[Thunderground]

Congrats to Mikemca,17th, Thundeground, 27th, and Floridagolfer 51st on their BTP finishes.

Good to see the horse forum being represented.

Hope I didn't miss anyone.

Nice job guys.

Horse players are sharper. How's that for a bumper sticker?

I noticed you sped out of the gate and also finished strong. Must have been the traffic in the backstretch. (I was a closer, but the pace wasn't fast enough... Never had a shot, but finished respectably).

[JBEX]

hey str..if you had to take a guess how much to keep a horse at parx or laurel on a monthly basis ?
1500/mo + 350/mo avg veterinary fees be my guess..just trying to figure how much the owners are making with these super trainers.. marcos zueltas claimed a horse for 16k and won a starter allowance 25k and just missed (2nd by neck) in a 53k n1x
allowance last start..probably about 30k total for those 2 I'd guess..he'll probably be favored today same level at laurel shooting for a 42k purse..if he takes this race (hope he doesn't..trying to beat with 2nd choice) another 25k winners share which puts the
total at roughly 55k..11k total to jock and trainer leaving them (owners) 44k ..5000 trainer and vet fees for having horse 3 months
bringing it down to 39k..take away claiming price over 20k profit..if my fee numbers and purse estimates are close is this a good estimate of the breakdown ?

[str]

hey str..if you had to take a guess how much to keep a horse at parx or laurel on a monthly basis ?
1500/mo + 350/mo avg veterinary fees be my guess..just trying to figure how much the owners are making with these super trainers.. marcos zueltas claimed a horse for 16k and won a starter allowance 25k and just missed (2nd by neck) in a 53k n1x
allowance last start..probably about 30k total for those 2 I'd guess..he'll probably be favored today same level at laurel shooting for a 42k purse..if he takes this race (hope he doesn't..trying to beat with 2nd choice) another 25k winners share which puts the
total at roughly 55k..11k total to jock and trainer leaving them (owners) 44k ..5000 trainer and vet fees for having horse 3 months
bringing it down to 39k..take away claiming price over 20k profit..if my fee numbers and purse estimates are close is this a good estimate of the breakdown ?

Q. if you had to take a guess how much to keep a horse at parx or laurel on a monthly basis ?

A. Spoke to an old friend about this because I was not sure. You gave me a reason to reach out so thanks for that. Great to catch up with him. The high end trainers are getting 75.00 a day. +/- 5.00 so 75 is a good number to work with.

Typically, the winners share of the purse is 60%. Sometimes 55%. Do remember that if you win, it is 10% of the gross winnings to the rider .
Running 2,3,4 or off the board , the rider will get something like 5% for 2nd, if the purse is big enough, or 120.00 or whatever.( A condition book will have all this info for any track if you want to look deeper.) 80.00 for 3rd, a solid guess, and 60.00 for 4th thru last.
The trainer will get 10% of any earnings over and above the per diem. For wins, I used to charge 100 or 200 for stable stakes, that is, the groom, 3 exercise riders and hot walker. So maybe per 100 it would be 50 groom, 10 for each rider, like 3 riders and 10 or 20 for the hot walker. Something like that.
350 for vet fees is probably fair. Probably 120.00 for the blacksmith once a month. A van to Parx from Laurel will be about 350.00 round trip, solid guess.
A pony used to go to post is probably 25 these days. Was 10 way back in the day.
That's about it. So the math is there to do.
Also, 6% sales tax is charged for the claim by the state of Md. to the buyer at the time of the claim.
Don't think I missed anything except of course the pictures when you win. Probably 25 a piece , most trainers buy one for the trainer and groom and several for themselves. A video of the race probably the same thing but only for themselves.
The old breakdown of purses was like 60%,20%,12%,5%,3% paying back to 5th. That is pretty close.
Hope that helps.

[JBEX]

so sounds like $3000 month a realistic estimate.. if your horse earned 4000 there'd be about 700 in trainer and jockey fees which would leave about $500 profit for the month..understand you can't really look at this on a month to month basis meaningyou might earn 6K one month and 3K the next..bottom line ,no pun intended, you've really gotta take down some significant purses to make it worthwhile..must be a real challenge for the connections of the cheaper horses and the average ones that run in the middle level races..thanks for taking the time to answer and speak to your friend

[cutchemist42]

Wondering your thoughts on this str. Doug O Neil yesterday at SA lost with 4 faves.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...A011416USA.pdf

Just wondering if you think there is any knowledge in noticing a quick trend on a single raceday. If you had seen the O Neil horses lose twice with heavy faves, should a player have been suspect of any other horses on the same racecard to avoid the next two losing faves?

