[str]

hi str - i got really confused when i saw on betfair just now(delaware 21:15 british time) that two horses are running and on jockey is on both of them. 2A and 2B. what does it mean?

Often times a trainer will name the same rider on both halves of an entry. This can be for several reasons. The trainer might plan on only running one horse and scratching the other or both horses were ridden by the same jockey last time and the trainer is going to allow the rider to choose which one he/she would like to ride. Without seeing the form, did the named jockey ride both horses last time they ran? If so, it is just a courtesy . Once the rider and agent have told the trainer which one they will ride, the trainer will name another rider on the open horse if both will start. There are probably a couple of other reasons but one of those two are usually the case.
Hope that helps.

[bozeman]

yeah, it did. I actually suspected the jockey was gonna choose a horse before the race as one of the reasons, but wanted to know someone who knows more about this sport.
Will never bet on those again.
Thanks, i appreciate your help too

[str]

yeah, it did. I actually suspected the jockey was gonna choose a horse before the race as one of the reasons, but wanted to know someone who knows more about this sport.
Will never bet on those again.
Thanks, i appreciate your help too

Anytime.

Good luck.

[DDT]

I'm having an issue using the wagering machines at the track...could someone PM me to help. Thank you

[sandyw123]

Str, I'm looking at the field in the Haskell race tomorrow. It looks on paper like it'll be a race with the favorites coming in 1, 2, and 3. Yet I'm a little intrigued with Handsome Mike running from the 7 post with a recent workout of 6 furlongs at 1:11. His past races haven't been that impressive, though he's getting faster and showing that he likes dirt. I wonder if I'm making too much of the workout. I did see that the top 2 finishers (Alpha and Neck n Neck) in the Jim Dandy had come off sharp workouts prior to that race, but neither one was going up in class.

[sandyw123]

I have to make a correction. There's not even 7 horses in the Haskell, and Handsome Mike has #5. It's just been a long day.

[str]

I'm having an issue using the wagering machines at the track...could someone PM me to help. Thank you

Just not enough info to be able to help at this time.

Glad to try , but will need more.

Others within this site probably use these much more than I do these days, maybe they can help.

[str]

Str, I'm looking at the field in the Haskell race tomorrow. It looks on paper like it'll be a race with the favorites coming in 1, 2, and 3. Yet I'm a little intrigued with Handsome Mike running from the 7 post with a recent workout of 6 furlongs at 1:11. His past races haven't been that impressive, though he's getting faster and showing that he likes dirt. I wonder if I'm making too much of the workout. I did see that the top 2 finishers (Alpha and Neck n Neck) in the Jim Dandy had come off sharp workouts prior to that race, but neither one was going up in class.

IMO you might be.
I have never put much stock in published workouts. The reason for this is because, without witnessing the work or getting detailed information from someone that knows what they are looking at, I can have no idea HOW the work really went. By that I mean, how did the horse start and finish and was there company or a reason the horse did what he did. There are just too many variables. For instance, he worked in 1:11:4/5. Was that done in splits of 22, 23, 26 4/5, or was that done in 25, 24, 22 4/5. The difference is huge. In the first, he is staggering home, in the 2nd work , he is finishing up extremely well. Also, was there company for the work? Was he 5 in front of the company ( another horse) and beat him a neck in the end or was he 5 lengths behind and beat him by 5 lengths, and, who was the company, a maiden or another stake horse. Did he work at 6 AM when the track first opened and was harrowed and moist and perfect or did he work at 7: 40 AM when the track was all cut up from 300 horses training over it.
Because there are so many variables within the timing of the work that I do not know, IMO it is not information that I feel is helpful for me. Here is what I know. The horse is fit or he would not be entered into a race like this. His works show that he has trained up too the race with a workout every 9-11 days with no breaks, so without any interruption. For me, that's all I need too know about the workouts for horses like these.
The last thing in terms of workouts for this race that I see is the workout of Gemologist. The 58 2/5 work ( best of 43 horses that day) at Saratoga is IMO a better work without seeing them , than Handsome Mike's work. If he galloped out in 13 2/5 from the wire to the 7/8ths pole, he went 1:11:4/5 as well and the rider stood up at the finish. But... because I see them but try not to put too much emphasis on them at this level, I would need to feel good about the whole package that the horse brings to the race and not just the workout. Gemologists work was indeed a very sharp move. It is hard to ignore when it is that flashy, that's for sure. If you can, see if Alpha and Neck and Neck worked on any of the days that Gemologist did and compare them if you want. I am assuming that all 3 are training at Saratoga. That might give you a bit more insight but when it's all said and done, I would only put minimal stock in them IMO.
Some works that I DO put a TON of stock into are with lesser horses who have shown slower works and flash a faster than normal (for them) work from the gate AND are going Blinkers "ON". That is usually a strong indication that the horse will move well forward with the equipment change. ALL HORSES that add blinkers MUST break from the gate WITH those blinkers on before they can race with them. Because in some cases the trainer will only break and clear the chute, then stop the workout, the times are not published. But when the horse does have a workout and it follows this type of pattern, I pay lot's of attention to them , but that doesn't happen every day. When it does, take note. A very profitable scenario indeed.
Another type is when a horse runs in it's second start of it's life and the works are way faster than before it ran the 1st time. Sometimes, horses will really wake up after their 1st start, especially fillies. When this occurs, they usually improve drastically from there 1st start to there 2nd start. That angle works almost every time.
Still another scenario is when a horse has been gelded. If the works are sharply better from it's last start,or an abnormally quick work for that class of horse, you probably have a horse that will run much better 1st time as a gelding. They never used to publish 1st time gelding before, don't know if they do now. THEY SURE SHOULD. When you enter and the horse has been gelded you MUST circle that info on the entry slip so the info is there too be passed on to the bettor. It would not be any more difficult too publish than the blinkers ON or OFF would. In the racing office, it is considered a "change of equipment" ( I think my wife would consider it that, also). Because it was not published before ,and because I was a claiming trainer in Md., I would usually notice when it was a change. Some big prices come along when that happens sometimes and there is usually an indication that a good race is coming when you see a workout that is significantly better than the prior works. A recently gelded horse does not HAVE to work before it starts 1st time back, but because of the amount of time you lose gelding them, most horses do work once or twice before they run as a gelding for the 1st time. You see this a lot with maidens, but it can happen for any race. If the gelding info is still not published, you guys should contact some of the DRF writers and bitch about it or, contact the Stewards by way of the publicity office at your local track. It is REALLY valuable info for the public that never used to be passed along. Never really knew why.
Hope that helps you find some prices down the road. I am sure that it will.

