[str]

Hey str,
Thanks a lot your posts. I find your insights very helpful. I had a couple of questions regarding trying to set up how a race will play out. How do track conditions effect the race, specifically horse running styles or post positions. I saw before you said that closers have a harder time in the mud because of the debris flying up at them. That makes sense and isn't something I really thought of before. Is there anything else that comes into play in the mud with respect to running styles? Does it make it harder/easier on certain post positions? Or how would you expect a yielding turf vs a dry turf to impact a race for example. Is it just a question of looking at past performances to see which horses have an affinity for those conditions or are there more general truths like closers have a harder time in the mud?

The other question I have is post positions in general and how they play into the race. Can you talk about different post positions in general and how they benefit or detract from a horses running style? I would think that a speed horse would have an easier time closer to the rail because it can get out in front easier, and it would be less of a benefit for a closer that is going to run behind the pack in the beginning anyway. Is that accurate? Are there any other post positions or relative positions (ie. a speed horse inside of another speed horse vs a speed horse inside a closer) that you find important in trying to see how a race will play out. I know each race has to be looked at individually and there aren't going to be many blanket rules, but I was just looking for some generalities out there that I may be missing

Thanks again for all your help. It truly is appreciated.

Typically, closers will have a harder time in mud but not always. Some horses trust the slick/off surface while others do not. This holds true for various turf surfaces as well. The difference between a horse that loves a yielding turf or a sloppy track vs. a firm turf or fast track is the confidence and comfort the individual horse has on the surface that he/she loves, pitted against the horses that maybe trust the surface to an output of 85 or 90%. If a horse is a bit apprehensive to go all out on a surface, they are simply not as good a horse as you know that they can be. When these horses compete, just like when people compete , the difference between being the best and being very ordinary is not very much. While not being an athlete, but competing daily as a trainer, in my last year or so, when my interest was waning , my mind wondering, and I was deciding what I was going to do with the rest of my life, and if I was going to stay or go, my performance was no where close to what it was when I was totally focused. I doubt anybody realized it but I sure did. Some of the things that I did, or more realistically , found myself not doing made me sick after the fact. Quite frankly, as my kids say, I sucked! Nobody could recognize these things as mistakes, most would not even know what I was talking about, but I sure did. It was that little difference that took me from where I was to very ordinary at best. It was only maybe 10% or 15% difference but that is how fine the line is in competition. Horses, athletes, work, too me, the fine line is always present within competition.
Off tracks can be more prone to biases than dry tracks. The bias can have an impact on the outcome simply by a horses position. With no bias, the setup of the race and the difficulty of the trip usually plays a large part in the outcome.
Response # 101 speaks to positions within the race. So as to not be repetitive, go back and read that first. If that does not answer the question I will be happy to respond further but will need to better understand exactly what circumstances you want explained. Look for the term " the box" when discussing sprints and " covering up the horses right eye" in both sprints and distance races. Controlling speed along with solo speed are as dominate a spot as any when it comes to finding winners. Watching replays to identify these situations will help you see it as it happens more clearly. Once you can actually identify what I am talking about you can see it take place all the time within the races and start to be able to set races up before they run, either on paper or in your mind. Replays will eventually be able to show you why a speed horse did or did not run well in a race. Speed horses are the easiest trips to identify, so start with that and once you can see that, try to break down position horses and closers. Replays are the best tool out there IMO for people to learn the inner works of how races are run. It amazes me that more people don't realize that. Film study. That is an edge that you now have over the enemy, namely, the other bettors. Trust me. Do it. You will be glad you did. And ask away if you need help while doing it. I'm all ears.
So I guess the things to watch most for in mud are how the race figures to shape up, if a bias exists, and which horses if any, are better or worse than usual on that surface. Again, the post positions can have an effect on each horse according to how the race shapes up on wet or dry tracks. Each race has its own personality.
Yielding turf vs. firm turf both require finding horses that are better or worse on which ever surface you are trying to handicap on. Again, it is about the horse trusting the surface in most cases. However, one reason a horse might like turf can be because they have chronically sore feet. If that is the case, the softer the better for that horse. ( As an FYI , if you have a minute, go to the racing secretary's office if you are attending live racing and walk in and look for or ask someone where the " nerved list" is. This is a posted list of all horses that have been nerved in a portion of their foot, due to a broken foot that race there. Nerved horses must be registered with the state vet before running. Nerving is allowed below the ankle. If a horse breaks it's foot they don't go down like they would if it were a knee , ankle or other key areas. They would become sore during or after the race. Sometimes not for a couple of days. As you go down the list, you will notice that many of the names you recognize are horses that like the mud or turf. Not all of them but plenty that do. Bad feet on softer surfaces = a happy horse.) I don't follow results hardly at all these days and only go to the races a couple times a year for the major events but Gio Ponti is usually running in a race on the grass when I attend. Now I might have this backwards but he is a monster on the firm surface but isn't the same horse on a yielding turf. ( Hope I have that right.) Either way, he is exactly the type of turf horse I am talking about. Not all horses are like that though. Some will run well on all surfaces.
Turf races generally favor closers. Simply put, it is much easier for a horse to close on the turf than on the dirt. Easier for the rider as well. But pace makes the race and always will so if a jock can " walk the dog"( get the solo lead and slow the pace), catching that horse will prove difficult almost every time no matter the surface.
As I go down your list of questions I do think that answer # 101 will help you out.
Too me, if there is anything close to blanket rules of how most horses will react and how most races will work out, that answer speaks to it.
Once you read it, let me know if it was the answer you were looking for.
One last thing to throw at you handicappers. Upon arriving at the track, look at the flag flying in the infield . If it is very windy and the flag is straight out, the direction that the wind is coming from will help or hurt different styles of running.This happens more in the winter or early spring on the east coast but it is good to know. Kind of like a wind bias but most people will think it is the track, not the wind. If the wind is blowing down the stretch in to the faces of the horses as they run through the stretch towards the finish line, that will favor speed. The closers will be trying to sustain a full run in to the teeth of a strong wind. That is hard to do. Conversely, if the wind is blowing with the horses through the stretch , that will aide the stretch runners. This is because the speed horses have had to run there hardest down the backside in to that wind and have had to use more energy fighting that wind while the closers have been able to bide there time into the wind and in some cases drafted behind the speed and not had to fight it as hard. Always check the flag. Outwork the opponent.
If you bet other tracks on T.V. they will usually show the flag one hour before the first race or whenever they play the national anthem. If you can, try and see the flag then.