[str]

Wondering your thoughts on this str. Doug O Neil yesterday at SA lost with 4 faves.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...A011416USA.pdf

Just wondering if you think there is any knowledge in noticing a quick trend on a single raceday. If you had seen the O Neil horses lose twice with heavy faves, should a player have been suspect of any other horses on the same racecard to avoid the next two losing faves?

I suppose this will vary from player to player but if I was playing here is how I would read it:

I do not think I would have worried about the 1st two losses. But after the 3rd loss, I probably would have tried hard to beat the 4th horse based on what I had seen that day.

Sometimes a bias will make this happen but seemingly, from the charts, not in this case. Inside won, outside won, so it seemed fair without seeing any replays.

Some players will scoff at your thought while others will be right with you. I think your seeing this, and giving it thought is well founded personally.

As for overall slumps and hot streaks, they certainly do happen to trainers, some more than others. With claiming trainers, it is typically as simple as their horses have been hot lately and have run through conditions, been claimed or had to be raised in class or cycled through their form . That happens all the time. Seconditis is also one of those things that just happens. Identify those and that will help you quite a bit over time.
Happens to riders as well. Not all, but definitely some.

And if you wonder if it can get into a riders or a trainers head, they will always say no, which they have to when in public, but the answer is yes.

Hope that helps and good find.

[cutchemist42]

About 8-10 feet.

The horse needs room to switch leads from right to left and back again and there are about two feet of track that cannot be reached because of the angle of the rail which is further in at the base than it is at the top. It kind of sits like this. /

Was just thinking of this and had a related question to this old one, but how wide is a horse? Do you measure by chest? Are other parts of the horse's measurements ever done?

Also, thanks for that answer above!!

[str]

Was just thinking of this and had a related question to this old one, but how wide is a horse? Do you measure by chest? Are other parts of the horse's measurements ever done?

Also, thanks for that answer above!!

The width will vary and I never had a need to measure exactly . Probably right around 3 feet depending on the horse.

Typically the hip bones at the sides of the rump will be the widest point or the girth area where the saddle is placed if they are carrying some weight. But for what I am talking about in the above post , it would be outside of the riders boot in the stirrup to outside the other boot. So you will need to add about another foot for that.

But when a horse switches leads, they move over some to the side they are switching too over and above their width. If you want to see what it is like, try doing it yourself.( preferably alone so as not to look like a tool box in front of other people)Lol.
Try running while leading each stride with your right leg for several strides and then switch to the left leg leading. Do it on a carpet without footprints in it. When you switch you will move to the left more than where your typical step would be because the force of the weight shifting from side to side while in motion will move you over a little further than if you were walking. You will be able to walk through the center of your footprints afterwards and you will see the difference. Also remember you might weigh around 200 but the horse is running much faster than you are and they weigh about 1000 lbs.
So add the footage up and you will see that without 8-10 feet minus 2 for the rail angle, if a horse is any closer, the riders stirrup and foot will hit the rail hard going almost 30mph and potentially break the riders foot, or at very least, hurt it , or the horse will hit it and no telling how the horse might react to that.
That is why riders bail out just before the turn or ride hard to get up into the hole prior to the turn. But they need their entire body up in the hole, so as to be at least , head and head to either withstand the bump they might receive and or to not clip heels and get legs tangled up.

Also remember, if there are 3-4 across the track each horse will need that added room so multiply that by the amount of horses across the track side by side and you can understand why the rider does what they do in most cases.

Hope that helps.

[cutchemist42]

The width will vary and I never had a need to measure exactly . Probably right around 3 feet depending on the horse.

Typically the hip bones at the sides of the rump will be the widest point or the girth area where the saddle is placed if they are carrying some weight. But for what I am talking about in the above post , it would be outside of the riders boot in the stirrup to outside the other boot. So you will need to add about another foot for that.