[sandyw123]

Thank you, Str! You have really passed down some valuable information. I just haven't known what to look for. Now I will go back and try to dig up more information on the horses. Thanks!

[sandyw123]

Str, You're right about not putting too much emphasis on workouts on the forms. I watched the Haskell and was surprised to see both Dullahan and Gemologist finishing last. I had them in a quarter superfecta with Paynter and Handsome Mike, based on their workouts. Then I watched the horses being walked out and thought Paynter and Nonios looked the friskiest, like they were ready to run. So I put in an exacta with them and a show with Stealcase for good measure. Is there anything to horses looking more lively when they're ready to race? Shackelford appeared that way and seemed to often take that energy to the track. I just thought that Dullahan and Gemologist looked more sedate today and walked with their heads down a little lower than the others. Could there be anything to this?

[Dark Horse]

Here's the Haskell video. 28/1 Stealcase paid more to show than even money Paynter to win. ;)



My question is about Dullahan, a formidable closer, who Desormeaux had ridden well during the KY Derby, making up an impressive 9 lengths from the second call to finish 3rd. I know the pace was different, but why is he riding the horse against his natural running style? Recently, also discussed in this thread, he drove another horse into the ground early, for no apparent reason at all. Normally Dullahan isn't as deep a closer as in the Derby, but he's comfortable about 7 lengths off the lead at the second call. About where Stealcase was, who did have a nice stretch run. I've been learning all sorts of things from you about jockeys, and Desormeaux is starting to stand out a little as a 'different' kind of rider; and not in a positive way.

[sandyw123]

Why would Desormeaux ride Dullahan that way? I don't understand it either.

[str]

Here's the Haskell video. 28/1 Stealcase paid more to show than even money Paynter to win.



My question is about Dullahan, a formidable closer, who Desormeaux had ridden well during the KY Derby, making up an impressive 9 lengths from the second call to finish 3rd. I know the pace was different, but why is he riding the horse against his natural running style? Recently, also discussed in this thread, he drove another horse into the ground early, for no apparent reason at all. Normally Dullahan isn't as deep a closer as in the Derby, but he's comfortable about 7 lengths off the lead at the second call. About where Stealcase was, who did have a nice stretch run. I've been learning all sorts of things from you about jockeys, and Desormeaux is starting to stand out a little as a 'different' kind of rider; and not in a positive way.

Kent really did not PUT Dullahan there, he ALLOWED him to be there on his own. Watch Kent's hands. They never move from the spot at the base of Dullahan's neck until well down the backside, just before the 1/2 mile pole( red and white at the 1:10 mark) . He does however, angle Dullahan out on 2 different occasions early on rather than take a hold of him and make him settle in behind horses. He angles off the heels of a horse at the 16sec. mark and again at the 7/8ths pole at the 33 sec. mark. We will never know if he would have settled and made a nice run had Kent done that but from the over all effort, probably not would be my best guess.
In the interest of trying to find a viable excuse for the horse, this might have confused Dullahan somewhat. A typical closer, once covered up , will settle in that spot. He expects the dirt to hit him and he settles in. If you move that covered up horse outside in that same typical race, it is probably time to make a move, or at very least , start getting yourself ready to make a run. If the horse is a decent horse and wins his share of the time, the horse realizes that, OK , I am clear of dirt, angled out, let's get it on. The horse will naturally want to start to pick it up . It's time! Having said that, it looked to me that every time he slid outside to avoid running up on the horse in front of him, Dullahan picked it up, albeit only a little, but enough to get on even terms with the horse he was behind in both cases. It seemed to make Dullahan a little more aggressive, At 1:25, he asks the horse to give him a gear, and he has nothing. The race is over for Dullahan by 1:29. But, as bad and on the verge of easing up turning for home, as it looked, he still beats a horse. That too me is a sign of a horse that is resenting something or is simply overmatched and knows it. In this case, he is not that overmatched so throw that out.
When horses run as poor as that, we all want to find fault with the jockey. When a " finesse" rider allows the horse , who was seemingly running free and easy and within himself, to lay closer than normal and he is empty at the 3/8ths pole, it looks even worse. That is what happened here.
Dullahan really had no run in him yesterday. Was it because Kent allowed him to lay too close? I don't think so at all. Had he run evenly with no real kick, but stayed competitive, and been a respectable 3rd than maybe. But to drop the bit at the 3/8ths pole and run that bad, I see no fault in anyone except Dullahan. He was not happy about something. Let's see how things shape up for him next time, probably on poly and also probably, well back early.