[sq764]

how much do you think turn time matters in handicapping t-breds?

[dumbmoney]

Wow, Str. There is so much great info in your response to me. And the time and effort you take to explain it all really is amazing. I just joined this forum for this thread, because it really is rare that someone with such insight is generous enough to share it. There are many angles I've found from reading your posts that I am trying to incorporate into my picking. Even that last bit about taking into account the wind is something that I never really do, but makes sense. I guess I didn't really pose a specific question about a horses running style relative to position. I did read post #101 before, but I went back and read it again and I do find it very helpful. If you do feel up to answering some more specific questions, that posts talks a lot about relative position with the speed horses, but how does it come into play with closers or pack horses with all things being equal. I would think that it would be less important with closers for example because they often drop over to the rail behind the pack anyway, and will often wind up closing wide anyway but I'm not really sure. All horses being equal, if you had two closers one on the inside and one on the outside with a bunch of speed and pack horses in between, would you favor the inside or outside closer? And the other question is if you had a lone speed horse with a closer that you felt like were the two live horses in the race, I know from your other post that you would favor the lone speed horse, but would the relative position come into play at all. Would you expect it to have an easier time on the inside of the closer, outside of the closer, or not make a difference?

[JakeLc]

Hawthorne is one of the tracks most affected by wind I have seen. Once the wind starts to get up around 15-20mph out of the west watch out.

[str]

how much do you think turn time matters in handicapping t-breds?

By turn time do you mean if they run a certain time while going around the turn?
If that is the case, it matters relative to the amount of pressure the pace setter is under and the typical amount of time that it would spend in that turn.
If at a mile track, I never broke down turn time. I understood that it was incorperated in to the 2nd split if it was 6F race for instance.
Help me better understand your question and I will try to better answer it. I could talk a lot about the turn but I am not sure if I would properly address your actual question. Let me know.

[str]

Wow, Str. There is so much great info in your response to me. And the time and effort you take to explain it all really is amazing. I just joined this forum for this thread, because it really is rare that someone with such insight is generous enough to share it. There are many angles I've found from reading your posts that I am trying to incorporate into my picking. Even that last bit about taking into account the wind is something that I never really do, but makes sense. I guess I didn't really pose a specific question about a horses running style relative to position. I did read post #101 before, but I went back and read it again and I do find it very helpful. If you do feel up to answering some more specific questions, that posts talks a lot about relative position with the speed horses, but how does it come into play with closers or pack horses with all things being equal. I would think that it would be less important with closers for example because they often drop over to the rail behind the pack anyway, and will often wind up closing wide anyway but I'm not really sure. All horses being equal, if you had two closers one on the inside and one on the outside with a bunch of speed and pack horses in between, would you favor the inside or outside closer? And the other question is if you had a lone speed horse with a closer that you felt like were the two live horses in the race, I know from your other post that you would favor the lone speed horse, but would the relative position come into play at all. Would you expect it to have an easier time on the inside of the closer, outside of the closer, or not make a difference?

