Is there a steward in the house?
 

Being in the game for a little more than 40 years now, it doesn't surprise me when horses like the :3: Sailor Again win by a dozen lengths...as this horse did in today's 2nd race at Parx. But when such a horse goes off at odds of 5-1 instead of the 25-1 odds that it deserved...then a sour feeling starts developing in the pit of my stomach. And I wonder what sort of handicapping algorithms might have assigned such a low betting price on a horse such as this.

Someone told me once that there are rules in the books which give the stewards the right to demand some sort of reasonable explanation from the trainers of horses like these...to explain the low odds attached to such a "miraculous" performance. Does anybody here know if the stewards ever enforce such a rule...or is the rule just there to give the impression that the "uninformed" bettors are somehow protected from shenanigans such as these?

Our resident ex steward doesn't seem to be posting these days so you may be out of luck. Let's see, new barn. Horse is owned by trainer. Trainer is positive roi over 148 races since the start of 2022 with a 20% win %. Jockey is scorching hot winning 8 out his last 14 races. Horse had race 3 and 4 back that make him competitive with much of the field. Horse was pretty good last summer. New Barn obviously corrected what was preventing the horse from racing well and he responded with a big win. Safe to say the barn was well aware how well the horse was doing.

Not saying a 10 length win was in order but there were certainly some positives. It is an animal in a new barn. How many legitimate excuses can there be for why the horse got better?

Yes...the horse was an animal in a new barn. But it was also an animal that ran dead last beaten by 30 lengths two races back, at a distance and class level that it was previously competitive. After a brief layoff this horse was entered last out at the identical class level that it was asked to face today...and the horse ran horribly while finishing 9th beaten by 16 lengths, at 27-1 odds. Another brief layoff...and it now wins by a dozen lengths at odds of only 5-1? A shocking turn of events, IMO...the new barn notwithstanding.

One final note, look at this horse from the perspective that up until 5/11/22 he was in a barn who had the horse running pretty well. He had just won at 6/5 in a similar class as this. Bris gave the race a 109 RR (this is there class rating of the field for those that do not use bris) which is a similar RR as the races of most of the horses in the race have been racing in. The 8/5 favorite had been running against better.

I don't consider it to be a huge leap of faith to assume that a horse that was plenty good enough to fit in this field last summer, went sour for a new barn for whatever reason and is now in another new barn and is being trained by a positive roi trainer (which alone is a pretty mighty feat), that it can revert back to where he was prior to going sour. I don't care about days off. I have seen barns turn horses around in a week. To me as a handicapper, how and why is irrelevant. All that matters is that any time a horse changes barns to a high percentage barn (or in this case a positive roi barn) we as handicappers better have eyes wide open. As a handicapper I am very cognizant of barn changes. To me they are extremely relevant.

Hindsight is always 20/20. If you were handicapping this race ahead of time...what would your guess be on the odds that the :3: would go off at?

You are right hindsight is always 20/20. So it would be impossible for me to look at the race now and give an unbiased interpretation of what I would make the horse knowing he won and given that I just spent time rationalizing why it did not surprise me that he did win. It also doesn't help that I don't know the trainers or even Jockeys at Parx. When I did play thoros over the years my focus was always on socal, because at the time I had a very good feel for the trainers. I had a feel much stronger than what I can get playing a circuit completely foreign to me. Let's just say that my feel was better than trainer A is a 14% trainer and trainer B is a 20% trainer. I had a pretty good idea of what to expect when horse A went from trainer x to trainer y.

Regarding this horse, given the numbers I use, based off his performance last summer he looks as good as the favorite. Obviously anything since is not. So the question you are asking is could I before the race come up with a rational reason to assume he would revert back to last summers race form. Having no knowledge of the trainer other than the positive stats I posted, probably not. Had I witnessed this trainer perform a similar form reversal with another horse or horses, I would be highly interested in this horse. Once again, familiarity with a circuit is important.