[sandyw123]

Str, I've tried to find informantion on gelded horses. I don't see where they list whether horses are gelded on racing forms, unless I've missed it. It would be useful to know. I was surprised to learn that Game on Dude and Amazombie are both gelded. Also I read that gelded horses tend to be calmer, less agitated, and more focused in races. If that's the case, wouldn't it be a positive for a racehorse? I guess the downside would be that the horse couldn't be used for breeding, affecting pedigree.I'm assuming that's why it's not done more often.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks str. Not looking to blame the jockey. This is strictly for handicapping purposes. An up and coming guy like Mario Gutierrez rides his horses with such preparation and sensitivity. Maybe a been-there-done-that jockey like Kent doesn't have the same interest level anymore? He seems all or nothing quite a bit, which could affect in the money finishes, but I could definitely be wrong.

[str]

Str, I've tried to find informantion on gelded horses. I don't see where they list whether horses are gelded on racing forms, unless I've missed it. It would be useful to know. I was surprised to learn that Game on Dude and Amazombie are both gelded. Also I read that gelded horses tend to be calmer, less agitated, and more focused in races. If that's the case, wouldn't it be a positive for a racehorse? I guess the downside would be that the horse couldn't be used for breeding, affecting pedigree.I'm assuming that's why it's not done more often.

The line to look for is in the center of each horses form . At the top it will say something like"Dk.B. or Br. g.4 (Apr.). That means, dark bay or brown gelding 4 years old born in April. Or, it might say, " B.c.3 (Feb.) or, bay colt 3 born in February. That is the line that is shows colt or gelding. A male is a colt from ages 2-4. At 5 , he is called a horse.
You should contact the publicity department at the track that you attend, or contact one of the writers on DRF. Don't be afraid to speak up. Contact Marty "world be" McGee. We used to call him that because back in the 80s we would play basketball games trainers and jocks and press box vs. parking lot guys or whatever and Marty never saw a 25 foot jumper that he didn't like. LOL.

It IS a positive for most horses. Geldings will focus more and are less aggressive and yes it is a positive for a horse to be a gelding in most cases. Some colts just can not mentally put it together . Once they are gelded, things become clearer and the focus becomes sharper, thus the drastic improvement. Would be no problem as I said, to show this in the racing form maybe just above the BLKS.ON line. The only reason they don't show it is because no patrons ask for it. Believe me, it is great info too have and it is right in front of them on the entry form .
Your assumption is correct. Some of the owners I used to train for would act as though you were gelding them when you suggested it be done. Unreal. In almost every case, it is only a positive for the horse.

[str]

Thanks str. Not looking to blame the jockey. This is strictly for handicapping purposes. An up and coming guy like Mario Gutierrez rides his horses with such preparation and sensitivity. Maybe a been-there-done-that jockey like Kent doesn't have the same interest level anymore? He seems all or nothing quite a bit, which could affect in the money finishes, but I could definitely be wrong.

I knew that you were not trying to blame the jockey. But... when horses run bad we all lean unfairly in that direction sometimes. I know I did.

Q. An up and coming guy like Mario Gutierrez rides his horses with such preparation and sensitivity. Maybe a been-there-done-that jockey like Kent doesn't have the same interest level anymore? He seems all or nothing quite a bit, which could affect in the money finishes, but I could definitely be wrong.

A. This is absolutely true with some riders. Not all , but certainly some. These guys are human and have lives that we do not know that much about. They also have aches and pains that they must live with and still ride. That can really wear on you over time. It is REALLY tough to bring the same level of focus and hunger with you every day. Again, some more so than others. As we know, Kent has a lot of stuff going on in his life and maybe that has some lingering effect? I do not know but in case anyone misunderstands my intentions of suggesting that, let me say that Kent is as nice and kind and thoughtful a guy as you would ever want to meet. He really is a good guy as well as a class act. I would not say anything mean about him if I could. While I have not talked to him in years, there is no way that he changes from the core type of guy he was when we talked daily back in the day. With that said, life is not always easy for any of us. He has struggled with some personal issues that have gone public and I wish him nothing but the best. If anyone can overcome those issues, he can . A great guy that I would gladly endorse any day of the week.
From a pure handicapping angle, I think that your point about all or nothing is a valid one that you should consider right along with everything else. If that angle shows change down the road, be open too it. Don't etch it stone for life, but that can certainly happen , and does, for some journeymen sometimes. Those types of stats will jump off the page, when examined.

