The anatomy of a key race.

[Stillriledup]

I was listening to The Herd a few days ago and Colin had Greg Cosell from NFL films on to talk about the draft.

Colin asked Greg what he saw on film regarding college prospect Matt Barkley (USC QB) and then specifically asked when he watches college QBs on film, does he take into consideration how good the O line is and how good the receivers are (Barkley has great receivers) and his answer was interesting. He said that he doesnt care how good a prospect's teammates are, all he's interested in how that player looks as an individual.

So, that got me thinking about "key races" at the track. People seem to be really interested in the idea that if a horse is coming out of a race where others have come back to win, that they give that horse extra credit in their handicapping.

You also hear a lot of handicappers say "that horse beat nothing" which is also a form of a rating a horse according to his or her competition.

If a really good horse beats a really bad field, should we hold it against that horse because the horse who finished 2nd isnt that good, or, should we rate that winning horse as an individual and not really look at who he or she beat as a main yardstick?

I know personally when i watch replays, the situations that i will hold against horses is when the horse i'm watching gets a nice trip and seems to be ridden aggressively to beat a horse who i feel isnt all that great...than, i might say "this horse worked hard and had things his own way to beat so and so by a long neck and i know so and so isnt very good". On the flip side, if a horse seems to be moving powerfully, wins by a good margin and looks like he or she has upside, i won't be so quick to hold weak competition against a runner, im rating that horse as an individual.

One last thing i like to look for in 'common races' is this. I'll use a particular race as an example.

Dec 13, 2012 at Aqueduct. Race 4. The winner was Clawback and the runner up was Omega Star. The final fraction on the board was 22 and change and while i'm sure it was probably pace and wind aided, the top 2 finishers, visually, looked super. I said to myself "these are 2 monsters".

Clawback came back to win a race at a very short price while being visually impressive and then lost the Cappy Cap stakes recently at a short price with really no excuse. The runner up Omega Star shipped to Santa Anita and broke his maiden like a beast striding thru the wire like a graded horse and then came back to finish 2nd while moving too soon on a tiring sloppy track at SA and then raced the other day in a derby prep but in that race he appeared thin and frail in the post parade so to me, his health was in question.

Now, both horses who were sharp in December went on to do some good things before fading a bit in their most recent starts....but to me, i know that at the time, those horses were really in top form and what we have seen recently is that they both just gone south a bit and their most recent efforts arent representative of how good they can be (or were) at full power.

When i look back at that race from December now, i'm not going to say "maybe it wasnt a key race after all because the winner and the runner up havent been such monsters in recent times" but instead i'll say "i know that race was very strong at the time and i know the context of the top 2 finishers careers since then, but i still think that in December this was a key race even though 3 months removed, its not appearing to be as good of a race as i thought at the time."

Anyone have any thoughts on 'key races' and how you use them in your handicapping?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

...
You also hear a lot of handicappers say "that horse beat nothing" which is also a form of a rating a horse according to his or her competition.

If a really good horse beats a really bad field, should we hold it against that horse because the horse who finished 2nd isnt that good, or, should we rate that winning horse as an individual and not really look at who he or she beat as a main yardstick?

...

You omitted the answer that I would give as an option. Pretty basic, if you are going to rate a performance based upon the competition - you need to form an opinion of the ease or difficulty with which the winner handled the "inferior" competition to gauge whether or not the performance can be defined in some way by the competition. A horse that beats some known POS by thirteen lengths in a jog can't be categorized the same way that a horse that beats the same known POS in an all-out drive and needed to call upon every ounce of his "superiority" to get the job done can be categorized. I might hold it against the latter, but probably not the former. At least not as a primary consideration in today's context.

[lamboguy]

i go 1 step further than a key race, i like to find out who horses work with in the morning.

it seems like its easy to get hung up with speed when one handicaps races. speed is important, but the way i look at racing its sort of like a boxing match. the horse that are tough enough to take the punches during the race have the best chances of winning. don't get me wrong, speed is a great tool to have in a horses arsenal, but its not the most important thing.

good trainers and riders figure out how to get a horse to feel more comfortable during a race so that they can perform at their top levels. that is something you can predict from pace figures.

[Maximillion]

An "easy" winner is much more appealing to me if I have a body of work for the horse that Im able to evaluate....I would just skip the "easy" win and try to look at the other races and the direction the horse seems to be going in.