But when a horse switches leads, they move over some to the side they are switching too over and above their width. If you want to see what it is like, try doing it yourself.( preferably alone so as not to look like a tool box in front of other people)Lol.
Try running while leading each stride with your right leg for several strides and then switch to the left leg leading. Do it on a carpet without footprints in it. When you switch you will move to the left more than where your typical step would be because the force of the weight shifting from side to side while in motion will move you over a little further than if you were walking. You will be able to walk through the center of your footprints afterwards and you will see the difference. Also remember you might weigh around 200 but the horse is running much faster than you are and they weigh about 1000 lbs.
So add the footage up and you will see that without 8-10 feet minus 2 for the rail angle, if a horse is any closer, the riders stirrup and foot will hit the rail hard going almost 30mph and potentially break the riders foot, or at very least, hurt it , or the horse will hit it and no telling how the horse might react to that.
That is why riders bail out just before the turn or ride hard to get up into the hole prior to the turn. But they need their entire body up in the hole, so as to be at least , head and head to either withstand the bump they might receive and or to not clip heels and get legs tangled up.

Also remember, if there are 3-4 across the track each horse will need that added room so multiply that by the amount of horses across the track side by side and you can understand why the rider does what they do in most cases.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for that great answer.

So I understand the need to have space for that lead switch but up until that moment, is it possible to have 2 horses side-by-side tightly both be considered having a rail trip?

[str]

Thanks for that great answer.

So I understand the need to have space for that lead switch but up until that moment, is it possible to have 2 horses side-by-side tightly both be considered having a rail trip?

Not in my opinion. A head on of the run down the backside will typically show the rail horse at least several feet off the fence. So the horse next to that one would be several feet or whatever the amount actually is, plus the width of the inside horse from boot to boot plus the outside horses riders boot and that is if they are real tight. Also, a "rail trip" can be a nice trip or a tough trip depending on the style of the horse on the rail and the other pace or makeup of the rest of the field.

A speed horse pinned by an outside speed horse, and pinned would mean head and head or slightly behind and not a little in front is a way worse trip for the inside horse than the outside horse.

I think that calling a horse in the two path having a rail trip would compromise the exacts of what each horse actually had going for them or going against them, whichever it was for each.

Replays of the head on will give you all you need to know in terms of tightness to each other and where they actually were on the track early on before they went into the turn and switched leads just before that turn.

Hope that makes sense.

[blueguitar]

My favorite book on racing was Tom Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing although many would say that the book, which is quite old is now out of date. I believe a lot of his insights still have value. I particularly liked his comment that an important thing to look for in a horse is whether or not he gains in the stretch. He regarded stretch gain as being a very positive sign. I look for that and also look at the horse's body language while in the stretch - does it seem like he's straining or having fun and is his head up or down. I love to see unusually positive comments by the chart maker which are rare such as "full of run," and "surged" and "good energy." I would like to hear your comments on this.

[str]

My favorite book on racing was Tom Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing although many would say that the book, which is quite old is now out of date. I believe a lot of his insights still have value. I particularly liked his comment that an important thing to look for in a horse is whether or not he gains in the stretch. He regarded stretch gain as being a very positive sign. I look for that and also look at the horse's body language while in the stretch - does it seem like he's straining or having fun and is his head up or down. I love to see unusually positive comments by the chart maker which are rare such as "full of run," and "surged" and "good energy." I would like to hear your comments on this.

"although many would say that the book, which is quite old is now out of date"

Answer: I hear people say this a lot these days. IMO, while some of what he wrote 40 some years ago might be outdated by more or new info becoming available to the player, if an insight is indeed correct, the right answer never becomes outdated does it.

The book was VERY informative back in 1968 when it was first published. Back then, there was a real struggle for informative horse racing information. That was about when I started to pay attention to the game and it intrigued me from the start.

" I particularly liked his comment that an important thing to look for in a horse is whether or not he gains in the stretch. He regarded stretch gain as being a very positive sign".

A. While this was sound advice then, we have come a long way towards understanding pace, duels, and trainer/jockey strategy when it comes to closer's and making up ground or not.

" I look for that and also look at the horse's body language while in the stretch - does it seem like he's straining or having fun and is his head up or down."