[Dark Horse]

Appreciated as always. I greatly respect jockeys and the work they put in. I wasn't so much looking for jockey error as for different levels of being awake. It's not an error not to be totally awake, or even go through the motions, but it's not going to give the best results either. I appreciate that you're not going to publicly criticize friends and people you know and respect in the industry.

[sandyw123]

The line to look for is in the center of each horses form . At the top it will say something like"Dk.B. or Br. g.4 (Apr.). That means, dark bay or brown gelding 4 years old born in April. Or, it might say, " B.c.3 (Feb.) or, bay colt 3 born in February. That is the line that is shows colt or gelding. A male is a colt from ages 2-4. At 5 , he is called a horse.
You should contact the publicity department at the track that you attend, or contact one of the writers on DRF. Don't be afraid to speak up. Contact Marty "world be" McGee. We used to call him that because back in the 80s we would play basketball games trainers and jocks and press box vs. parking lot guys or whatever and Marty never saw a 25 foot jumper that he didn't like. LOL.

It IS a positive for most horses. Geldings will focus more and are less aggressive and yes it is a positive for a horse to be a gelding in most cases. Some colts just can not mentally put it together . Once they are gelded, things become clearer and the focus becomes sharper, thus the drastic improvement. Would be no problem as I said, to show this in the racing form maybe just above the BLKS.ON line. The only reason they don't show it is because no patrons ask for it. Believe me, it is great info too have and it is right in front of them on the entry form .
Your assumption is correct. Some of the owners I used to train for would act as though you were gelding them when you suggested it be done. Unreal. In almost every case, it is only a positive for the horse.

Thanks, Str! I missed that on forms. I didn't see it, for looking elsewhere and not at abbreviations (which I wouldn't have understood anyway). I wonder if the public has been led to believe that geldings can't be good racehorses, so they don't ask for information about them. There was a gelding (Monzone I think, but I'm not sure) in a triple crown race several years ago, and it was brought up before the race that there had never been one in history that had ever won that particular race. To be honest, I really thought about putting him in an exotic wager, because he had been a consistent runner in his previous races. Anyway, thank you for your help!

[str]

Thanks, Str! I missed that on forms. I didn't see it, for looking elsewhere and not at abbreviations (which I wouldn't have understood anyway). I wonder if the public has been led to believe that geldings can't be good racehorses, so they don't ask for information about them. There was a gelding (Monzone I think, but I'm not sure) in a triple crown race several years ago, and it was brought up before the race that there had never been one in history that had ever won that particular race. To be honest, I really thought about putting him in an exotic wager, because he had been a consistent runner in his previous races. Anyway, thank you for your help!

There have been many famous geldings in racing.

Kelso was Horse of the Year 5 times ( On a short list of greatest of all time), Forego , 3 , and John Henry twice. These were truly the best of the best in there day. There were many others like Exterminator, about a hundred years ago and more recently Funny Cide and Mine that Bird. These were in the U.S.A.
Australia had a horse named Phar Lap ( Think that is how it is spelled) that ran around the time of the great depression. Only reason I know is that there was a big investigation that ultimately proved that the horse was almost certainly poisoned to death and the speculation was , it was done to save the mob tons of money in there bookmaking rackets. Crazy story if you care to read it. The U.K. had a jumper named Red Rum who did things no other horse ever did. Oh , and there was one more that comes to mind, Mr. Ed. Lol. I know that I left out a ton of others but those names come too mind.
While maybe some of these horses might have been maybe as good without being gelded, most of them would never have accomplished what they did if they were not gelded .
I don't know what the public perception of a gelding is but thinking they cannot be very good would be a mistake.

[sandyw123]

There have been many famous geldings in racing.

Kelso was Horse of the Year 5 times ( On a short list of greatest of all time), Forego , 3 , and John Henry twice. These were truly the best of the best in there day. There were many others like Exterminator, about a hundred years ago and more recently Funny Cide and Mine that Bird. These were in the U.S.A.
Australia had a horse named Phar Lap ( Think that is how it is spelled) that ran around the time of the great depression. Only reason I know is that there was a big investigation that ultimately proved that the horse was almost certainly poisoned to death and the speculation was , it was done to save the mob tons of money in there bookmaking rackets. Crazy story if you care to read it. The U.K. had a jumper named Red Rum who did things no other horse ever did. Oh , and there was one more that comes to mind, Mr. Ed. Lol. I know that I left out a ton of others but those names come too mind.
While maybe some of these horses might have been maybe as good without being gelded, most of them would never have accomplished what they did if they were not gelded .
I don't know what the public perception of a gelding is but thinking they cannot be very good would be a mistake.

I remember the story of Phar Lap. Years ago I watched a movie about that. I believe Phar Lap wa found dead in his stall by his trainer in the morning. He was certain the mob had killed his horse, but nothing was done about it. The mob had control over everything back then, probably law enforcement as well. That was a sad story. You've named some good horses (can't forget Mr. Ed). I do remember hearing about Funny Cide being a Gelding, but didn't know that Mine that Bird was also. Will have to look at the forms before races from now on where that information is located. I did find it when I was looking at the horses in the Vanderbilt Stakes. Sloane Ranger is a gelding, and I'd like to watch him run if I can Sunday to see how he does. He's actually looked pretty consistent and has run well at that distance. Thanks for your help!