Because riders have very little control over what the other horses will be doing in a race, I tried to not get to specific when mapping out a race in the paddock for what the jock might expect when it came to position( mid pack) horses. With speed , it is vitally important because the horse is pretty much one dimensional, some more so than others . With position what you try and have your jockey and horse find is comfort. If your horse wants to lay 5th or 6th in a ten horse race say, and it has the one post, you can't tell the jock to get to the outside right away. That might very well be impossible. In some races, it might wind up being easy but you never know until the race starts. What I would say is something like this: Ride away, get him settled , relax, probably 3 speeds( show him the horses, not necessarily numbers, but also positions where they are starting from and the riders on them. I was taught to write my instructions on my program and let the jock see the program as I was giving instructions so he/she could see whatever info THEY wanted to monitor the competition with, ie. other jock, color of horse, post position,silks, blinker color, etc.) so pace should be true, prefers to go around, split or go inside, depending on what each horse liked the most, and go when ready( but let them know if the horse hangs). With those orders, I had to trust the jockey to use their best judgment as to the actual spot ( where) on the track was best . If a bias existed , I would be adamant about it, but only a few jockeys back then really understood it. Like when I went nuts and threw my chair from a previous answer. You hoped for a solo spot( the most comfortable spot for the horse) but it was pretty much out of your control. Relaxing within the race was really the key. Without that, winning would be tough.
For the dead closers that were way back, there was not a lot to say. Saving ground was a given. When to move depending on the horse, was important but I tried to ride the same jockey on the same horse so the familiarity existed for both jock and horse. A lot of jockeys will go around if they feel as though the only way they lose is if they get stopped. I never cared where they were from the 3/16s pole home on a fair track but always was looking to split or go inside around the turn at least when possible. Yes, it got me beat sometimes if the horse got shut off, but it won many more races that would not have necessarily be won by saving the ground. Also, because the jockey was usually above average, they knew this going in and both of us expected no less. Because most mile tracks have only subtle differences, where you were running could play a role as to when you made your move. Those choices were not vastly different though.
With Timonium coming up, if any of you go there, there is a key to when to move in longer races. Not so much 6 1/2 ( long? haha) but 1 mile and further. If you go to Timonium, do yourself a favor and park on the York Rd. side( the backside). that allows you to walk down to the area where the gate sits in the chute for 4F races. When you get behind the chute, like looking from behind the gate if it were in position, look down the backside of the track. You will notice that the track surface actually dips down a few feet and then comes back up prior to the turn. Because of where that dip is located, a rider on a closer that waits to long to start the closers rally, will be asking the horse to kick in to high gear going up hill. That puts the horse at a disadvantage. A deep closer should be starting to pick it up just as he is coming out of the clubhouse turn. Not all out but starting to get their stride under them and starting to make up ground. That way, the horse is starting to make up ground down hill and has it's momentum in full swing before engaging the uphill portion. Once clear of the incline, the full rally can go forward. When jocks wait and ask for everything just as the hill comes in to play, the horse has a tendency to climb . This wastes action, energy and being fluid within the horses stride, thus uncomfortable. This can be witnessed by watching on T.V. or in person. About an 1/8 of a mile ( maybe 1/16th, can't remember) before the far turn most races will seem to have very little passing or momentum take place for maybe 10 seconds. Kind of like they race pauses for that time. Again, especially the long races. That is the reason why. Once they hit the turn it will seem like they are all moving up or back.
Jockeys that realize this have an edge. Riders that have not ridden there before will struggle with it until they adjust.
So the answer is yes, it doesn't matter so much for closers except what I have stated.
Inside or outside closer all things being equal? If both horses relished there spots on the track , thus making it equal, I would take the rail horse. But that would be if the jocks are equally above average as well. It's really just a guess but saving SOME ground was always what I hoped for.As a handicapper, I don't think you should put much stock in to the question of will the dead closer be inside or outside. Make sure that the rider is competent and trust that his/her competency will come through. Not really something that can be pinpointed closely enough to have it be a deciding factor as to who to play IMO.
2 live horses a closer and a lone speed: If a lone speed is trying to be run down is it easier to run the horse down inside of the speed or outside of the speed? It is always easier to run clear instead of in close quarters for almost all horses. So outside would be the answer most times. The post position of those two should not matter in most cases. Unless the post position cost the lone speed more energy and took away a chance to relax it would not matter. If you look at the Seattle Slew PP that I recently posted, the 10 hole did indeed cost Slew, in that, he was not able to relax early on. I don't recall if it was because other speeds in the race did not materialize and the rider assuming they would, felt he needed to get Slew on the engine(get him running immediately out of the gate) or if Slew just was the last in and they sprung the gate quickly and he never settled. It was one or the other because Slew not relaxing and being short from two 7/8s races where he was tons the best, and burning full energy from start to finish is what got him beat. Not the opponents. In that case it did matter but it is impossible to bank on if the post is going to make an event like that happen or not. Lone speed should be able to relax on the front end. But if it appeared as though their were 3 speeds and a rider gunned early on with that in mind but the other two speeds never materialized and the horse would not relax when asked too, the jockey can look pretty foolish. We have all seen that happen.
Great questions. Hope I answered them fully for you.

