to make money."

If so, how would this impact one's handicapping? I'd love to hear one example. Thanks.

Nothing yet, Mike, if ever. I'm just thinking that some patterns of trainer intent that I've messed with often break off into unprofitability sharply, and I'm trying to account for it, other than saying it's just a reversion to mean, or that others caught the pattern.

[pondman]

Is there some consensus as to what constitutes the number of days a layoff should be such that the first race back would be considered the start of a new form cycle?

The # of days shouldn't be the primary variable-- at least not for me. I'd rather look at the time of the year and age, and use just a little intuition. For example, did an injury occurs as a 2 year old, especially if the PP indicates a disaster. But now the horse is a smoking hot 3 year old with 8 weeks of works and ready to break it's maiden. The owner thought enough of the horse to dump another $15,000 into it's training. These are plays for me. It doesn't matter to me if it's been off for 6 months or a year. If it's ready, it's ready.

[pondman]

That whole idea that they are "just plain folks" is a carefully nurtured myth milked to the max for its business advantage. When you encounter one who you can "identify with, because they are just like you" it is fairly certain that your chain is being yanked by an expert at manipulation..

For whatever reason, I like this.

You can never underestimate the ego of a high dollar stable owner. Money does give them the ability to have winning horses-- at all cost. There are plenty of fables in the industry, rags to riches stories floating around horse racing. But the overwhelming majority of owners never make a dime on their horses. And the ones who do, don't make it at the window.

[Gamblor]

On the "horses need a layoff after a tough run" theory, over here in Australia horses routinely back-up and race again.

One of our greatest ever trainers, Bart Cummings, to win our greatest race the Melbourne Cup (3200m) advocated having 10,000m in their legs of race distance in the prep prior to racing in the Melbourne Cup.

The Cup is always the first Tuesday in November, horses have for decades backed-up from racing on the Saturday to win the Cup on the Tuesday.

[classhandicapper]

Is there some consensus as to what constitutes the number of days a layoff should be such that the first race back would be considered the start of a new form cycle? Though I'd like to hear some thoughts about the topic in general, I'm particularly interested in low end tracks.

I'm not a horseman and my untrained mind is telling me that 30 days is sufficient if there was no significant injury. The DRF uses 45 days. What generally makes sense from the standpoint of the horse (I know they're individuals and one size won't fit all but where do most of them fit)? Or, am I asking the wrong question and some other factors need to be considered?

Thanks for the assistance.

I would say anything within 2 months could be considered a period where the trainer was looking for an appropriate spot or the horse was being given a mild freshening. You may want to shorten that up a bit for cheaper horses and get trainer specific when you have the information.

Once you start getting out to 3 months, then there almost certainly were some physical issues that kept the horse out of training and you dealing with more of an unknown as to current form that might be horse and trainer specific.

[classhandicapper]

My view on tough races is that what was true 30 years ago is still true.

The downside of a horse's form cycle is partly the result of wearing down after a series of tough races and/or a lot of shipping. Horse eventually get tired and accumulate minor injuries (just like other professional athletes towards the end of a long season).

The idea behind "spacing" is to extend period of freshness and give the horse time to recover from minor injuries between races so they don't accumulate into something more significant that will eventually lead to the down cycle.

Finding the balance between trying to keep the horse fresh and healthy and earning money on the track is the tough part because there isn't an exact formula that will work the same for all horses and all training approaches.

One major major difference many years ago was that a lot of horses were "raced" into top condition instead of "worked" there off a layoff. So they had more races for that reason. The other is that everyone was racing their horses heavily. It wasn't like a heavily raced horse with 5 tough races horse had to compete against all fresh horses that were moving towards their peak form at the end of the season the way it would be now at the end of the season.

[Bill Cullen]

I've wrote about this subject a few times (turn-around time between races) some years ago on this site but from a different perspective, but the same principle still applies. I have to add that this is primarily for races with horses 4&up or 3&up where most horses have 10 races showing in their past performances.

jUDGE A HORSE BY IT'S PREVIOUS LAYOFF TIMES IN IT LAST 10 PP'S. iF THE SAME TRAINER HAS HAD THE HORSE FOR ALL OR MOST OF ITS PREVIOUS TEN RACES, ALL THE BETTER.

LAYOFFS ARE THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN VIS-A-VIS THE QUICKEST TURN-AROUND TIMES.

A POTENTIALLY POTENT COMBINATION IS A HORSE WHERE THE TRAINER IS GOOD WITH LAYOFF HORSES, HAS DEMONSTRATED IT SPECIFICALLY WITH TODAY'S HORSE UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND TODAY'S HORSE SHOWS A GOOD LAST WORKOUT COMPARED TO ITS PREVIOUS DOZEN OR SO WORKOUTS.

BEST,

Bill C

[raybo]

Wow, this thread has gone from here to there and back several times.

Back to form cycle. There are multiple form scenarios, major versus minor tracks, race/class conditions, workouts between races/after last race, days since last race, races since last "layoff", etc., etc., etc..

For me, form cycle determination is a function of trainer intent and trainer competency, although changes in trainers can cause huge problems with form cycle analysis.

I consider a "competent" trainer, one that recognizes the weakness(s) his horse has shown in the last race or 2 and consistently addresses weaknesses in preparation for future races. True, some trainers just race horses into form, moving him/her through various distances, classes, etc., but that doesn't hamper the player from seeing those races as preparation for future races.

Workouts can also be used, although they can be very "fuzzy" indicators of condition. As I stated in another thread, distance of workout can be more important than work times or rank of work. Distance of work tells us things that the trainer is focusing on, ie. early speed improvement, endurance improvement, working the kinks out after a tough race, or just general maintenance (keeping the horse exercised, and interested, between races).

Regarding time between races versus layoffs/start of a new cycle, I don't use time as a determining factor, by itself. I try to look over the trainer's shoulder and see what he sees, if a horse has been prepared properly, according to what I assess its weaknesses have been, and the horse is not showing improvement in those areas, even after moving down in class, going shorter or longer, dirt to turf or turf to dirt, etc., then, in my opinion the horse needs a long layoff (2 or 3 months and then a race or 2, or several works of different distances), or it needs a different environment, or a new trainer, or it needs to be retired.

I never catagorically "x-off" a horse unless it has not raced for more than 75 days and has only a single work, or none at all within the last month, at today's track (the horse may have worked but the work is not published, so I think it needs to have at least 1 published work at today's track.).

I'm not talking about stakes grade horses here, that is a different ballgame.

[bisket]

i learned handicapping from my uncle. one of the best cappers i've ever come across. he put it to me in a simple way. when looking at pps: race history and works, think like a trainer. so if you wanna win, learn to train a horse, or get as good at it as you can from the outside looking in. when you're looking at the race, think like a jockey. so if you want to win learn how to ride a horse in a race, or get as good at it from the outside looking in. this takes experience.... so you learn from you're mistakes, and wins!!!

to become successful at predicting form, learn how to train a horse...