[TonyP]

Why would Desormeaux ride Dullahan that way? I don't understand it either.

Because Dullahan is a turf horse and they need to bring him back turf

[str]

Because Dullahan is a turf horse and they need to bring him back turf

Tony, he certainly had something on his mind other than running to show that type of effort. It might very well be a surface change that is needed, be it poly or turf.
One thing I learned a long time ago though, was to never talk bad about a horse until they have been dead a year. Otherwise, they will make you look bad when you least expect it.

[Dark Horse]

A follow-up question about type of runners, as earlier discussed in this thread. This is slightly adjusted, so I would ask you to criticize it for lack of precision or lack of understanding.

front speed (0-1 length) - rate speed (1-2.5 lengths) - stalk (3-6 lengths) - close (7 and more lengths). Lengths at the second call, and more emphasis on the successful races in the pp's.

Earlier I used speed-press speed-stalk-close-(deep close), but to me, and this may have been my misunderstanding of the concepts, that didn't really express if a horse would usually take the lead (speed versus front speed), and also left it open if the horse was getting into a disadvantageous speed duel or was able to rate (press speed versus rate speed). 'Press speed' seems to express pressure on the front horse, which is useful knowledge. But rate speed gives more of an insight into the horse's own advantage. Does this make sense? Or does press speed already have the rating aspect build in?

Hansen is an example of a horse that was on its way to learning to rate (in the Gotham), until a blue tail fiasco before the next race distracted the horse, and made him forget what he had learned. This past Saturday he got into a speed duel in the West Virginia Derby, as the sky high favorite, and didn't have enough left in the stretch. Mike Smith seemed upset afterwards that the other horse -Hero of Order- had gotten into the speed duel with him. A strange comment that suggested to me that he was unable (or unwilling?) to get Hansen to run in any other way than as a pure speed horse. You discussed Hansen here before, and it seems too late now to change his ways, doesn't it? That would make him a speed or press speed, but never a rate speed. That's basically where the question is coming from. I'd also like to add 'tactical speed', but not quite sure how and where that fits in. It seems to apply to rate speed and stalkers the most, but that may be too easy.

[str]

A follow-up question about type of runners, as earlier discussed in this thread. This is slightly adjusted, so I would ask you to criticize it for lack of precision or lack of understanding.

front speed (0-1 length) - rate speed (1-2.5 lengths) - stalk (3-6 lengths) - close (7 and more lengths). Lengths at the second call, and more emphasis on the successful races in the pp's.

Earlier I used speed-press speed-stalk-close-(deep close), but to me, and this may have been my misunderstanding of the concepts, that didn't really express if a horse would usually take the lead (speed versus front speed), and also left it open if the horse was getting into a disadvantageous speed duel or was able to rate (press speed versus rate speed). 'Press speed' seems to express pressure on the front horse, which is useful knowledge. But rate speed gives more of an insight into the horse's own advantage. Does this make sense? Or does press speed already have the rating aspect build in?

Hansen is an example of a horse that was on its way to learning to rate (in the Gotham), until a blue tail fiasco before the next race distracted the horse, and made him forget what he had learned. This past Saturday he got into a speed duel in the West Virginia Derby, as the sky high favorite, and didn't have enough left in the stretch. Mike Smith seemed upset afterwards that the other horse -Hero of Order- had gotten into the speed duel with him. A strange comment that suggested to me that he was unable (or unwilling?) to get Hansen to run in any other way than as a pure speed horse. You discussed Hansen here before, and it seems too late now to change his ways, doesn't it? That would make him a speed or press speed, but never a rate speed. That's basically where the question is coming from. I'd also like to add 'tactical speed', but not quite sure how and where that fits in. It seems to apply to rate speed and stalkers the most, but that may be too easy.

