Horse Racing questions and answers

[str]

A couple of thoughts:

A follow up to the last response about meeting trainers. If the track near you does not have some sort of format to be able to ask questions to a trainer or jockey, and you really would like to see them do it, contact the head of publicity at the track. Every track has one and his/her name is probably on the first page of the program. Ask to speak with that person and suggest they do it. That is their job so you are not at all out of bounds by doing so. It is a solid idea and very fan friendly.

I said that I was going to be doing a write up on trainers and or medication and basically writing about stuff that most would not or could not write about. I said I would do this in August. I will indeed do this but for now I can not. I was going to speak about several things but part of it was going to be about New York racing and whats going on currently with a pending 10 year suspension for Rick D. Because he has appealed and it will now be probably a year or so before anything gets resolved, I will hold my thoughts on that exact subject and let the appeal play out. I will say this though. What gamblers as well as racing higher ups assume (and rightfully so as far as assumptions go) from what they have read and what they conclude( understandably in a game where cheating has been taken to another level in the late 80s but much more under control today than 10-15 years ago) from Rick's results, are not nearly as correct as people think. I absolutely HATE cheaters within the game. I have NO tolerance for them. And while Ricky is far from a saint, he is NOT what people are pretty sure he is.The perception is skewed. You will have to trust me on that for now and some might chose to not believe me, but if the truth hurts, so be it. Is he crazy as hell? Yes. Is he what people on the backside might categorize as a loose horse? Oh yeah. Does he use needles and dope his horses to gain the edge that makes him so successful? Absolutely NOT! I will address questions on this subject but might need to be a bit careful with some of the answers. All answers will be like all of the previous answers I have given. The truth to the best of my ability.

I want to do a write up on Lasix in the next month and will try to do so. More of an informational and my take on what is going on but also my look to the future if it is abolished and how I think they should do so with the betting public as well as the horse's best interest at heart.

Happy Thanksgiving to all that take the time to read this and keep the questions coming.

[zebra58]

will wait for your thoughts on lasix, though if lasix were abolished would it not just give trainers another excuse for that 3/5 shot running up the track... well he must have bled today, i think it stays

happy holidays str

[str]

will wait for your thoughts on lasix, though if lasix were abolished would it not just give trainers another excuse for that 3/5 shot running up the track... well he must have bled today, i think it stays

happy holidays str

Trainers already use that excuse when a 3/5 runs bad even with Lasix.
The old "maybe he bled" trick .

I hope your right. It needs to stay, but not necessarily forever in the Stakes races and not necessarily to the degree it currently is. I promise to put my thoughts to paper soon.

On a lighter note, the all time best excuse I ever heard from a jockey was from a jock who was the leading rider for several years in Maryland . He got off one of my buddies horses and it was the last race at Laurel. Track was wet fast . The sun was getting low in the fall so the glare was coming hard from the clubhouse turn down the stretch. Jockey tells the trainer that the horse didn't finish up because the sun was in his eyes.

The trainer said he would make a pair of blinkers with tinted plastic see through bubbles on the horse in his next race.
One of the best excuses ever.

Happy holiday's to you as well Zebra.

[Dark Horse]

Quite season.

I'm going over my data and was wondering what your thoughts may be on the horse that shows. The method I'm working on has good results with identifying the top two horses, but accuracy veers off quite sharply with the 3rd horse. This seems to make sense from a competitive standpoint. For example, when three or four horses are racing to the wire, two of them often maintain intensity all the way, and the other(s) may give up earlier, leaving room for the 5th or 6th horse to take 3rd. It seems to be the spot that's most up for grabs. This could be an interesting dynamic from a betting perspective, similar to a backdoor cover for a football dog, and I suspect there may be some value there (if only because I've never read anything about it). Not quite sure where to start, though. Is it purely a matter of energy distribution and running out of gas? Are there jockeys that race only to win and don't care about 3rd? Do longshots care a lot more about showing than contenders that lost the race? As a trainer, did you care about third place?