[dumbmoney]

You've really done me an amazing service. I've really been thinking about the races differently since reading your thread and I've noticed an improvement. I'm now trying to cap the entire race more as a whole and not focus as much on the horses individually, and I've been doing much better this way. I moved up to Saratoga Springs 3 years ago, and since I've been up here I've been getting more and more into racing. There's a ton more for me to learn, and its always good when someone with real knowledge is willing to share it with you. Thanks again.

[sq764]

say turn time for 6f races only... how much emphasis do you put on this?

[Dark Horse]

Typically, closers will have a harder time in mud but not always. Some horses trust the slick/off surface while others do not. This holds true for various turf surfaces as well. The difference between a horse that loves a yielding turf or a sloppy track vs. a firm turf or fast track is the confidence and comfort the individual horse has on the surface that he/she loves, pitted against the horses that maybe trust the surface to an output of 85 or 90%. If a horse is a bit apprehensive to go all out on a surface, they are simply not as good a horse as you know that they can be. When these horses compete, just like when people compete , the difference between being the best and being very ordinary is not very much. While not being an athlete, but competing daily as a trainer, in my last year or so, when my interest was waning , my mind wondering, and I was deciding what I was going to do with the rest of my life, and if I was going to stay or go, my performance was no where close to what it was when I was totally focused. I doubt anybody realized it but I sure did. Some of the things that I did, or more realistically , found myself not doing made me sick after the fact. Quite frankly, as my kids say, I sucked! Nobody could recognize these things as mistakes, most would not even know what I was talking about, but I sure did. It was that little difference that took me from where I was to very ordinary at best. It was only maybe 10% or 15% difference but that is how fine the line is in competition. Horses, athletes, work, too me, the fine line is always present within competition.

That's strong stuff, str.

I tend to think this is what makes America special, even today. A high ratio of people who try to be the best they can be; it takes a lot of awareness not to slack off, and a lot of creativity to stay fresh and inspired as the years pass.

[orioles]

Kupfer and Lages.

[orioles]

Hi str. I used to sch. study hall as the last class at HS. I could get to Pim by the fourth race. I would sneak around there so my Dad wouldn't catch me. But he knew every time. He never ever looked at the form. Loved to watch the board. He seemed to always have the horse nobody else had. So you trained in MD? Strictly claimers? Were you a top ten trainer?

[str]

Hawthorne is one of the tracks most affected by wind I have seen. Once the wind starts to get up around 15-20mph out of the west watch out.

Pimlico is also a place where the wind comes in to play, especially in March or early April. It's elevation in Baltimore is high, thus the nickname " Old Hilltop". I actually saw a jockey get blown off of a horse there once. Ronnie Poulin was had the bug and was blown off with a small lead just before the 1/8th pole. He was blown up and on to the turf course. Unbelievable!
A player should always check the wind there in the spring time.

[str]

say turn time for 6f races only... how much emphasis do you put on this?

Honestly, other than taking in to consideration all the fractions when looking at a race, I did not put any emphasis on actual turn time. The only way to do it would be to monitor each horses actual time I would think. Loss of ground would be an important component I assume and without knowing the trip each horse would be getting, I am not sure how it would have helped me for what I was looking for.
Hope that helps.

[str]

That's strong stuff, str.

I tend to think this is what makes America special, even today. A high ratio of people who try to be the best they can be; it takes a lot of awareness not to slack off, and a lot of creativity to stay fresh and inspired as the years pass.

If you have a passion for what you do and a desire to do it well, it seems to take care of itself.
Thank you for the kind words.

[str]

Kupfer and Lages.

Tommy and Jimmy.