I really don't believe in the "rate speed" type because IF a horse can do that the jock will want the horse back another couple of lengths to conserve . To me, the most easily misunderstood type of horse is the speed horse. They want the lead. If they can not get it OR have to work to hard for it or get that right eye covered up when putting forth effort down the backside or into the far turn, most will fold up and live to fight another day.
I watched the Hansen race and the Whitney. Hansen is exactly what we talked about in post 513 a few months ago. All the work that the trainer and his crew put into him is long gone. He is exactly what we said he would be, that is, a fainthearted one dimensional speed horse. If Mike Smith said anything bad about the inside horse going with him, it was just in frustration. He knows exactly what has happened and can't say it. I can though. The owner took a horse that had a real chance at being something special and ruined it with his childish antics. What a moron! The trainer must be livid. I hope that the owner enjoyed the blue tail going by the grandstand into the 1st turn. Last time I checked, they don't pay much for being in front into the clubhouse turn. Unless this horse can somehow mentally turn himself around, he is getting cheaper by the minute. And while Hansen's mental state is the problem, and try as anyone might, he is the only one that can really change that, the owner is fully responsible for this. 99% of all horses that do what he is doing and has done now, since post 513, never change. That's just the way it is. I won't say that he never will. I just recently spoke about talking bad about a horse, but if he does, it will be a rarity, to say the least.
Let's get back to speed horses. Unless a horse has proven on paper that it can rate second or 3rd , pass the leaders in the stretch and still finish up , you must assume that they can not. To me, a speed horse is a speed horse. Let's say, we see 3 speeds in a race. If they are all equal on paper, and its reasonable to assume that they could be head and head down the backside, I won't want to bet on any of them. But as we all know, it ain't that easy. So, I try and see , through different scenarios, how any of them COULD win. If the inside horse breaks sharp and slows it down while the 2 outside horses duel off of him , OR if the outside horse does not break so the middle horse gets an outside trip and if it puts pressure on the inside horse, OR if the outside horse lets the 2 inside horses go, sits 3rd outside by itself, and can run by turning for home, etc. I try and put logic from a "what will happen if" scenario into being able to play any of the 3 horses. If the past form of these horses can not back up these scenarios, I will toss them. I will not bet on a horse in hopes that it will be able to do something that it has never proven it can do before. If it does, so be it. I lose. Seeing each race like this has worked very well for me for a long time. Because I have done it this way for so long, it is hard to remember how I did it before.
I think that until pace is understood, trying to pick a winner has to be awfully tough. We all understand that if you lined up eight horses of equal ability and controlled the pace in various ways , you would have different winners because of that pace choice, every time. Solo speed, super fast speed duel, certain horses pinned inside, others getting outside trips, laying 3rd to a duel by yourself while others behind you are jostling around, the box, etc. Putting the race together and seeing what each horse had to deal with in there last race or races and what they will be forced to deal with this time is what we are all trying to do. All things being equal, the horse with the best trip will usually win. But, because they are all not equal, reading between the lines as to who overcame or could not overcome what last time, tells us how much more ability a horse might or might not really have.
I know that you realize this, but for those that do not, seeing a Beyer number is fine, but understanding WHY that horse achieved that number be it a high or low number, is the key.

Let me review your questions so as to be clear.

Q. Earlier I used speed-press speed-stalk-close-(deep close), but to me, and this may have been my misunderstanding of the concepts, that didn't really express if a horse would usually take the lead (speed versus front speed), and also left it open if the horse was getting into a disadvantageous speed duel or was able to rate (press speed versus rate speed). 'Press speed' seems to express pressure on the front horse, which is useful knowledge. But rate speed gives more of an insight into the horse's own advantage. Does this make sense? Or does press speed already have the rating aspect build in?

A. To me, as stated, speed is speed. Check for the probable trip but unless they have shown they can pass somebody in the stretch, assume they will not. Some have a tolerance for sitting just off with a clean right eye, but again, until they show it, I have to see it. (Hansen would not do it and we HAD seen it ). He has regressed mentally though. Also, did the guy really think that Hansen forgot about the tail thing ? Unreal !


Q. Hansen is an example of a horse that was on its way to learning to rate (in the Gotham), until a blue tail fiasco before the next race distracted the horse, and made him forget what he had learned. This past Saturday he got into a speed duel in the West Virginia Derby, as the sky high favorite, and didn't have enough left in the stretch. Mike Smith seemed upset afterwards that the other horse -Hero of Order- had gotten into the speed duel with him. A strange comment that suggested to me that he was unable (or unwilling?) to get Hansen to run in any other way than as a pure speed horse. You discussed Hansen here before, and it seems too late now to change his ways, doesn't it?

A. As stated, in all probability, yes.

Q. That would make him a speed or press speed, but never a rate speed. That's basically where the question is coming from. I'd also like to add 'tactical speed', but not quite sure how and where that fits in. It seems to apply to rate speed and stalkers the most, but that may be too easy.

A. I just don't think that you can separate speed, press speed, or even rate speed. Unless they have shown that they can, figure that they can not, especially inside or in between. Tactical speed I would consider stalking. Too me, stalking is a horse that can lay closer if it wants to but is comfortable laying 3-5 lengths off. I would consider 6 lengths off as a closer and separate the deep closers out of that group, provided of course, that the race was a typical set up as to lengths off the lead.
Hope that helps.

[Dark Horse]

Yes, helpful as always. Thanks. Food for thought. Will have to chew on this some more. I suppose a front speed and a press speed can both show an ability to rate. But isn't the front speed in general more vulnerable than the horse just off the pace? There are so many speed horses that don't take the lead (until the stretch), but do press the pace, that I want to make a distinction between front speed and press speed, but maybe the easiest thing would be to add a 'R' for ability to rate, and keep to a simple speed-stalk-close outline.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that speeds have the type of competitive drive that makes them want to be in front. Therefore, if that competitive drive has been harnessed, the horse would be raced as a stalker instead. As much as I respect and like to see stalkers, it makes me wonder, somewhat, why Baffert has all these great speed horses; Bodemeister, Paynter, Game On Dude. Is there more to a speed horse than just the competitive drive to want to be in front? Or is it just coincidence that his top horses at the moment are speeds?