Much more difficult for me is the easy-winning lightly raced horse, or the mdn winners.....these can be any kind,a POS beating bigger POS...a one race wonder...or a potential very good horse.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

You omitted the answer that I would give as an option. Pretty basic, if you are going to rate a performance based upon the competition - you need to form an opinion of the ease or difficulty with which the winner handled the "inferior" competition to gauge whether or not the performance can be defined in some way by the competition. A horse that beats some known POS by thirteen lengths in a jog can't be categorized the same way that a horse that beats the same known POS in an all-out drive and needed to call upon every ounce of his "superiority" to get the job done can be categorized. I might hold it against the latter, but probably not the former. At least not as a primary consideration in today's context.

I think this is what can get some handicappers in trouble, just looking at 'who they beat' without thinking about the context of the situation. I like your response.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i go 1 step further than a key race, i like to find out who horses work with in the morning.

it seems like its easy to get hung up with speed when one handicaps races. speed is important, but the way i look at racing its sort of like a boxing match. the horse that are tough enough to take the punches during the race have the best chances of winning. don't get me wrong, speed is a great tool to have in a horses arsenal, but its not the most important thing.

good trainers and riders figure out how to get a horse to feel more comfortable during a race so that they can perform at their top levels. that is something you can predict from pace figures.

For the 'outsider' its hard to get that type of workout info, who worked with who, etc. But, i agree, thats invaluable info if you can get it.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

An "easy" winner is much more appealing to me if I have a body of work for the horse that Im able to evaluate....I would just skip the "easy" win and try to look at the other races and the direction the horse seems to be going in.

Much more difficult for me is the easy-winning lightly raced horse, or the mdn winners.....these can be any kind,a POS beating bigger POS...a one race wonder...or a potential very good horse.

For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

[GaryG]

If you closely follow a circuit you will have a good handle on the pecking order in each class level. Of course, this must viewed in light of each one's current form. If a horse has been beating better than he faces today you won't need figures to tell you.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

The race your describing would probably be a nightmare for me....more power to you if you do well in these types of races.Maybe one will come up on the weekend or whatnot and it could make for a good discussion.

Regarding "key" races.....one of the guys who taught me to play used to call these "success" races...and suggested to me I would wind up in a garbage can if I tried to to handicap using that type of info.

Lol...dont know about that,but its an interesting idea for a thread about an old-school handicapping technique...whether it still has merit in todays game.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

The race your describing would probably be a nightmare for me....more power to you if you do well in these types of races.Maybe one will come up on the weekend or whatnot and it could make for a good discussion.

Regarding "key" races.....one of the guys who taught me to play used to call these "success" races...and suggested to me I would wind up in a garbage can if I tried to to handicap using that type of info.

Lol...dont know about that,but its an interesting idea for a thread about an old-school handicapping technique...whether it still has merit in todays game.

i dont know if i actually do well in these races as a whole, but i know that in specific instances if i come up with a longshot that has won a slow(ish) race (and will be a longshot because of the slow Beyer/fig) and i think the horse has a 'look' i feel like this situation will provide some kind of edge.

Next time i see a race like this and have an opinion on some horse that's not one of the ML favorites, i'll post it here and discuss my thinking.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

...

Next time i see a race like this and have an opinion on some horse that's not one of the ML favorites, i'll post it here and discuss my thinking.

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_vi...ate=2013-03-15

[lamboguy]

the best example i have ever known was a maiden race in Churchill Downs that had Tuffelsberg in it that ran somewhere in the back of the pack. the horse showed up for his next race in a power packed race in Saratoga and won and paid something like $40. i was at the track that day with a friend of mine that always followed key races. he went to the window and showed me his tickets before the race, he went all in on Tuffelsberg. i said to him you have to be sick in the head betting on the worst trainer i have ever seen in my life, Jamie Sanders. the race in Churchill already had something like 4 next out winners.

from that day on, i never looked at the running line of the horse or trainer, i just bet. the trick to playing the key races is being able to rate the race before the race produces the next winner. Tuffelsberg was an unusual case where the horse paid so much, the reason why it paid was because the betting public has a problem taking the money out of their pockets on trainers like Jaimie running against the superstar's of the game. i admit, i was a stubborn bastard too!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

For me, i love the 'any kind' of horse, i love seeing a young horse who is up and coming, i love studying his video tape inside and out and seeing if i can 'see' something that might indicate this horse is really powerful and has more in the tank. My favorite kind of race is those starter allowance races where almost all the participants are coming off their maiden win or have recently broke their maiden....everyone looks 'good on paper' so its a race that paper handicappers might struggle with since everyone is coming off a win or a recent good race.