[str]

Hi str. I used to sch. study hall as the last class at HS. I could get to Pim by the fourth race. I would sneak around there so my Dad wouldn't catch me. But he knew every time. He never ever looked at the form. Loved to watch the board. He seemed to always have the horse nobody else had. So you trained in MD? Strictly claimers? Were you a top ten trainer?

Yes , primarily in Md. Mostly claimers.Yes.

[JakeLc]

The first horse I owned was not sure-footed at all and would not run a step on a wet track. He was also not athletic at all so if he encountered any trouble, it was game over for him. He could not recover and get back into his stride quickly enough. Basically the gate would open, and you just would steer him. Put him on a dry track and keep him away from trouble, he would give you everything he had each time out.

[orioles]

Lakeville Miss?

I wish I could recall with more accuracy exactly which ones were biggest but I can not. The one that left the biggest impression on me was at Pimlico. I can't recall the horses name but the rider was definitely Nick Shuk. It was a stakes race , almost positive it was 6 furlongs. I am pretty sure it was the Flirtation Stakes for 3 year old filly's. The horse was 1-9 and finished way back. Never a factor. I am thinking that the highest of the 3 show prices was like 120.00. That could be wrong. The other 2 were like 55.00 and 77.00 or something like that.I think it was just before I started training on my own or just after I started, so mid 70s. Reason I remember the parts that I do is that it made such an impression on me that someone had just lost sooooo much money. Also, Nick Shuk who was a very good rider was well into his heyday by then and not nearly as good anymore. At least that is what I thought. He always rode with white gloves in every race. Never really got that but it was his trademark.
I probably saw one that paid as much or more but I just don't recall.
Thanks for the question.

[unusialsusp5]

horseplayers if you try to use this guys info you won't have time to make a bet. instead of checking the wind at pimlico consult with the 17 people that are there not betting on maryland stiffs. this place is doomed to extinction because no one goes there anymore. his info is useless to the modern day player. just throw out the favorite and go from there.

[str]

Lakeville Miss?

It was not her but right around that time I think.

Great guess.

[Dark Horse]

str,

Martin Garcia, who rode Coil, said his horse waited a little bit when he got to Shackleford just inside the eighth pole.
“He wanted to look at the other horse,” Garcia said. “I must have switched sticks five times.” -drf

I had to grin when I read that. Amazing that, at this speed, the jockeys know immediately what is going on in the horse's mind. Garcia also said he knew he had a lot of horse earlier in the race, when he asked Coil for more speed, but then quickly held him back. As I study this sport more, a very enjoyable experience by the way, I've come across that phrase many times. 'I knew I had a lot of horse'. Am I right to think that, when a jockey knows that, he knows he's pretty much got the race? It seems that every time a jockey makes a comment like that, the horse definitely doesn't run out of steam.

Can you look at the race video, and point out where Garcia asked more of the horse, and then held him back, because he realized he had a lot of horse? Thanks!



Also, why was Baffert so upset about his horse being dead last after the start? That's the same trainer who successfully retrained First Dude to come from behind. In this case, I guess Baffert preferred the horse in the middle of the pack. Yet the jockey, Baffert also mentioned, preferred to keep Coil more in the back. After Coil won Baffert gave all the credit to the jockey, but somehow I don't think he felt that way towards Garcia after the start. lol Did the jockey have a better read on the horse than the trainer? There was all sort of behind the scenes stuff going on between jockey and trainer, and you kind of had to read between the lines to form a picture. After the race, Baffert called out to the jockey "How did you do it?!" But he left every impression that during the race he had been hung out to dry. I don't know if I've seen a trainer so publicly go through a rollercoaster ride during a race. As a former trainer, what is your take on that?

[str]

str,



I had to grin when I read that. Amazing that, at this speed, the jockeys know immediately what is going on in the horse's mind. Garcia also said he knew he had a lot of horse earlier in the race, when he asked Coil for more speed, but then quickly held him back. As I study this sport more, a very enjoyable experience by the way, I've come across that phrase many times. 'I knew I had a lot of horse'. Am I right to think that, when a jockey knows that, he knows he's pretty much got the race? It seems that every time a jockey makes a comment like that, the horse definitely doesn't run out of steam.

Can you look at the race video, and point out where Garcia asked more of the horse, and then held him back, because he realized he had a lot of horse? Thanks!



Also, why was Baffert so upset about his horse being dead last after the start? That's the same trainer who successfully retrained First Dude to come from behind. In this case, I guess Baffert preferred the horse in the middle of the pack. Yet the jockey, Baffert also mentioned, preferred to keep Coil more in the back. After Coil won Baffert gave all the credit to the jockey, but somehow I don't think he felt that way towards Garcia after the start. lol Did the jockey have a better read on the horse than the trainer? There was all sort of behind the scenes stuff going on between jockey and trainer, and you kind of had to read between the lines to form a picture. After the race, Baffert called out to the jockey "How did you do it?!" But he left every impression that during the race he had been hung out to dry. I don't know if I've seen a trainer so publicly go through a rollercoaster ride during a race. As a former trainer, what is your take on that?