[str]

Yes, helpful as always. Thanks. Food for thought. Will have to chew on this some more. I suppose a front speed and a press speed can both show an ability to rate. But isn't the front speed in general more vulnerable than the horse just off the pace? There are so many speed horses that don't take the lead (until the stretch), but do press the pace, that I want to make a distinction between front speed and press speed, but maybe the easiest thing would be to add a 'R' for ability to rate, and keep to a simple speed-stalk-close outline.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that speeds have the type of competitive drive that makes them want to be in front. Therefore, if that competitive drive has been harnessed, the horse would be raced as a stalker instead. As much as I respect and like to see stalkers, it makes me wonder, somewhat, why Baffert has all these great speed horses; Bodemeister, Paynter, Game On Dude. Is there more to a speed horse than just the competitive drive to want to be in front? Or is it just coincidence that his top horses at the moment are speeds?

Q. But isn't the front speed in general more vulnerable than the horse just off the pace?

A. Depends on the fractions.


Q. There are so many speed horses that don't take the lead (until the stretch), but do press the pace, that I want to make a distinction between front speed and press speed, but maybe the easiest thing would be to add a 'R' for ability to rate, and keep to a simple speed-stalk-close outline.

A. Maybe the "R" is the way to go. Finding a horse that can take the lead but is happy to lay 2-3 early is worth it's weight in gold. Finding one that can sit inside or out or behind is better still. Because many races will have two or three horses that wish they could make the lead and can not sit 2-3 and run well, those types usually find themselves a little further back eventually because of the other speeds. So , to me, they are stalkers . It's just 2 different ways of saying the same thing I think.

A. If I understand correctly, you're saying that speeds have the type of competitive drive that makes them want to be in front.

A. I think it is more, mental make up that the horse has arrived at once it has run enough and experienced things , be it positive or negative, than it is actual competitive drive. How they have been taught and trained early on by there connections and what went on mentally with each horse to get them where they are and who they are along with there breeding and what they were bred to do or bred to probably not be able to do. There are always exceptions to the rule but in many cases, the breeding can limit what most can or can not do. As we have seen, horses can change or be revitalized as they get older but many never do. They become very predictable as to their likes and dislikes .

Q. Therefore, if that competitive drive has been harnessed, the horse would be raced as a stalker instead.

A. again, closers are just as competitive , I think it is more a comfort zone or likes and dislikes.

Q. As much as I respect and like to see stalkers, it makes me wonder, somewhat, why Baffert has all these great speed horses; Bodemeister, Paynter, Game On Dude. Is there more to a speed horse than just the competitive drive to want to be in front? Or is it just coincidence that his top horses at the moment are speeds?

A. No coincidence at all. Baffert started out as a quarter horse trainer. He has always trained for speed. He buys horses that he thinks will fit his style for the most part.
California has always been a speed type atmosphere. Horses needed to be closer to the lead there since way back. Just about all of the trainers trained that way out there when I was around. The workout sheet is sooooo different than the workout sheet at Belmont or Saratoga. I would think it still is. There was no such thing as "to fast a work" in California . They train for speed and Baffert leads the way. It is just a style but in the case of Cal. it seemingly is a way of life for the horses as well. They are pushed to go to the track, train and hurried home. Training out there with the volume of horses that need to get to the track each day is like rush hour all the time. More of a product of the environment if you will. Not all trainers out there do that, and we are talking about dirt horses not turf distance horses but most did.
This goes back to what I said earlier about Graham Motion or Baffert or Jonathan Sheppard. These guys have different styles. Motion is of the same cloth as Sheppard. It's all about relax and calm. Baffert is more about speed. Two different approaches. Trainers , environment, and daily habits all help contribute to a young horses mind set.
King Leatherbury has won thousands and thousands of races. One thing that you could do when handicapping him, was to throw out ALL of his firsters. His % was absolutely horrible with them. That was a direct product of the horses surroundings . So , mix together who taught them what, how they were taught it, there breeding and the mind set of the horse from all that, and chances are, you have the answer to who each horse is. As stated, that can change somewhat, but that is certainly where it starts.

[jetsjets1028]

horse racing is pretty tough thats y i stick to the dogs

[Dark Horse]

str, while I digest that, a quick follow up. Are you saying that trainers tend to look for horses that fit their style?

[str]

str, while I digest that, a quick follow up. Are you saying that trainers tend to look for horses that fit their style?

If given the opportunity, yes. Many guys don't have that luxury but the ones that do buy yearlings or whatever that they think will fit what they are trying to accomplish and where they will be racing. In Bafferts case, he rolls into Keenland with everyone wanting him to buy their horses. He gets all the non published info that most buyers are not privy too. That is no knock on him or anyone, that's just the way it is. He didn't always get all that info, other top dogs did, but once he was top dog, he did, and has made the most out of it.
Trainers have styles. That's why Charlie Wittingham did not run a horse in the derby until late in his career. Same with Bobby Frankel. That is also why some trainers rarely have older horses or many closers in there barn. They have speed. Bill Mott does not have a barn full of speed balls, right. It's not to say that they won't have horses like this , but in most cases, they will have what there program usually produces. Certainly more times than not.
Also, if you are an owner, who will you send your closing grass horse too? Or your speed horse too? Maybe you are not sure of who you will send the horse to, but you know who you won't send that horse to right?
If you look at the breeding page in the catalog and then the body of a yearling and see how it is built physically, you can usually envision what type of horse it has the best chance to become. Doesn't always work that easily, but you usually have a pretty good idea .