My favorite kinds of races are those cheap claimers for older horses, who have seen their better days. The full past performances talk to me, and a level of confidence builds up inside me sometimes...the kind that I can't find even on marquee days like Derby Day, or the Breeders Cup.

I am trying to improve my observational skills -- since I readily acknowledge the importance of physicality handicapping and trip notes -- but I still can't distinguish a Secretariat from a group of $10,000 claimers in the paddock...nor can I reliably predict if my runaway winner has kept more in the tank for his next start. More often than not...the runaway winner -- who won without drawing a deep breath -- will disappoint me in his next race...by running a much worse race than his prior start would indicate.

As a "figure" handicapper, I struggle with the concept of the "key race"...because it does not quite coincide with my handicapping philosophy. I hear people whom I respect talk about the presence of a "key race", and I can sense the excitement that this creates in their opinion of the horses involved...but I cannot work up much enthusiasm for a horse who finished fifth in his last race -- and whose only attribute today is the fact that three of the four horses who finished ahead of him last time happened to come back and win their next start.

I might be wrong...but this doesn't quite seem "right" to me...

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_vi...ate=2013-03-15

doesnt open on my computer for some reason, what is it?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My favorite kinds of races are those cheap claimers for older horses, who have seen their better days. The full past performances talk to me, and a level of confidence builds up inside me sometimes...the kind that I can't find even on marquee days like Derby Day, or the Breeders Cup.

I am trying to improve my observational skills -- since I readily acknowledge the importance of physicality handicapping and trip notes -- but I still can't distinguish a Secretariat from a group of $10,000 claimers in the paddock...nor can I reliably predict if my runaway winner has kept more in the tank for his next start. More often than not...the runaway winner -- who won without drawing a deep breath -- will disappoint me in his next race...by running a much worse race than his prior start would indicate.

As a "figure" handicapper, I struggle with the concept of the "key race"...because it does not quite coincide with my handicapping philosophy. I hear people whom I respect talk about the presence of a "key race", and I can sense the excitement that this creates in their opinion of the horses involved...but I cannot work up much enthusiasm for a horse who finished fifth in his last race -- and whose only attribute today is the fact that three of the four horses who finished ahead of him last time happened to come back and win their next start.

I might be wrong...but this doesn't quite seem "right" to me...

I get a little leery of horses who win by large margins, especially the lightly raced kind because i feel that certain horses can 'swell up' when not challenged. I think that horse off the large margin win will inevitably face tougher competition in its next start and more often than not, someone will run with that horse all the way and things usually turn out different.

Also, when a horse wins big, i think to myself that there's a good chance the horse had everything its own way....what are the odds, i ask myself, that a horse could have had something go against it (bias, pace, tough trip, boxed in, etc) and still win by a large margin? Most times that large margin winner is a horse to got the lead, scooted along without losing ground on the turns, without having to deal with kickback and without having to deal with the pressure of another runner on what was probably a fair to speed biased track.

This happened at Aqu the other day with speedball supreme NF Destiny. He got into a race where someone actually dared run with him early and he got passed in the lane by hardened gamesters who had 'fight' in their bellies. (for a change)

When i'm sifting thru videotape looking for the next nice priced winner, i'm concentrating on the back of the pack. I dont care if its a 'key race' or not, all i'm looking for is some situation where i feel a horse is in the wrong spot in the wrong race in the wrong situation and has 'run' thru the line, looks like he has a 'talented' stride for lack of a better word because i know that horses who run off the board that are much better than shown is where you get your value.

Some handicappers think that if a horse runs in a certain race and the winner of that race comes back to win another race, that somehow that winner is able to sprinkle some magic fairy dust on all the runners in the race and magically, it makes anyone coming out of that original race better.

That 5th place finisher is what he or she is, no more and no less and if that horse gets into a favorable situation in his or her next start, a winner can be born regardless of how that runner's competition fared in THEIR next start.