Yes , you are correct. Jockeys know when they have a lot of horse. Unless the horse suddenly comes up empty, for no reason that the jockey can identify,the horse usually runs a very big race. That does happen, but not that often.
He angled the horse out and subtly asked the horse to start to pick up the pace at :57 of the video. Because it was subtle, there was no big burst of energy, so it took several strides for him to start to realize what he had underneath him. By the 1:06 mark he was trying to put the brakes on any move , knowing by then that it would be there when he asked for it.
Baffert was probably upset because his horse was standing perfectly still while others were having problems and an instant before they sprung the latch his horse took a step back. If you watch just Coil's legs on the video while in the gate, you will see him step back . Then, the gate opens. Baffert was thinking to be laying a few lengths off the lead . That step back changed everything . He was not last early by choice. The announcer said that the jock had taken the horse back to last. Incorrect. The step backwards created that. At that point, the jockey did the smart thing. Let the horse settle and get himself together , then worry about it. If he had trailed the field and never made a move, too me, the jockey still did the right thing. Rushing him up in to contention does not work out very often.
The jockey probably did have a little better read on the horse than Baffert did. Baffert felt the horse needed to be mid pack to give him the best chance to win. The jockey felt he could be further back and be fine. Neither planned to be where they were after and 1/8th of a mile. Baffert had to see what happened just past the 3/4 pole. He had to have felt a little better at that point. By the 5/16s pole he had to have felt real good about his chances.
Lastly, when a horse feels like they are waiting a bit or looking at the other horse, it feels like when you are driving at a descent speed and then your car hesitates for a second. You don't really drop in speed but a fraction but it feels weird. That is what the jockey feels when the horse waits or looks a bit.
Great question!

[Dark Horse]

Thanks as always. More great insight.

[Dark Horse]

Another horse-jockey question, if you don't mind, str.

Your thread has helped me a lot. Not only because of direct answers but also because of thoughts they would inspire. I now do a full field analysis before looking at the ML's. And then a post race analysis to learn from what I missed (that's where much of the learning happens).

The Whitney this past weekend. I didn't think Rodman (Prado) would finish in the money, but thought he had an outside shot. Earlier this year, in the Metropolitan, he had finished 2nd behind Tizway.

Metropolitan:


Rodman finished very strong in this race. So I think that set up the strategy to run a similar type of race in the Whitney. The only 'problem' was that Rodman had different ideas. As the video below shows the horse and rider were not on the same page for at least 15 seconds of the race. So my question is if this fight (?) between them could have cost the horse the very energy that the jockey was trying to preserve for the stretch. And if that is the case, would it have been better -with 20/20 hindsight- if the jockey had been a little more willing to let the horse run its own race? Or am I reading too much into this and is it quite normal to have this type of battle between horse and rider? This field was of a higher quality than in the first race, so I'm not suggesting that Rodman could have made a similar run down the stretch. It just seemed like he didn't have the same energy left in the tank (the race was longer as well).

Whitney:


My question ties in to comments by other jockeys, who sometimes say that they trusted the horse and let him run his own race. That was clearly not the case here. So I'm trying to get a better understanding of where they draw the line between prerace strategy and adjusting to a horse when he may have a completely different idea.

[Ingram$]

What was the scandal? Sounds interesting

[str]

Another horse-jockey question, if you don't mind, str.

Your thread has helped me a lot. Not only because of direct answers but also because of thoughts they would inspire. I now do a full field analysis before looking at the ML's. And then a post race analysis to learn from what I missed (that's where much of the learning happens).

The Whitney this past weekend. I didn't think Rodman (Prado) would finish in the money, but thought he had an outside shot. Earlier this year, in the Metropolitan, he had finished 2nd behind Tizway.

Metropolitan:


Rodman finished very strong in this race. So I think that set up the strategy to run a similar type of race in the Whitney. The only 'problem' was that Rodman had different ideas. As the video below shows the horse and rider were not on the same page for at least 15 seconds of the race. So my question is if this fight (?) between them could have cost the horse the very energy that the jockey was trying to preserve for the stretch. And if that is the case, would it have been better -with 20/20 hindsight- if the jockey had been a little more willing to let the horse run its own race? Or am I reading too much into this and is it quite normal to have this type of battle between horse and rider? This field was of a higher quality than in the first race, so I'm not suggesting that Rodman could have made a similar run down the stretch. It just seemed like he didn't have the same energy left in the tank (the race was longer as well).