[str]

Quite season.

I'm going over my data and was wondering what your thoughts may be on the horse that shows. The method I'm working on has good results with identifying the top two horses, but accuracy veers off quite sharply with the 3rd horse. This seems to make sense from a competitive standpoint. For example, when three or four horses are racing to the wire, two of them often maintain intensity all the way, and the other(s) may give up earlier, leaving room for the 5th or 6th horse to take 3rd. It seems to be the spot that's most up for grabs. This could be an interesting dynamic from a betting perspective, similar to a backdoor cover for a football dog, and I suspect there may be some value there (if only because I've never read anything about it). Not quite sure where to start, though. Is it purely a matter of energy distribution and running out of gas? Are there jockeys that race only to win and don't care about 3rd? Do longshots care a lot more about showing than contenders that lost the race? As a trainer, did you care about third place?

Is it purely running out of gas?
For the most part, Yes. When a horse fades late, the pieces are there for anyone to pick up.

Jockeys that only race for win?
I would not suggest that at all. I would say that there were one or two trainers way back in the day that prefer to be 1st, 2nd or 5th/6th and not 3rd or 4th but not jockeys. I say this because I became very friendly with a long time jocks agent that had been in Md. for many years once I started training. He pointed out things to me that I did not recognize for what they seemingly were when I first started. Over time I felt as though he was correct. I'm going way back here.
I watched for certain trainers and any patterns. I became obsessed with pin pointing trainers patterns. It was a big help in my decision making process when claiming certain horses.
But you must keep in mind is that the triple bet was a relatively new concept then. Of course, show wagering was not, and I am not defending it at all. Just pointing out the facts as well as my formulated opinion based on what I observed.
So, IMO there were claiming trainers(only a couple or less than that and I know that sounds vague but that's the best I can do) that I felt were ok with not finishing 3rd or 4th with some of there claimers back in the day. I could have been wrong. I will say that over time, those strategies changed . Again, IMO.
Having said that, those outfits still had many horses finish 3rd or 4th. It is not that easy to avoid. What I am talking about is putting away the stick or the aggressive hand riding that otherwise might be seen. I think that on some horses back in the day, I saw a less than fully engaged finish by the rider. Just my opinion. Someone else's might be different.
While on that subject, it is also IMO, that the sole reason for this was to be able to possibly move a horse down the claiming ladder a notch or so and possibly not have it claimed. I would never say that I felt in any way that anything that I saw or thought I saw had anything to do with cashing a ticket or anything betting related. IMO, no way. It was, I think, a business strategy from the claiming aspect only.
By the 90's those patterns were long gone from what I saw.

Do long shots care more?
I would say yes . In a lot of cases the rider is a struggling rider that is hungry for mounts. If he gets a 3rd out of a 30-1 shot, he gets the mount back right? Maybe other mounts as well. If a horse that has not earned money lately has a chance to do so, it is great if they do. Thirds are like winners to some people especially at smaller tracks if the trainer is not getting many chances with a string of bad horses.

Did I care about 3rd?
Yes. I made that crystal clear to my stable riders from day one. The main reason for that is when I first started, 3rd was 12%. They only paid back to forth in most states. I felt as though five 3rd's was the same as a winner. Also, I owned or my family owned many horses. Those 3rd's added up. I also felt that , coming from a mentor that was as good with a sore horse as anyone ( and legally, I will add ) my reputation was cut from the same cloth. Everyone knew who I was and who I came up under on the east coast. If I wanted to steal with a horse, I would just drop them off of a 3rd. I would drop horses with good form as well as bad form. The one thing I learned from watching King Leatherbury is that if you showed a pattern of drop downs or raise up's , he would pick up on that and eat you alive. Had to throw a curve ball every now and then just to keep him and others honest.
King could read guys like a book, just as I learned how to read Bud Delp like a book for a while until Bid came around. Once that happened, Bud's stable changed and he did not deal with the cheaper claimers that much. It was just as well. If Bud had gotten pissed enough , he could have run me right out of Maryland. He was that strong. In a weird kind of way, Bud took a liken to me over time, but for a while, he was pretty pissed at me and I guess I couldn't blame him.