A. That is a solid start towards understanding what might be going on during the running of the race.

" I love to see unusually positive comments by the chart maker which are rare such as "full of run," and "surged" and "good energy." I would like to hear your comments on this."

A. Funny you mention that. When I first started handicapping, I saw, and reacted positively to those remarks as well. That stayed with me a long time. And they still catch my eye in a positive way today. But what I see in the charts, which are great to read, I would usually back up by watching the replay and make sure that what the chart caller thought he saw, I agreed with. Because I followed one track this was possible. I saw almost every race live. I also had access to replays both regular and head on shots, and it made a huge positive difference.

I realize that this thread is several years old and very long at this point but I encourage you to take some time and start at the beginning and find the comments that you find interesting if you already have not. Plenty of answers will be off topic so you don't have to read it all.

What you will find will be plenty of things to look for in the race that will help explain what you are trying to digest while watching the race. There is always a reason why something happened in a race. Understanding what happened is what separates handicappers abilities to break down data and find winners.

While everyone can see those positive comments in the form, plenty of those horses are over bet next out because a lot of people are reacting the same way you and I did.

But wait until you find one on your own. One that should have something positive written but does not. And wait until you play that horse and it wins at a nice price. Talk about feelin it ! No better feeling than outsmarting the crowd you are surrounded by.

Depending on your age and amount of time you can put towards handicapping, a lot of work might not be what you have in mind. No problem. But I do encourage you to wander through this thread and see if you can't find something that helps you see the race from a sharper set of eyes. That was the point of this whole thing was to help anyone that cared to want help, be it a little or a lot.

If you have any questions about what you find in these pages or any other questions, don't hesitate.

I hope these answers helped .

[blueguitar]

Mr. str: Thank you so much for your helpful comments. Although I'm not a big or frequent bettor I'm happy to report that I had a net gain betting horses over the past 2 years. I always believed that prior to that I was losing not because of lack of ability but because of lack of discipline. I would become bored not finding a good bet so I made bets just for the action. These past 2 years I enforced a strong discipline upon myself. I bet only a particular kind of horse and I bet only in stakes races. I have come to believe that claimers, who run about every 2 weeks are often worn out by racing, and are therefore less predictable. The high breds, on the other hand, are pampered and not asked to run often and it seems to me that they are more consistent. I know, by playing this way I have missed quite a few good bets but this is what I have found to be successful. I also have noticed something that I have never seen written about which is the betting habits of different areas of the country. It seems to me that in New York racing (not including Saratoga) the crowd seems to heavily bet down favorites whereas I believe this is less the case in the middle of the country. If this is so that would make non favorites a better deal in New York and favorites and low odds horses might be a better deal in Kentucky. I would like to hear your comments on what I have said here. Thanks again.

[terribell]

i wonder what could be the most unique or the newest way or "strategy" to

help increase chances of "Not" constantly winning, but end result is,

Nice Size Profits... without creating any kind of bad vibes!??

[str]

Mr. str: Thank you so much for your helpful comments. Although I'm not a big or frequent bettor I'm happy to report that I had a net gain betting horses over the past 2 years. I always believed that prior to that I was losing not because of lack of ability but because of lack of discipline. I would become bored not finding a good bet so I made bets just for the action. These past 2 years I enforced a strong discipline upon myself. I bet only a particular kind of horse and I bet only in stakes races. I have come to believe that claimers, who run about every 2 weeks are often worn out by racing, and are therefore less predictable. The high breds, on the other hand, are pampered and not asked to run often and it seems to me that they are more consistent. I know, by playing this way I have missed quite a few good bets but this is what I have found to be successful. I also have noticed something that I have never seen written about which is the betting habits of different areas of the country. It seems to me that in New York racing (not including Saratoga) the crowd seems to heavily bet down favorites whereas I believe this is less the case in the middle of the country. If this is so that would make non favorites a better deal in New York and favorites and low odds horses might be a better deal in Kentucky. I would like to hear your comments on what I have said here. Thanks again.

I Would say to stick with whatever you are confident with. Patience and confidence are a recipe for future gain in any cash environment. Yes, you probably left some opportunities out there but it's a hobby not how you pay your bills.

