Bounce Theory: The Most Fallacious Modern Fandicapping Idea

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Best bounce definition that I've ever seen or heard. I thought I was the only one who shared this opinion, until I saw Cary Fotias mention it in his book Blinkers Off . Now I know that there were at least 3 of us who had noticed this.

Make that 4. Between the Beyer definition and the Fotias, I have come up with my own definition or concept. Cheaper horses bounce much easier than stakes horses.

[RaceTrackDaddy]

I might be totally wrong with my current memory of something I saw so many years ago when I first heard the term 'bounce theory'. Think it was the guy that was promoting Thoro-Graph system with charts and numbers.

In order for it to be ready for a bounce, the horse had to exceed all previous efforts on the chart, like a life time mark or by a number of lengths won than in any previous competition. (forget the criteria used in the chart).

I really don't think the Ky Derby was one of those exceptional efforts (lifetime efforts) as he has demonstrated that speed and effort prior.

I am one who was touting (and went all in last weekend) keying Mubaahij in the 11th race and using no one else in all bets leading into that. I was live with a $5 Oaks/Derby DD (paying $110 per buck), Oaks/Wodford/Derby $1 pick-3 (that would have required my signature to receive the winnings) and most of the pick-3 and pick-4 going into the derby plus the $50 to win and all the exotics with Mubtaahij on top, nothing else. I went for the throat and came out a loser.

But watching the race, I really think there is only one in there that has a shot to be AP, Firing Line really exploded on that made for speed track at Sunland. Preakness with the tight turns and shorter distance might present a great help to FL in the Preakness. I took a shot at AP in the Derby, will take another two shots at him in the Preakness and Belmont.

In case anyone hasn't heard, Mubtaahij is not going to UK as the connections have decided to keep him in the states, pass up the Preakness and try to be the spoiler in the Belmont.

I might be stupid at times, but I am one that persevere to beat the favorite. I do believe that AP is not a Triple Crown winner in 2015 and will try once more to go take a shot.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It does NOT qualify...regardless of what Len Friedman says. The Derby winners historically have done very well at the Preakness. Friedman has it backwards, IMO. If I am ever blessed with a Derby winner...I will ship to Pimlico, and then skip the Belmont.

Are you sure about that? As an owner, you would be vilified if you even contemplated not running a potential Triple Crown winner in the Belmont. I can just imagine what Jim Rome, Boomer Esiason, Dan Patrick, and Michael Wilbon would say that the ghost of Jim McKay would say about you. "The Sport of Kings, or Cowards?" In 24 hours or less, you would sink from being one of the most admired men in America to one of the least popular, just a smidgeon better than let's say, Aaron Hernandez Say it ain't so, Thaskalo(s).......

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

IMO, after watching countless replays over 30 years, whipping a horse excessively does cause major depletion of energy reserves. In fact, a horse struck over a dozen times is one of the worst ROI plays in his next race, with the exception being a minimum 4 week rest between starts.
I observe and notate every day the abuses put on these horses, no matter the class level. I could go into great detail of what I do see via replays, at the experience level I analyze them, but I will stop here and just say that I would love to see a TC winner for horse racing fans and the game itself. However, IMO AP is not going to succeed for numerous reasons, and we'll all just have to wait another year....

I've found that this is correct also. I'll also add that the whip striking is part of it and i think the other part of it is that the reason the horse was struck so many times in the first place was because the horse was no good or struggling along. There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.

SO, its definitely a combination of whip strikes and maybe the horse struggling along because of soundness or a medical issue, but at any rate, a lot of whip strikes is a bad thing, if a horse has to get beat up to win, they don't usually bounce back as good as ever in their next start, horses who get beat up are automatic throwouts for me, almost at any price.

Good post.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I've found that this is correct also. I'll also add that the whip striking is part of it and i think the other part of it is that the reason the horse was struck so many times in the first place was because the horse was no good or struggling along. There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.

SO, its definitely a combination of whip strikes and maybe the horse struggling along because of soundness or a medical issue, but at any rate, a lot of whip strikes is a bad thing, if a horse has to get beat up to win, they don't usually bounce back as good as ever in their next start, horses who get beat up are automatic throwouts for me, almost at any price.

Good post.

So...you consider American Pharoah to be a throwout in the Preakness, right?

[RoyalHeroine]

Originally Posted by RaceTrackDaddy

I might be totally wrong with my current memory of something I saw so many years ago when I first heard the term 'bounce theory'. Think it was the guy that was promoting Thoro-Graph system with charts and numbers.

In order for it to be ready for a bounce, the horse had to exceed all previous efforts on the chart, like a life time mark or by a number of lengths won than in any previous competition. (forget the criteria used in the chart).