This question was one of your best yet. I hope it helps all you guys that play triples. Third is indeed a real crap shoot. Your stats are dead on. Sounds like this might have brought more clarity to the show spot. I hope so.
Happy to elaborate more but you will have to tell me exactly how.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks again str. Definitely more food for thought. A complex issue. For now, I will try to fit this into a energy distribution/acceleration (or decreased deceleration) approach and see how far that takes me. The degree of deceleration of horses that run out of gas in the stretch is just as dramatic as horses that roar by the competition on their way to victory. So I have to look more closely at the amount of energy left for the stretch. Big project. lol

[str]

Triples:

As I have stated before, I knew two pro players in Md. well enough to be able to talk to them without them hounding me for info that quite frankly , I was a little uncomfortable talking about. They were good guys and sure, if they were looking to make a play with a particular horse of mine, they would say something like" I'm on your horse today, nothing I am not seeing is there?" I never had a problem with that. So while that was the upside for them, sitting around discussing triples or pick 6's or betting strategies was an upside for me.
When they would play triples, and not always because EVERY situation is always a little different when it comes to playing and spreading your play within a race, they might break down a race like this:
1 1/16 mile race on dirt:
3 speeds
4 stalks
3 closers
First of all, playing all three speeds or all three closers on a triple ticket is not the way to go 99% of the time if not 100% of the time. That is basic stuff, right?
So, let's say you like one of the speeds pretty well. That right there says a lot. Why? Because typically if there are 3 speed horses that will duel for the lead, it would make sense to be looking elsewhere for a winner . So, if you have stayed with ONE of the speeds , it must be clearly a better speed horse than the others or maybe just a little better but has the one hole say at Laurel( break just before the clubhouse turn) and the other speeds have the 7 and 9 hole which gives the 1 horse a huge edge to make the lead. That pretty much has the one horse on a 1 1/2 or 2 length easy lead by the 3/4 pole( after 5 /16s of the race).
From there you like a stalker as well. It probably figures to be a soft to average pace early on so a stalker makes perfect sense. Lets call that horse the 2 horse. So, you like the 1 and the 2 horses. You want to play a triple. So what do you do?
The way they would break it down would be probably something like this:
1,2-1,2- and others that they felt had value first(will explain later) and a common sense type of probable chance to run 3rd based on there theory as to how the race would be run. Under this scenario, they liked the 1 and the 2 equally.
They might choose to use the best 2 closers and another stalker or the next 2 stalkers and a closer. I doubt that it would be wise to use one of the other speeds knowing full well that they would be wide on both turns ( because most speed horses will prefer to not have dirt thrown in there face) and of course, the one horse has the lead and the rail. But maybe you decide to use the better of the remaining two speeds in case the pace is slow. That is reasonable.
With there thought process, if the one did not make the lead or was dueled into submission by others, then they were going to be wrong about the race anyway so why do a "all" ticket or add horses that did not figure according to how the pace was theoretically going to play out.
Maybe , lets say they loved the 1 horse( speed) and liked the 2 ( stalker) somewhat but the 1 was the play.
There triple would read Key 1-2 and value and/or piece horses, let's say 3,4,5/so key 1 with 2 with the 3,4,5. They are basically keying the 2 to run 2nd.