I get your point about the different betting patterns in regards to favorites at different tracks. It has been that way for a long time. My suggestion is to stay with what is working. If you play those tracks , fine, but I would not change anything to compromise your current model.
Lots of players know of this betting pattern. Don't let it change what you do is my advice.

[str]

i wonder what could be the most unique or the newest way or "strategy" to

help increase chances of "Not" constantly winning, but end result is,

Nice Size Profits... without creating any kind of bad vibes!??

There are people that play low% high return plays and can make money doing it. It is not for everyone though. It takes a certain type of personality and a high level of confidence to play this way. Most people need to cash tickets with frequency to keep confidence up. So it's not for everyone. But if you can handle the droughts, it's ok. Just depends on the individual IMO.

[JBEX]

hey str..I'm looking at a horse at mahoning valley..in his last race at 6f he showed speed to the half mile mark and then faded badly and finished last..In the comment line it says he bled..that race was 10/18 at kee for a 10k tag..3 starts back he ran a very similar line including his beyer figure but of course no bleeding comment.. when there's a comment bled how does the chart caller know that .. can he see it (binoculars) or is it reported to him ??also reason I brought up the similar running line was is it possible a horse bleeds and it is not discovered ? I'm guessing it's visible through the nostrils..not concerned about finding this out before today's race but rather to understand it better

[matrix1022]

Yes that is a great q. Waiting for answer

[str]

Yes that is a great q. Waiting for answer

It sure is.

Here we go.

[str]

hey str..I'm looking at a horse at mahoning valley..in his last race at 6f he showed speed to the half mile mark and then faded badly and finished last..In the comment line it says he bled..that race was 10/18 at kee for a 10k tag..3 starts back he ran a very similar line including his beyer figure but of course no bleeding comment.. when there's a comment bled how does the chart caller know that .. can he see it (binoculars) or is it reported to him ??also reason I brought up the similar running line was is it possible a horse bleeds and it is not discovered ? I'm guessing it's visible through the nostrils..not concerned about finding this out before today's race but rather to understand it better

Q. .. when there's a comment bled how does the chart caller know that .. can he see it (binoculars) or is it reported to him ?

A. He sees it through the binoculars. Unless there are very new rules in place and it would have been announced , it is not reported to him.

Chart callers, and I watched a few over my years by spending the race in the press box area and actually watching them do their job, call out the various pole calls and another person writes them down. It goes REAL fast. Very cool to see the 1st time. I had no idea.
They will watch the horses pull up if they are astute to see if they might return lame, or bleed, or whatever else they might see. In this case, the horse must have bled badly during the race and it was obvious. Often times, the rider can be splattered in blood as well after the race if the horse bled outward while the race was still running. Some might start to bleed once pulled up, but before coming back to be unsaddled.

To finish up with chart callers, they then watch a replay as often as needed to piece together the actual verbiage in the chart you get to read.

Q. also reason I brought up the similar running line was is it possible a horse bleeds and it is not discovered?

A. Absolutely. I would guess that maybe 1% of horses that bleed, do so before getting unsaddled. Maybe less than that. So if a chart caller sees it, it is real bad and started early on in the race.

Q. I'm guessing it's visible through the nostrils.

A. Rarely. The vast majority of horses that bleed will not bleed out through the nostrils. And of those that do, very few do so until well after the race. Maybe after they have walked and cooled out, pissed, and walked a bit more . Grooms might spot a slight trickle while cleaning them up an hour and a half after the race, but even that is kind of rare. Maybe you sponge out their nose and see a slight discoloration on the sponge.

The vast majority of horses that bleed need to be scoped to get any accurate reading of if and how badly they bled. A flexible 12"-14" thin tube on the end of what looks like a gun but has a place to look into like a telescope on the opposite end of it is used. It is inserted through a nostril and you follow the inner area way . Slight, moderate or quite a bit of splatter will appear along the area way towards the lungs. That is the ONLY accurate way to know exactly how badly or slightly your horse bled.
Can idiot trainers not realize the horse bled. Sure. Idiots are idiots. But any trainer worth a quarter will spend the money to make sure they know exactly what they are dealing with.
As for this horse, if he ran that type of race before, was he 1st time lasix after that? Only ask because 1st time you bleed, it is typically 10-21 days before you can race, depending where you are. 2nd time offenders, if the state vet catches them bleeding, it is typically 60 days. 3rd time is typically one year.4th time, typically life. But... like I said, you have to bleed terribly to be bleeding while the state vet can see it pulling up. Sounds like this horse had to serve the 60 day, 2nd offender procedure before it ran.