I really don't think the Ky Derby was one of those exceptional efforts (lifetime efforts) as he has demonstrated that speed and effort prior.

I am one who was touting (and went all in last weekend) keying Mubaahij in the 11th race and using no one else in all bets leading into that. I was live with a $5 Oaks/Derby DD (paying $110 per buck), Oaks/Wodford/Derby $1 pick-3 (that would have required my signature to receive the winnings) and most of the pick-3 and pick-4 going into the derby plus the $50 to win and all the exotics with Mubtaahij on top, nothing else. I went for the throat and came out a loser.

But watching the race, I really think there is only one in there that has a shot to be AP, Firing Line really exploded on that made for speed track at Sunland. Preakness with the tight turns and shorter distance might present a great help to FL in the Preakness. I took a shot at AP in the Derby, will take another two shots at him in the Preakness and Belmont.

In case anyone hasn't heard, Mubtaahij is not going to UK as the connections have decided to keep him in the states, pass up the Preakness and try to be the spoiler in the Belmont.

I might be stupid at times, but I am one that persevere to beat the favorite. I do believe that AP is not a Triple Crown winner in 2015 and will try once more to go take a shot.

Not wanting to nitpick while at the same time wanting to dispel an often quoted myth that is taken as gospel, as Rich Perloff stated today, in answering an email, the turns @ the Preakness are not tighter than at the Churchill.

If you overlay satellite pics of each, what you will see is that CD track is only a wider track than Pimlico.

http://www.drf.com/blogs/pimlico-tig...-favoring-nope

Just trying to help us all. It's difficult enough to cash in the 1st place!

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

There's a good reason the horse is being beaten up with the whip and the REASON is also part of the flop in the next start, whatever that reason might be.

I posted this in another thread...

What I saw, in the saddling paddock, was an AP, that was very nervous, twitchy, and uncomfortable in that setting...Perhaps it was the crowd noise and all the hoopla surrounding the Big Race...His groom had to turn him towards the back wall a few times, I guess in an effort to try and keep him calm, before the call to post..

But what struck me the most, and no one seemed to key on this, but I "did" observe a very sweaty AP, and as they panned the camera, I didn't see that with most of the others that keyed on...He was dripping wet from his mane right on down to his forelegs...

Not only that, but AP seemed yet still more nervous and flighty in the post parade, as well...His outrider had all to do with holding him, as his head was flailing about, like he was really bothered....Almost like AP just wished he was somewhere else on that day...

Sometimes, a speedster just wants to go, but in this case he seem so bothered...And, based on what I saw, I truly believe that, all that nervous energy expenditure took a lot out of him, and perhaps, thus the incessant coaxing at the end of his race...

Still, he overcame it all, and showed all of his rivals who was boss at the end...Good trip was a good friend too, I'd say...

On bounces, perhaps that was a bounce of sorts from his good recent wins and super works...And what we saw was the result of it....I couldn't say either way tho...But, I saw what I saw, is all..

[raybo]

I haven't seen the numbers for AP's Derby yet, but from watching the race, both Dortmund and Firing Line ran their butts off. So, if AP also ran his butt off, or got whipped excessively, he will still be facing the same two major contenders, both of which ran their butt off also. Is AP a "bounce" candidate for the Preakness? IMO, NO! Simply because a "bounce" horse is not supposed to win the next race, and AP is facing the same 2 major contenders, who experienced similar energy expenditure in the Derby, and should still beat them in the Preakness, all other things being equal. (of course, there are other horses to be considered in the Preakness, some that gained something from the Derby and some that did not run in the Derby and are fresher, so AP may indeed get beat, but not necessarily because he "bounced")

I only expect for a horse to bounce for sure, if he improved his early performance in his 3rd race back versus his 4th back, and he improved his late performance in his 2nd race back versus his 3rd race back (what I call a "two race improvement"), and won his last race. IMO, that last race was the result of a "two race improvement" and produced a peak performance in his last race, and if in that last race he did not simply cruise to the win but had to work hard at it from the beginning of the race, he is expected to "bounce" in his next race, if that race is of the same class, unless he is laid off and then comes back in a softer race.

So, in summary, I don't adhere to traditional "bounce" theory as stated by others, but do adhere to it if the scenario above exists. So, I'm a single scenario "bounce" guy.

Like Thaskalos, if I have a winner in the Derby, and he comes out of that race well, I would probably send him to the Preakness, but not necessarily send him to the Belmont, unless he also wins the Preakness and comes out of that race well. 3 races in 5 weeks is tough on any horse (and in AP's case, 4 races in 8 weeks), so the distance and depth of the surface in the Belmont would be of definite concern to me, if I am sincerely looking after the health of my horse.