Whitney:


My question ties in to comments by other jockeys, who sometimes say that they trusted the horse and let him run his own race. That was clearly not the case here. So I'm trying to get a better understanding of where they draw the line between prerace strategy and adjusting to a horse when he may have a completely different idea.

First things first. The difference between a one turn race and a two turn race are night and day even if the distances are the same. That must always be in the back of your mind when looking at the pp's. I realize that your two examples are 1 mile and 1 1/8th miles but he also ran 1 1/8th miles out of the Belmont chute in the Suburban after the Met Mile . Having said that, in the one turn race ,Rodman broke and was able to relax right away. Without knowing the horse at all , there is no question that one reason was that he was the recipient of a great trip, especially early. He was able to be comfortable and cooperative right from the start. Starting at 39 seconds on the film, he is totally clear of any surrounding pressure. If you remember when I talked about having a clear right eye, his was totally clear. The only inside pressure was a horse that came up to his inside hip further down the back stretch. That is considered no pressure at all and a horse will stay relaxed until it feels a movement of some sort. Inside pressure is nothing compared to outside pressure( remember the advantage the box gives horses right?) Follow the race to the 1:04 mark and you will see Edgar reach up and pull down a dirty pair of goggles. As soon as Rodman feels that difference of pressure on the reigns from only one hand, he starts to accelerate. Since many horses that truly like to close won't use that subtle cue to pick up the bit but Rodman did, that tells me that Rodman is not that type of closer. A true closer won't have that much difficulty with an inside position either. Although it is not a perfect position, it is OK if you are a closer and are relaxed with it. I asked for his form because although I had it for the Whitney ( I was there Thurs.-Sunday, Friday and Saturday at the races) I no longer keep forms because I just don't follow the horses very often any more. Anyway, whether he closes a lot or a little it seems logical based on his actions within the races that he( Rodman) prefers to be a much closer and prefers the type of position that a speed horse would like if it could not make the lead.
The strategy for the Whitney might have had thoughts of the Met Mile within it but he had just been on the lead in the Suburban so laying 7th one race ,going to the lead the next race and trying to lay 7th again when coming off two one turn races and now going two turns was probably not what was discussed. Prado was looking to get a nice striking position towards the front . This is evident on the replay by the position of Edgar's hands as they leave the gate in the first several strides. If you watch just Edgar's hands and then watch the jockeys hands on the 11 horse, you will see the difference. Edgar's hands are several inches further up the neck at the 07 second mark than the eleven jocks. As I have said before the higher up the mane that a jockey's hands are, the more freedom to accelerate the horse has. This might be tough to see for now but if you start watching hands around far turns and at 1/4 poles you will quickly start to see which horses have something left and which ones do not.The hand position in the first 10 strides leaving the gate are a bit tougher to detect at first but study it enough and it will become much easier to spot.
So with an outside post, not being 5 wide was certainly on Edgar' s mind. He breaks , and sees that he will indeed be way wide if he stays where he is. His choice is to gun forward( that would have been a terrible choice) or get back a little and get over. But , because he was allowing Rodman some freedom to go early, he is getting geared up mentally. Edgar at that point has to take Rodman up momentarily in order to clear heels and then drop over. That works out OK but Rodman once down inside ( about the 22 second film mark) starts wanting to continue forward. That is a shame because had Rodman cooperated more he would have been inside , by himself, with a chance at a real good trip. But... he is somewhat geared up. Further causing a stir , at the 22 second film mark Rodmans right eye gets covered up by the horse next to him. If you watch the rerun of the Suburban you will see Rodman do the same exact thing. He breaks slow in that race , is able to get up in to his spot but once he gets within 1/4 length of the lead from inside, he surges and momentarily fights the jockey until he is clear of that claustrophobic position. Once clear of that cover up, he seemed to relax on the lead . Seems like the same thing here. At the 27 mark he is running off and getting very near being on the heels of the horses in front. Edgar has no choice but to steady him sharply at that point. No jockey error here from my view point. I would have to blame the horse and the situation.
The fight certainly did cost Rodman energy. However Edgar had no choice. He was going to clip heels if he did nothing and probably go down. I doubt there was any where for Edgar to go except back. He looked to be pinned behind the two horses up front. Even if there was, Edgar would have looked like a fool rushing between horses at the 6 1/2 pole in the Whitney. You just cant do that.
The comment about other jocks trusting the horse and letting them run there own race sounds weird too me. I guess they can say anything when they win but not very many jocks ever came back to me saying that they did not do what we had talked about because they trusted the horse and let him do whatever. That answer would not have gone over well with me. Unless of course, we were getting our picture taken. They can say anything they want then.
Finally, you are not reading too much in to this at all. This is exactly the finer details that most fans no very little about. I think it is great that you guys are taking this to the next level. As I have said before, knowledge is power and if you are willing to take the time to understand anything more rather than less you will become more intelligent in regards to it. This knowledge is not needed to try and pick some winners, but having it allows you to understand what is really happening out on the track instead of just watching your pick and waiting for it to make a move and if it does great but if it does not, oh well. It is also a great source of understanding as to why horses ran extraordinarily well or poorly in there previous races. If you know why a horse ran a certain way last time, that gives you more knowledge than the opponent that does not, and that, is an edge .
Another very sharp question.