Hope that helps. Great question.

[JBEX]

thanks for the informative answer str..had a busy day yesterday and out this morning ..will check the form again on this horse when I get home this afternoon

[JBEX]

Q. .. when there's a comment bled how does the chart caller know that .. can he see it (binoculars) or is it reported to him ?

A. He sees it through the binoculars. Unless there are very new rules in place and it would have been announced , it is not reported to him.

Chart callers, and I watched a few over my years by spending the race in the press box area and actually watching them do their job, call out the various pole calls and another person writes them down. It goes REAL fast. Very cool to see the 1st time. I had no idea.
They will watch the horses pull up if they are astute to see if they might return lame, or bleed, or whatever else they might see. In this case, the horse must have bled badly during the race and it was obvious. Often times, the rider can be splattered in blood as well after the race if the horse bled outward while the race was still running. Some might start to bleed once pulled up, but before coming back to be unsaddled.

To finish up with chart callers, they then watch a replay as often as needed to piece together the actual verbiage in the chart you get to read.

Q. also reason I brought up the similar running line was is it possible a horse bleeds and it is not discovered?

A. Absolutely. I would guess that maybe 1% of horses that bleed, do so before getting unsaddled. Maybe less than that. So if a chart caller sees it, it is real bad and started early on in the race.

Q. I'm guessing it's visible through the nostrils.

A. Rarely. The vast majority of horses that bleed will not bleed out through the nostrils. And of those that do, very few do so until well after the race. Maybe after they have walked and cooled out, pissed, and walked a bit more . Grooms might spot a slight trickle while cleaning them up an hour and a half after the race, but even that is kind of rare. Maybe you sponge out their nose and see a slight discoloration on the sponge.

The vast majority of horses that bleed need to be scoped to get any accurate reading of if and how badly they bled. A flexible 12"-14" thin tube on the end of what looks like a gun but has a place to look into like a telescope on the opposite end of it is used. It is inserted through a nostril and you follow the inner area way . Slight, moderate or quite a bit of splatter will appear along the area way towards the lungs. That is the ONLY accurate way to know exactly how badly or slightly your horse bled.
Can idiot trainers not realize the horse bled. Sure. Idiots are idiots. But any trainer worth a quarter will spend the money to make sure they know exactly what they are dealing with.
As for this horse, if he ran that type of race before, was he 1st time lasix after that? Only ask because 1st time you bleed, it is typically 10-21 days before you can race, depending where you are. 2nd time offenders, if the state vet catches them bleeding, it is typically 60 days. 3rd time is typically one year.4th time, typically life. But... like I said, you have to bleed terribly to be bleeding while the state vet can see it pulling up. Sounds like this horse had to serve the 60 day, 2nd offender procedure before it ran.

Hope that helps. Great question.

the horse has been on lasix in at least 9 (all I can see drf)of her 13 career starts so not a first time lasix situation. returned in 30 days (monmouth) and wired a field at the same level with a big beyer after the fade 3 back..guess no conclusion could be drawn
as to whether she bled based on that..but not to go off on too much of a tangent I wanted to understand more about how bleeding is spotted and handled by trainers and track officials and you did that very well..appreciate you taking the time to explain it

[str]

the horse has been on lasix in at least 9 (all I can see drf)of her 13 career starts so not a first time lasix situation. returned in 30 days (monmouth) and wired a field at the same level with a big beyer after the fade 3 back..guess no conclusion could be drawn
as to whether she bled based on that..but not to go off on too much of a tangent I wanted to understand more about how bleeding is spotted and handled by trainers and track officials and you did that very well..appreciate you taking the time to explain it

Anytime JBEX.

Its my pleasure.

[JBEX]

hey str... does a horse who runs once or twice off a 6-7 month layoff and then returns In about 2 months to run again retain any conditioning from that or those two races? I'm assuming at least a modest effort in the races off the layoff.. For example a horse runs in March on the inner track at aqu..next start would the trainer consider running at Belmont in October as a primer to come back on the inner track in December a little fitter first time out?