[MJC922]

The bounce theory has two components, level of effort and spacing. Spacing is recovery time between races. I think we can all agree horses need a certain amount of recovery time after a race which (depending upon the robustness of the individual) can vary. If horses didn't need recovery time there would be no reason to not see them running every other day, and we don't see that so presumably time off is required. Ideally then, every horse exiting a race has an optimum number of days rest (a number which is unknown to us) and if they get that rest, barring injury they should be able to return and 'run back to their race' so to speak. Add to this mix several other considerations, the theory that more recovery time may be needed after a greater level of effort and how short or how well-rested the horse was going into that effort and now you have many sequences to study before you could put relevant stats to any of this. Some even go a bit further and get into differences between the different ages, sexes and distance (body types) as to the amount of recovery time may be required. At this time I'm a believer in some of it, especially so in the modern era where Lasix and other medications like painkillers allow horses to overextend and require some extra recovery time. One of the reasons the triple crown is especially tough IMO is spacing. These trainers understandably train to peak in the Derby not the Preakness. They come back on what is too little recovery time for the Preakness. If the horse manages to win both races then very likely those were substantial 'efforts'. Given that the spacing of these races is way too close for the typical modern thoroughbred there's usually a regression in the Belmont, and against top-level competition very few horses can get it done with any type of regression in form.

[Elliott Sidewater]

The turns on the turf course at Pimlico are very tight, and probably are contributing to some of the surprise wire to wire turf winners there each year.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

So...you consider American Pharoah to be a throwout in the Preakness, right?

So if the number of whip strikes is signficant, why hasn't anyone considered putting that information in the past performances? A jockey once whipped a horse we owned excessively when she wasn't giving him her best, and we never rode him again. But if she had been in a stretch duel to win the race, I wouldn't have cared how many times he chose to whip her, nor did it ever seem to have a carryover effect on any of the repeat winners I've owned. Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, unless you happen to be a PETA board member.

[five-eighths]

Wouldn't another component of the bounce theory relate to the relative class level of each race?

I mean horses at AP's level would be more likely to just take a lay-off, but for cheaper horses if the trainers suspect the horse might bounce wouldn't they try to race them in a lower class race?

[MJC922]

Even if someone had the Derby effort rated as a big 'new top' for AP I'm not sure the Preakness is ever a reliable place to expect a bounce. In a race like the Derby which trainers have a months ahead roadmap to peak out the horse's form cycle on that day it would make me lean toward the horse having another good shot to fire in the Preakness, even though it's not a good thing on short rest the horse will usually respond. On a typical day though with cheaper horses (claiming horses for example) the plan is totally different, there's not much prepping going on and the mere indication of a bigger effort for the horse can more reliably be seen as a negative if it returns on short rest.

On the handicapping side of things a lot of this comes down to hair-splitting. I personally believe in the bounce, the need for recovery time etc, I believe it's a factor which influences outcomes. Can I leverage it? If someone says this should be ignored because it can't be leveraged, well, I won't argue with them. Maybe they're right. I'm more comfortable with saying it can't be leveraged and should be ignored than saying it isn't even a factor in race outcomes.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There are several definitions of the "bounce" theory...and this year's Derby does not fit the mold of any of these definitions.

I agree. This is not a bounce situation, which usually occurs after a horse improves sharply to either a new lifetime top or produces a speed figure that is sharply better than its previous race, or previous best race.

Another factor is that so many horses that win the Derby repeat in the Preakness that it would seem foolish to automatically call a Derby winner a bounce prospect.

[classhandicapper]

I just wish people wouldn't abuse the term "bounce".

Horses sometimes run huge speed figures when they get loose on the lead in a moderate pace, catch a gold rail or speed favoring track, face a soft field, draft behind a duel in the pocket and cut the corner, catch a sloppy track they love etc... Sometimes horses just have an especially good day.

When they come back and race in more honest circumstances, they are not bouncing if they don't repeat that figure. That's a mean reversion or reversion to a normalized figure level.

To me, a bounce is a physical reaction to a very difficult race or series of difficult races.

IMO, there's no question that horses wear down during long hard campaigns. That's especially true if a series of races was especially tough. Trainers have known this for decades. I've seen it countless times among top horses. But it's standard form cycle stuff that was written about in the very old handicapping books.

Years ago, trainers would give a horse a break here or there to freshen them up. Now, we've taken spacing to an extreme to keep horses fresh and try to deliver more peaks, but it's basically the same thing.

I haven't looked at the stats carefully enough, but I don't find bounces especially predictable. I just know the further into the campaign you go and the tougher the series of races, the greater the probability that the horse is going to throw in a serious clunker (less so on turf). The most predictable pattern is when a horse has a history of injuries. Trainers can sometimes get them back to the races for one top effort before they fall apart again.