Evaluating Big Winners

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I thought a thread on this subject might be interesting (it is to me lol).

When a horse wins by a huge margin it's usually because of one of several things (or a combination of a few of them).

1. He was way better than that class of horse.

2. That particular field was very weak for the class.

3. He got a bias aided win or perfect trip relative to the other contenders.

4. He shook loose on a sloppy track he loved.

5. Combinations

What techniques do people use to try to determine what category of horse they are dealing with and where it fits against horses of a much higher class when they move up.

Depending on how many lifetime starts a horse has, the first thing i'll look for is if that horse has the ability to battle with other horses and win a close finish. Some horses either win big or go home, the big winning horses "braven up" when they save ground on the turns, ride a bias, beat a weak field etc so i'd want to see if that horse is game and can fight if challenged.

And, it all depends on price next time, but those large margin winners tend to be overbet, cappers love the big win.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Light

My homemade computerized horse handicapping program spits out any horse that had a "big win" (i.e. won by 3 lengths or more) in its last start for the card I am handicapping. I have a further condition that it cannot be a w-w job. The ROI is negative with these "big win" types.

Yesterdays lone qualifier at Aqu was "Alcomatch" and he ran 4th.

My guess is that there are sub groups of them that are ROI positive but the trick is to identify the ones that are better than they look vs. the ones that took advantage of favorable conditions.

Like I said in a earlier post, with older horses, you have such a complete record of both that horse and the competition, it's pretty easy to figure out what happened. But with lightly raced horses, it's a different thing.

I'll give you 2 examples.

In the Busher, Joint Return looked too slow and had probably benefited from a fast pace in her last. Most handicappers probably hated her. But I had reason to think she was actually a lot better than that slow figure indicated. I came really close to punching a big ticket on her, but decided against it at the last second because I don't have this issue totally sorted out in my mind yet.

Samraat was another that won big, but he did it with a clear lead in a slow paced race. So many people were convinced he wasn't as good as he looked. But I had reason to think that might not be the case. It seems he was better than he looked too.

It get really tricky to figure these lightly raced big winners out because they haven't revealed what's in the tank yet. Some of these easy trips are not really downgradeable offenses at all, but others are.

Here's an extreme example.

Imagine Dr. Fager getting loose against a weak field on a gold rail. He might not even run a big figure because he'd win so easy. But he'd still be Dr. Fager. We'd know that because we'd have his full race record going into the race, but not if he only had a few starts.

[Light]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

My guess is that there are sub groups of them that are ROI positive but the trick is to identify the ones that are better than they look vs. the ones that took advantage of favorable conditions.

I'm not convinced that a solid subgroup exists for any horse racing angle. The only thing that may exist is a subgroup that may increase ROI slightly on any given angle but that is debatable.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

In the Busher, Joint Return looked too slow and had probably benefited from a fast pace in her last. Most handicappers probably hated her. But I had reason to think she was actually a lot better than that slow figure indicated. I came really close to punching a big ticket on her, but decided against it at the last second because I don't have this issue totally sorted out in my mind yet.

Interesting that you bring up "Joint Return". I didn't want to say,but on Saturday at Aqu, he was the lone qualifier spit out from my program for "Big Win" types (who come off the pace) paying $16.80. I didn't want to mention that because it would have got your hopes up. I incorporated the "Big Win" from Ainslee's theory. But Ainslee never made a computerized study of it. It just seemed like a great angle. When Sarava won and paid $100 off a big win, I was convinced Ainslee had to be right and computerized his angle. I wish Ainslee's theory held up to the acid test, and I haven't found a subset to offset the overall negative ROI. (I don't include $100 horses in ROI calculations).

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Light

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

Several writers have pointed out that a bounce after a big win isn't always a bounce. If a horse wins big in a pace advantaged race and does nothing next out in a pace disadvantaged race, the bounce is not because of the effort of the big race, it is because of the pace difference. The problem is separating the two.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Light

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

[Exotic1]

Originally Posted by cj

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

Right.

If we expand that to say not all figure regressions (movements) are a result of reaction but are sometimes due to favorable vs. unfavorable setups, pace, bias etc, then the bounce or reaction doesn't happen as often. Taking that a step further, if the regression is not a result of a reaction how can historical regression data be used to predict a bounce?

Bottom line we aren't here to theorize, it's about cashing. Is there a formula to predict a regression, i.e time between races, stretch dual, sex (of the animal), quality of the animal, trainer, how the horse was ridden out, double tops of pace and final time, double tops of late speed and final time, etc. Or should we just assume that a big figure will be followed by a lower figure because that's the way to play it?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Is it really a bounce, or is it a horse just not facing ideal circumstances next out?

Well...it might not be a "bounce", but it's got to be "something"...because horses sometimes give uncharacteristically bad performances even under ideal circumstances.

I, personally, think that horses give subpar efforts for a variety of reasons...and some of these subpar efforts cannot be traced to the circumstances presented during the running of the race. IMO, the horse -- as a living, breathing creature -- should be allowed to have an off day...just as all human athletes give bad performances on occasion. Other bad efforts might be traced to trainer intention...or drug "experimentation".