Once you have that ticket in hand, you can take the 2 out of the second spot and just play a Key 1 / with 3,4,5/ 2. That allows the 2 horse to be third as well but must be 2nd or 3rd for you to cash. You can choose to go heavier with the 2 horse in the 2nd spot or any way you want to approach it. But... you like the 2 and the 3,4,5 are mop up horses so if it runs 1-3-5 you would lose but you really liked the 2 to be on the ticket anyway, so that's ok. Spreading to play a 1 with 2,3,4,5 but liking the 2 much more than the 3,4,5 is a waste of money in the long run.
You try and identify horses to use based on value or different scenarios, like a soft early pace. Again, maybe you do use the 7( another speed) because your thought process is that the 1 horse will walk the dog( easy, slow lead) and the lack of pace will allow the 7 to remain in the hunt. Different scenarios as to how the race will be run pace wise, will allow you to make a case for another speed maybe, or a closer with a nice trip or whatever. Spreading to various scenarios in the 3rd spot leaves the door open no matter what happens in the race.
I would think that it would be reckless to play triples only without having other plays in place. I see this happen all the time and it does not make any sense. Going back to the horses above, you really like the 1 horse. If the horse has any value on the board isn't a win ticket a must? I would think yes. If you were solid with the 1 and 2 wouldn't an exacta box be appropriate? Probably yes again. Or a 10 dollar one way and a 20 dollar the other way, but something. If you only play the triple, and it comes in 1,2 and a horse you failed to use 3rd, you have absolutely nailed the first two horses and you have nothing! That's crazy!
So if you were putting 50.00 in the race , maybe 20 win, 5.00 exacta box and a 1.00 triple 1,2/1,2/ 3,4,5. That's 36.00 and then you decide according to odds whether you play another 5.00 triple Key 1/2/3,4,5 or maybe if the 1 is 5-2 but the 2 is 8-1 you swing the win bet over to the 8-1 shot or fatten up the exacta with the 2 beating the 1. Not betting both horses to win. Unless they are both long odds , I would never consider that.
The important thing to remember is that if you risk 50.00 and nail everything and get 230.00 back, you have won 180.00 BUT...if the 1 was 5-2 there was not much value for the various risk. You would have won 125.00 + your 50 anyway so the triple and exactas need to give you more payback than that for amount of risk taken. That is why value and longer prices are important when playing triples IMO . If you hit the win bet and the exacta but missed the triple , if you played it for value, chances are it did not pay more than 6-7 times the exacta anyway. But if you hit the triple and played it for value, it very well can pay a minimum of 10 times the exacta( a reasonable rule of thumb on what triples should pay) and probably more than that.
One other scenario to watch for is when you see a horse that figures to run well and it is 2nd very often. If you like the horse to run 2nd again , play a ticket with a couple of horses winning and a couple of horses 3rd and keying the horse that often runs second in the second spot. Most horses that do this are hangers, and will do it every chance they can. You can also look for horses that seemingly always run 3rd. You should also watch for the all or nothing horses. Horses that have maybe run 16 times with 7 wins , but no 2nd's or 3rd's. Why use those types anywhere except the spot that they relish?
Too me, this is how you break down a triple play. Look at it while running the race in your mind or on paper prior to betting. If you guys have ever watched Jerry Bailey break a race down on T.V. beforehand he will show you the break, the 3/4 pole, the 1/2 mile or 3/8s pole , 1/4 pole or entering the stretch and finish.
This is exactly how trainers and jocks talk about a race . And this is how the two guys that used to be in Laurel did it as well. In my mind, it is the best way to try to figure a race from start to finish . And that is because pace is so vital to the outcome. It is rare that pace does not make the race.
So, if you are searching for ways to put a triple ticket together, try this approach . I think it will help.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks so much!

[Dark Horse]

A question about 2 year olds (I think). This is the Spectacular Bid 100K at Gulfstream from this past weekend.