[Dark Horse]

Truly amazing detail. I'll be closely studying the film. Thanks str!

You're correct, by the way, about the jockey comment. On my mind was Maragh's comment after Tizway's win, saying that he trusted the horse could go the extra distance. It was trust, but not the same as letting the horse do his thing. The decision was the jockey's, and not the horse's.

[orioles]

Edgar does not seem to be the jockey he used to be. Shoemaker always got his horses to relax. He had the hands.

[stackitt]

Hey I just recently got into horse racing and would like to know more about it..

I am looking for a site that gives a lot of horse racing information on the horses stats. If you know any that would be great. Also what do you recommend to bet..Just win or exacts boxes tri boxes etc..Thanks

equibase, equineline are both good info sites

[str]

Edgar does not seem to be the jockey he used to be. Shoemaker always got his horses to relax. He had the hands.

I just do not see Edgar ride often enough anymore to fairly assess how he is riding. It would not be fair on my part.
Shoemaker was obviously one of the greatest of all time ( although the one race he rode for me was a disgrace. I blame Cosell for that but it was still terrible. I think I have talked about that.). It's really hard to say that and not sound like an ass but it was plain as day at Pimlico on Preakness day and in hind sight, I learned a valuable lesson from it.
And yes, Shoemaker could get any horse to relax. One of the greatest.

[str]

My best advice to sport28 is to find the takeout ( was always in the program ) of the track or tracks you might be interested in and understand the % for each type of bet before you play. Because they vary, you should always be looking at takeouts before wagering to get the most bang for your buck.

[dumbmoney]

Here is a good listing of all the takeouts for the tracks.

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/h...eout-chart.asp

Not sure if it is still 100% accurate, but its pretty close. The thing is if you are going to wager online, make sure you get rebates, because it makes a huge difference especially if you play exotics. For instance the site I use for a track like Saratoga gives me 9% for Tris, 4% exactas, and .5% WPS. After the rebate the takeout is pretty close across all bets, and with the less breakage with the more exotic bets they become much more of a viable option. The rebates vary track by track but most of the tracks with the larger takeouts also result in larger rebates, making them effectively closer.

[str]

While up at Saratoga last month, I was sitting with several guys and almost every race one of them said that a horse had bounced either in it's last race on the form or in the race just run. As I explained to them what my take on it was, it occurred to me that a lot of people are under the impression that this is a very common occurrence. I am sure that indeed it is not.
Yes, some horses do bounce. But , for every one that does , there are many that do not. I am not really sure if the term hasn't simply turned into a blanket statement for all favorites that don't run well and people do know the difference or if the people saying it really think that it occurs all the time. I want to make sure that you guys know that there are a ton of reasons for horses to run poorly and not many of them have to do with how they ran last time out. Do not get caught up in the bounce theory to the point where you write off a poor performance without trying to understand what really happened. Doing so is a trap for further misguidance as these horses run back down the road.
Analyze the race through replay and make a determination based on what you see, that is, pace, pressure, bias if any, class of race, track condition,trip, etc.
What ever you do, don't just write a bad performance off as a bounce and except it as such. Doing so, is a mistake that will ultimatly lead to more mistakes.

[Dark Horse]

Another question, str,

This the Goodwood, ran at Santa Anita this Saturday. I had picked Awesome Gem, who went off at 5-1. The race video suggests to me that the rider made a mistake by allowing too much of a gap. The commentator even mentions in the final turn that Awesome Gem is too far back. But then he closes... like the others are standing still. Yeah, the jockey had a lot of horse! Only to run out of track and leave first place to Game On Dude (the favorite at 1-1). Is it too easy to write this off as jockey error? What other factors are in play that I'm not seeing? The fast pace, difficulty of judging distance from so far back?

[Dark Horse]

---