[str]

hey str... does a horse who runs once or twice off a 6-7 month layoff and then returns In about 2 months to run again retain any conditioning from that or those two races? I'm assuming at least a modest effort in the races off the layoff.. For example a horse runs in March on the inner track at aqu..next start would the trainer consider running at Belmont in October as a primer to come back on the inner track in December a little fitter first time out?

Q. does a horse who runs once or twice off a 6-7 month layoff and then returns In about 2 months to run again retain any conditioning from that or those two races?

A. Yes. And running once as long as an effort was shown can be carried over with typically much better results as compared to first off a long layoff. Running twice after 6 months and then taking 4-8 weeks for a third race would be probably more effective still. More so than once in most cases but you need to check the horses likes and dislikes on running well off those periods of time.
Most people see the % of wins or in the money off 6 or more months and think it is all about the trainer. While it has a lot to do with it, the horse in about 20% of the cases will have a true like or dislike with 6 months off. This goes to the horses ability to get fitter or less fit than the average horse while training up to it's race off 6 months. Just like people, some will be slow to gain lung capacity or shed weight while some will relish the freshness and could run better 1st off than in it's next several.

Q. I'm assuming at least a modest effort in the races off the layoff..

A. Yes, that is needed for sure .

Q. For example a horse runs in March on the inner track at aqu..next start would the trainer consider running at Belmont in October as a primer to come back on the inner track in December a little fitter first time out?

A. Yes. A 6 month layoff means 3 months totally off and 3 months training up to the return. That generalization is very close.

So the horse runs and then has 6-8 weeks to prep for what I am assuming is a winning effort. Unless the horse had 2 months in between because of another setback and was off 3 weeks and trained 5 weeks to get back, the horse should be plenty fit to win as long as the horse fits into the race and of course, the pace.

Hope that helps.

P.S. Laz ( your pic )was one helluva trainer. Met him briefly but did not know him at all. But the man was damn good at what he did.

[JBEX]

Q. does a horse who runs once or twice off a 6-7 month layoff and then returns In about 2 months to run again retain any conditioning from that or those two races?

A. Yes. And running once as long as an effort was shown can be carried over with typically much better results as compared to first off a long layoff. Running twice after 6 months and then taking 4-8 weeks for a third race would be probably more effective still. More so than once in most cases but you need to check the horses likes and dislikes on running well off those periods of time.
Most people see the % of wins or in the money off 6 or more months and think it is all about the trainer. While it has a lot to do with it, the horse in about 20% of the cases will have a true like or dislike with 6 months off. This goes to the horses ability to get fitter or less fit than the average horse while training up to it's race off 6 months. Just like people, some will be slow to gain lung capacity or shed weight while some will relish the freshness and could run better 1st off than in it's next several.

Q. I'm assuming at least a modest effort in the races off the layoff..

A. Yes, that is needed for sure .

Q. For example a horse runs in March on the inner track at aqu..next start would the trainer consider running at Belmont in October as a primer to come back on the inner track in December a little fitter first time out?

A. Yes. A 6 month layoff means 3 months totally off and 3 months training up to the return. That generalization is very close.

So the horse runs and then has 6-8 weeks to prep for what I am assuming is a winning effort. Unless the horse had 2 months in between because of another setback and was off 3 weeks and trained 5 weeks to get back, the horse should be plenty fit to win as long as the horse fits into the race and of course, the pace.

Hope that helps.

P.S. Laz ( your pic )was one helluva trainer. Met him briefly but did not know him at all. But the man was damn good at what he did.

I had always felt in that situation a trainer might be trying to get some conditioning into the horse with an eye towards the race down the road.. also interesting that in roughly 20% of horses their physical makeup determine if they are capable of running well off layoffs and it's not just the trainer's skill or intention.. stuff like this very useful for capping... thanks str


the picture is of his brother.. Oscar Barrera

[str]

I had always felt in that situation a trainer might be trying to get some conditioning into the horse with an eye towards the race down the road.. also interesting that in roughly 20% of horses their physical makeup determine if they are capable of running well off layoffs and it's not just the trainer's skill or intention.. stuff like this very useful for capping... thanks str


the picture is of his brother.. Oscar Barrera

Yeah, it is. My mistake. Can't say I hold him in the same light at all. Never met him and honestly I had no desire to.