My question is about the #3 horse Vexor. In my opinion he had a lot going for him and it didn't hurt that Castellano was riding him for the second time; they had won before back in August. On the downside his PP"s are all over the place. Two races in which he did run and won (Beyers 80 and 80), and three races where he quit (Beyers 45, 40, 42; his first race was the 42 and he finished six lengths behind the winner in 2nd spot). The video doesn't show it, but he didn't really want to get into the gate for this race. Sure enough, he quit again... So I'm wondering what your trainer's eye tells you. Is this up and down behavior to be expected from 2 year olds? Or did he get freaked out by the outside horse eye to horse right eye factor you mentioned earlier? If you were training this horse what would your approach be after seeing such a mixture of winning and quiting?

[str]

A question about 2 year olds (I think). This is the Spectacular Bid 100K at Gulfstream from this past weekend.



My question is about the #3 horse Vexor. In my opinion he had a lot going for him and it didn't hurt that Castellano was riding him for the second time; they had won before back in August. On the downside his PP"s are all over the place. Two races in which he did run and won (Beyers 80 and 80), and three races where he quit (Beyers 45, 40, 42; his first race was the 42 and he finished six lengths behind the winner in 2nd spot). The video doesn't show it, but he didn't really want to get into the gate for this race. Sure enough, he quit again... So I'm wondering what your trainer's eye tells you. Is this up and down behavior to be expected from 2 year olds? Or did he get freaked out by the outside horse eye to horse right eye factor you mentioned earlier? If you were training this horse what would your approach be after seeing such a mixture of winning and quiting?

Without the benefit of his PPs I will tell you what I assume as well as what I saw. If you can provide them , I will clear up any assumptions later.

Is this up and down behavior to be expected from 2 year olds? No. What he did is not 2 year old related.

Did the right eye factor I talk about cause this? Not to the severity that I saw unless the horse is as chicken crap as a horse can be. He stopped way beyond normalcy. The abrupt way that he stopped tells me that it was either physical or mental but whatever it was , it is severe.
Typically a lot of horses get outrun in the position that he was in. However, they are not usually outrun at 3-2 to the point where they stop at the 3/8s pole in a sprint. If the rider had any horse he would have been fine until the eventual winner got a head in front. Had he done the slow fade from that point then I could have understood . But he stopped at the 3/8s pole and lost 2 lengths to the horse that was 2nd at the time, within 4 strides.
Didn't this horse run on Breeders Cup day? If so, did he run 1 1/16? That would have dulled his speed cutting back to a sprint but still, he was trying to tell us something.
So here are some facts. If this horse is a speed horse and I assume he is, rarely will pure speed horses be hard to load. Why? Because that is the key area for him to gain the spot he will need in order to win. A speed horses focus is highest at that point and a bad gate horse that is also a pure speed is not going to work. Most trainers will solve any gate problems well before a horses 2nd start if speed is a requirement to running well. Also, most speed horses are eager to load and break. They WANT to get the game started. So I assume that this horse is not normally bad loading. (Wish I had his form). So he loads badly and breaks not very sharp at all. Horses that do not WANT to be running ( don't feel well or sore or something subtle that the trainer or jock has not identified ) usually balk at loading and or break sluggishly. That is not to say that every time it happens there is a problem but if my horse that usually loads fine is having a problem loading , I am uncomfortable already. ( Crazy crowds and big distractions aside).
The other thing I saw was the horse as he turned for home. The rider was obviously upset with him, slashing him on the shoulder with the whip while he was dropping back rapidly. He probably felt that the horse quit and was giving no effort whatsoever.
Again, without his form I have a lot of questions. Were his wins wire to wire OR lay 2nd but outside with perfect position? Were his losses from inside or in between when looked in the eye and pinned in tight(right eye)? I would guess yes, but I want to be fair to the horse. If that is the case, it would figure that he would have been wearing blinkers and probably a shadow roll(fuzzy band across his nose) by now. But he was not.
Having two 80s and 3-4 40s to his credit, he is seemingly an all or nothing horse. But I am concerned from the physical side as well. Once he turned for home he was running somewhat like a car looks from behind that has a bent frame and goes down the road. He looked uncomfortable running through the lane from what little I saw before he fell off the screen.
I will be happy to express my approach but it would help with that if I had his form.
If you can scan his PPs , please do.