[Dark Horse]

Thanks. I haven't really looked at the trainer and breeding angles. That might explain the gaping hole for 2 year olds I experienced. An online search suggests there's no shortcut for a better grip on trainers, so that looks like a file I'll have to gradually add.

[Dark Horse]

Not sure if this is a good question, but sometimes the question is just an excuse to get you talking about a topic. How would you handicap a claiming or optional claiming race differently from another type of race? What are some of the things to look out for in such races that makes them different?

[str]

Not sure if this is a good question, but sometimes the question is just an excuse to get you talking about a topic. How would you handicap a claiming or optional claiming race differently from another type of race? What are some of the things to look out for in such races that makes them different?

The straight claiming race first :
We have talked quite a bit about major stakes races and pointing towards a date. With claimers, it is a race to race thing. Simply put, they need to perform more on the short term than the bigger picture, to make them worth keeping. The trainers mind set is , or should be, where, when and what distance can we run well. Knowing that, putting the race together becomes pretty " matter of fact" from my point of view.
Some trainers will want to hang on to there horse and not risk losing it via the claim box. That strategy will reflect in there win %. Some trainers will want to wheel and deal. That also reflects in win %, in a positive way. Once you get a handle on who is who, go from there. The info available today is far greater than any that was for me. I kept my own info, when I was doing it, as previously stated.
Just like all races, understanding why a horse either did something real well, or ran poorly last time, is very important. That is the reading between the lines that allows you to get away from favorites.
I always went into a race as a handicapper, trying to beat the favorite. It was my mind set. Sometimes I concluded that the favorite could not be beaten. If so, I saw the price and justified making some type of play or not. I guess that might be a reverse way of looking at a race compared to some players. It is my take that if you go into a race looking to see if anyone CAN beat the favorite, you will conclude more times that the favorite IS the play, than if you go into the race looking to find WHO IS GOING to beat the favorite and eventually not be able too. Just a different way of approaching it, but for me, in racing and in other sports, I ALWAYS try and beat the favorite. If players find themselves playing too many favorites, or if you are new to the game, I highly suggest it. It worked for me for a long time and it will work for you as well as long as you stay with it.
If you can show patience and not try and play every race at the same track, you can definitely find races that greatly favor lone speed, or the only closer, or whatever. I have talked before about not playing a lot of different tracks. That statement can be misleading so to be clear, what I am trying to say is, don't try and play all nine races at 3-4 different tracks. Let's face it, solo speed is solo speed and most people on this sight would not care if it was a turtle race or the soap box derby , as long as they got a decent price on something that was going to get an easy trip. I know I wouldn't. Be selective. And if you must bet every race, bet much less on races that you want to bet because you want to bet. Find the better opportunities and play more on them.

The optional claimer is a tough answer. It really depends where the race is being run. That is because it depends on the true quality and value of the allowance horses that are eligible to run in it. In Maryland for instance, if I saw a 2 other than allowance OR 30,000 claiming for older horses, my assumption would be that the salty old claimer that has won 8 or 9 races and already won those conditions years ago would dominate horses that have only broke there maiden and won the "a/other than" unless there was a potentially exceptional horse coming up . But in Saratoga, those 2 other than types could potentially be pretty nice horses and a 30k claimer up in N.Y. is near the bottom of the claiming ladder whereas in Md. it is rung 7-8 on the ladder.
So the optional claimers will have to be on a track by track basis.

[sandyw123]

You give such good advice, Str. I used to bet on more races - now only on the races where I see a horse that stands out as one that can maybe challenge the favorite. And I wager very little, because I really don't trust myself much yet. Sometimes I would be misled by the horses fastest speed at the distance being above others, but it might have been several months earlier, when he's actually shown a decline in recent races. Or I'd look at the jockey and think, for instance Ramon Dominguez is riding him, so he'll finish on the board. It's really more about the horse than his jockey, though an experienced jockey on a horse in top form is pretty hard to beat. Also, I'm trying to look more at the surface on the track. Some horses don't seem to run as well on a firm turf or a fast track. Going back to jockeys, do you think some jockeys are better on certain surfaces than others? For example, Julien Leparoux. Do you think he might be a better jockey on the turf than on the dirt? He's had a lot of success in turf races.

[Dark Horse]

str, what is the actual thought behind claiming races? Why would you go to a race to put a horse up for sale? Aren't there other venues for that? I just want to start from scratch here and get an idea of how this started and developed. I feel that I need to understand the underlying thought process. Is it a race around horse trading, or trading around a horse race?

So far I've mainly focused on grades stakes and handicaps. But I can't get away with that if I want to play a pick 6 or something of that nature. How should I compare races such as claiming, optional claiming, maiden claiming to those more serious races in terms of intensity and preparation? You've already given pointers about this, but would it be comparable to playoffs versus regular season, or do some races take on the nature of preseason games and training exercises? I understand that trainers may use a race as a preparation for a bigger race, but I'm assuming that they wouldn't do so in claiming races (as they might lose the horse). Could one expect a greater number of underperforming horses in a claiming race?