Obviously I have no idea if this horse was bet early or late, but if it was a race I had capped and saw this horse live on the board I would hope that I could have used the betting on the board to like him a lot. But if you are playing 3 different tracks at the same time you may not even notice.

interested in Poindexter's answers here, and he's become a poster who I read on PA.

gm Thask, Pondexter, all (hope I didn't miss you guys) (one man's morning is another's insomnia) :coffee:

Personally would have completely missed the revelation while handicapping, but noticed it during will-pays and in-race betting (assuming that I played the race, and that will-pays showed significant monies and/or the in-race market tipped off early enough.

The projected slow pace, the scratch of the :6:, and the chilly :9: are enough to get my interest.

hindsight is 20/20,
but the :3: is seductive to me. Unfortunately, wasn't much price.

I'm likely then deciding whether to skip the race, or more likely I start along the lines of something like
Daily Double :3: over up to five contenders for min, exacta :3: over 278 , ex bx :2::3: double key 23/23/group not including the :9:

I'm a sucker for extremely live horses that I can't make such a case for. - has to pass a few liquid 'rules' to be a bet, but I will play those, while I see the wisdom in anyone who wants to call those an automatic 'PASS'.
If someone wants to claim to me that the horse is neither a bet nor a pass, but an 'underlay' to bet against decisively - I'll almost certainly disagree (it better be the Kentucky Derby madness and some gimmicky 'steam' designation like a

i've yet to watch the race or chart, so i don't know whether any, all or none of that hit but hindsight still makes it a red board's cousin.

something like that to start, or pass

Maybe the trainer found a Medicaid plan that worked for the horse. The money that was bet on the horse was probably barn money and those close to it. a little over 8k bet on the horse. The owner/trainer probably made more off winning his bets than the purse money he earned.

I find it at least a little intriguing that the leading jock's agent had him staying with the horse after 2 performances like that AND no history at all with the new trainer (according to the info I have).

Interesting that you mention that - my trainer stats summary at the bottom of his RaceLens PPs showed the trainer as 1 for 2 in this situation. When I clicked on the situation to see what it was, it was "First After Trainer Switch - 45+ day layoff". The previous winner was pretty ugly too - but was a maiden claimer dropping to lowest level.

Still wouldn't have gotten me to Sailor Again - especially not at 5-1. Interesting that the closing odds for the previous winner were also 5-1 after the big balloons previously.

excellent point. any rides for this trainer would be cool, but that brings us back to the oddity that they do not show a working relationship.

Also, IDK whether the previous listed ownership is any connection to current team... private sale, etc...

I don't know whether the trainer/owner barn is the betting party in this case, or if it's the jockey's team. Also not privy to the will-pays etc to know the full picture of betting extent.

it is common knowledge this jock is no stranger to the $50.00 window. It would be no surprise if this jock routinely shared information with a syndicate.

to answer you question directly, I remember a trainer that was a good friend of mine being called in to answer to the stewards at the Fairgrounds about what they called a "reversal of form". That was many years ago and I have not heard of it in recent days.

if you liked yesterday's winner, you will probably love the 9th race today.

only problem is that these guys bet. i had the one last week that paid 4.00 too.

When Bobby Frankel moved to California in the early 70s I witnessed these turnarounds on a regular basis. When his barn had a new horse they did miracles. Fortunately for me I had a friend working in the barn who would alert me to what was going on behind the scenes. He was a master at detecting and fixing problems the other trainers had no clue about.



If your odds line had the horse at 25-1 why would you ignore the tote at 5-1?

Exactly!
I enjoy reading things like this only because it only confirms once again how handicappers are stuck trying to evaluate a horse’s potential performance through PP and statistical data. These subjective interpretations are nothing when compared to the objective information provided very often by the tote board activities on race day.

Anyone that can’t recognize or appreciate the obvious intentions of a horse’s connections should perhaps rethink the value of the information they’re using to play the game. These same people don’t seem to understand what drives the entire game for everyone that’s involved. For some strange reason they seem to ignore or don’t comprehend who actually makes up the betting population. Sure they may call it the “Public’s” money, but truly that generalization fails to define reality.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone who disregards an obvious long shot getting solid betting action on the board. Do they always win? Absolutely not, but a least you know one important thing: They’re trying. Show me anywhere the PP data that points that out.
.
.