There is a handicapping theory out there which states that the horse's last representative race is the clearest indication of a horse's current form...and that horseplayers should not overlook that race unless there is a valid reason for doing so. My OWN theory is, that the proponents of this "last race is best theory" noticed how many times horses win off of apparently dull last races...so they tried to find reasons for these form reversals, which would BOTH -- explain the unexpected result, AND preserve the sanctity of this "last race is best theory" that they have so embraced.

And THAT'S how the "bounce theory" came about...IMO.

I think the bounce theory has merit...but its effects are not as widespread as many think.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I think the bounce theory has merit...but its effects are not as widespread as many think.

I agree, it is a term used too broadly and applied to situations where it isn't really supported. Just because a horse runs fast doesn't mean the race took a negative toll on a horse.

But I also agree there are times it happens. Probably the best I've seen it spelled out was in James Quinn's Figure Handicapping, and it involved horses returning from layoffs and some specific conditions.

[Valuist]

Are we defining "big win" strictly by winning margin, or does ease of victory count? Just saw a replay of a Gulfstream race from mid January where the rider was literally standing up in the irons at the end; about as geared down as Rachel Alexandra in the KY Oaks.

[BIG49010]

The big deal breaker for me with runaway winners is field size. You do it against 12 others on a fast track or firm turf course, you have something.

Beat a 5 horse field, I'll wait and see how you are.

Geared down and 10 in front, is quite different from 10 in front and worked hard to get there.

[Light]

When I mentioned "bounce", I was referring to lateral movements in distance,class and surface. Of course there are horses who are obviously going to bounce due to negative trainer/jock changes,new surface, distance, class etc.

Think about it. If these horses in this lateral category don't bounce, we would all clean up. Just bet the highest speed fig horse with huge show bets and go to the bank. With show bets, the optimum pace is minimized as a bounce contributor. But why can't the horse with the best closing kick and SR in the field hit the board? Bounce and form cycle. Again I am referring to horses repeating the same conditions they just ran well in. I know they are not machines, but the bounce factor/form cycle is real and major and why handicapping is an art.

[Light]

Originally Posted by BIG49010

The big deal breaker for me with runaway winners is field size. You do it against 12 others on a fast track or firm turf course, you have something.

Beat a 5 horse field, I'll wait and see how you are.

Geared down and 10 in front, is quite different from 10 in front and worked hard to get there.

I guess you wouldn't like a horse called Moments Notiz. He beat only 3 others at Aqu on Dec 26.It wasn't even a "big win". But that led to a "big win" on Dec 31,followed by another win on Jan 19. It's not field size that matters,it's the horse.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Are we defining "big win" strictly by winning margin, or does ease of victory count? Just saw a replay of a Gulfstream race from mid January where the rider was literally standing up in the irons at the end; about as geared down as Rachel Alexandra in the KY Oaks.

In The Compleat Horseplayer, Ainslie defined a "big win" as one where the horse is leading or running close to the pace at the stretch call, and gains ground from there to the wire to win going away. A running line that he used as an example was:

4 2 1 (by 2 lengths) 1 (by 2) 1 (by 2) 1 (by 4)

I don't believe that he applied strict numerical criteria as far as lengths ahead or behind at any point. (I'm sorry that I can't quote verbatim or more extensively from the text, since I don't have the complete book at my fingertips.)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Light

I'm not convinced that a solid subgroup exists for any horse racing angle. The only thing that may exist is a subgroup that may increase ROI slightly on any given angle but that is debatable.




Interesting that you bring up "Joint Return". I didn't want to say,but on Saturday at Aqu, he was the lone qualifier spit out from my program for "Big Win" types (who come off the pace) paying $16.80. I didn't want to mention that because it would have got your hopes up. I incorporated the "Big Win" from Ainslee's theory. But Ainslee never made a computerized study of it. It just seemed like a great angle. When Sarava won and paid $100 off a big win, I was convinced Ainslee had to be right and computerized his angle. I wish Ainslee's theory held up to the acid test, and I haven't found a subset to offset the overall negative ROI. (I don't include $100 horses in ROI calculations).

What I have found is that a "big win" usually produces a "top" lifetime speed figure which leads to a "bounce". It gets complicated and almost impossible to create a subset because some horses will produce a new "top" off that "top". Most won't.

To me the "bounce factor" is the single biggest obstacle in horse racing handicapping to figure out. Do that and you can quit your day job.

What I'm trying to do is separate the horses that only won big because they benefited from favorable conditions from the rest. It's that subgroup that contains many horses that jump up even further next time out (sometimes even when they had a good trip last out).

The most fertile ground is lightly raced horses that haven't fully revealed what they have in the tank yet. Narrowing that subgroup down further is where there's some potential because most people are looking at the speed figures kind of staticly.

I have mixed feelings about the term bounce.

Setting form cycle and injuries aside, I think horses tend to run within a range. So if a horse runs to the top of his range, he's less likely to duplicate it next time than a horse that ran right in the middle of his typical range.

When you throw in bias, pace issues, wet tracks etc.. a lot of horses that appear to be bouncing are simply moving back to more average conditions.

All that said, I have seen examples of huge legitimate races followed by absolute debacles and injury. So there is probably "something" to the theory that an extreme effort can cause the horse to need a freshening or trigger an injury.

[aaron]

I had a very profitable player explain the bounce theory. If the horse is 6/5 he will bounce. If he is 10-1 he won't bounce. He simplified the process by just thinking in terms of value.He believed there is no reason to overthink the theory.