[JBEX]

Yeah, it is. My mistake. Can't say I hold him in the same light at all. Never met him and honestly I had no desire to.

yeah.. not a good avatar choice.. gonna replace shortly

[JBEX]

yeah.. not a good avatar choice.. gonna replace shortly

there.. that's better!!

[str]

there.. that's better!!

Oh wow !!!

It sure is.

Man, that is an old one.

Gave me goose bumps when I first saw it.

The chief was an incredible man.

[JBEX]

Oh wow !!!

It sure is.

Man, that is an old one.

Gave me goose bumps when I first saw it.

The chief was an incredible man.

it's from his tribute website but they don't give a date on it.. I'd say mid 1950's- early 1960's ..he was born in1929

[Thunderground]

Str, I'm just bringing up a general topic to see what thoughts it might trigger in your mind. lol

Today Ohio, a horse from Brazil, won his US debut at Santa Anita at 11/1 under Gary Stevens. The horse was an unknown, but Stevens had come in three times early in the morning to train with him. It's hard to put a number on it, of course, but if a high profile jockey like Stevens sees something in an unknown horse then ... maybe he shouldn't be going off at 11/1...

The race: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...t-sa-on-3-5-16


I was lucky to pick this up during the prerace analysis, but are there training records that handicappers can go to for info like this? It would certainly peak my interest to know that an unknown horse had peaked the interest of a high profile jockey.

[str]

[QUOTE=Thunderground;25396793]Str, I'm just bringing up a general topic to see what thoughts it might trigger in your mind. lol

Today Ohio, a horse from Brazil, won his US debut at Santa Anita at 11/1 under Gary Stevens. The horse was an unknown, but Stevens had come in three times early in the morning to train with him. It's hard to put a number on it, of course, but if a high profile jockey like Stevens sees something in an unknown horse then ... maybe he shouldn't be going off at 11/1...

The race: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...t-sa-on-3-5-16


I was lucky to pick this up during the prerace analysis, but are there training records that handicappers can go to for info like this? It would certainly peak my interest to know that an unknown horse had peaked the interest of a high profile jockey.[/QUOTE
not a Firster right? Had raced in Brazil right? If so :
When an older established rider works a horse 3 times before its debut as you described you can bet he feels the horse is the best horse in the race.
They don't all win but as many win as do lose . 11-1 on an even money angle is a no brainer.
Firsters are not as frequent but even so, a 50+ year old HOF rider working the same horse 3 times tells you all you need to know.

Dont know about advanced training records. Those types that I dealt with in claiming were not very good. It was worth it to me to watch them closely the 1st time and claim for more money if necessary. Usually was not as most that arrived in Md. We're not much and usually placed higher than their winning level first out.

Hope that helps.

EDIT : Let me say one out of three instead of one out of two win. Still, with this type of circumstance, it's a no brainer to play IMO.

[JBEX]

Str, I'm just bringing up a general topic to see what thoughts it might trigger in your mind. lol

Today Ohio, a horse from Brazil, won his US debut at Santa Anita at 11/1 under Gary Stevens. The horse was an unknown, but Stevens had come in three times early in the morning to train with him. It's hard to put a number on it, of course, but if a high profile jockey like Stevens sees something in an unknown horse then ... maybe he shouldn't be going off at 11/1...

The race: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...t-sa-on-3-5-16


I was lucky to pick this up during the prerace analysis, but are there training records that handicappers can go to for info like this? It would certainly peak my interest to know that an unknown horse had peaked the interest of a high profile jockey.

I wouldn't call him an unknown. He finished 2nd in an allowance race and then won by 4+ lengths in another allowance race 3 weeks later.. This was in Argentina which is the best racing in South America.. There have been many good ones from there including Paseana who won 10 Grade 1 races
and an Eclipse Award over here in the early 90's

[Thunderground]

Thanks str. I don't think it was widely known or he wouldn't have gone off at that price, so in that sense easily available training records wouldn't be much help. I only found out from the prerace comments. I knew where he was from but not that Stevens was so interested.

Jbex, the unknown factor was attached to him, by the SA analysts, because it's not really known if horses that did well in South-America can carry that over. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.