[Dark Horse]

Appreciate you looking into this horse. He ran in the BC Juv Sprint (6f). PP's attached. I did search for an injury report online, but nothing. Perplexed, because this horse can run ... when he feels like it.

[str]

Oh my ! The horse is as pure speed as a horse can possibly be. Crazy speed breeding!
Let's start with this. Breeding weaknesses will usually rear it's ugly head within the form of the foals that it creates. Having said that, this horse only has one gear and that is "all I got better work early or I am done".
Other than the workout before the BC where he was almost assuredly tricked into working slow so as not to leave it on the track he has only been outworked by 14 out of 227 horses on varying surfaces.That is smoken! The trick as I call it is a tactic used by trainers that has the horse 2 minute lick(15 sec. per 1/8th) from the 5/8s or 3/4 pole and not realize they are working until hopefully half way through the work and then finish up strong.You try to work on stamina a little. The downside of 2 minute licking early in works is that you do risk dulling speed somewhat. Not always, but sometimes. ( Another reason to pay no attention to workouts). I completely understand what the trainer is trying to do but from the form as well as the last effort , it's starting to fail miserably. Would also question trying this before the biggest race of his life.
Now, nobody hates being 2nd guessed as to what decisions are made in training styles more than I did and here I am skirting on the edges of doing it. But I am only doing so to explain what I see and not to criticize. Want to make that clear.
Four out of six gate appearances have gone somewhere between "not so well to bad " and maybe there was something not so good about the other 2 as well. I don't know. That is a real concern.
His first race was fine and his 2nd race was as I figured before seeing his form. His 3rd race with the inside post was crushing . He was both outrun and covered up as a speed horse early . The Nashua Stakes post draw allowed this horse that has speed and ability but no heart the chance to win. He won with the perfect outside post ( the box as I have talked about) , a clear right eye, and therefore a great trip.( Kinda figured that as well.) I was at Saratoga the day he broke his maiden but do not remember the race as I really was not paying a lot of attention to many of the races other than the Whitney , the West. Va. Derby on T.V. and the last race at the Spa that day.
I am thinking that blinkers would only make this horse more speed crazy than he already is , so I get that. The shadow roll might help bring his head down a little but I would need to see a replay of a win to compare the two.
The bottom line is that this horse is exactly what I feared he might be before I saw his form. He is as chicken as a horse can be. He demands a perfect trip or you get nothing. Even if he possibly hurt himself somewhat in this last race, and the more I know now, the less I think it was that, he has showed what he is and is not. His action through the lane , what little I could see, was his defiance towards wanting to compete once covered up. He has passed 2 horses in his career. So indeed his stopping in the last race WAS because he got covered up and therefore quit IMO.I am sure that he will not run at all with ANY dirt kicked in his face. Where he quit in the S. Bid race was right when that dirt would have hit him and when the 2nd horse broke his heart. Chances are, he displaced his pallet as well,( breathing issue) but that is because of the events within the trip.
Back to his breeding again, his over breeding on the speed end might very well have him as a hyper, nervous type that is overly anxious. Maybe not but that much pure speed breeding opens the door for all sorts of potential mental problems.
I could only play this horse if I felt sure that he would make the length + lead and preferably with an outside post. With an inside post, he will need to be 2 lengths faster than the rest . Outside, a little less. He is certainly not a horse to put anywhere but on top or nowhere in a triple( if you lose , you lose).
Let me know if you have any followups on this one.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks so much. According to my method he should have run big. So something is clearly missing in my method. lol Now that I know the missing element is 'lack of heart' I can start looking for it.

Is this something the horse can't overcome, or could a trainer help him gain confidence in time?

[str]

Thanks so much. According to my method he should have run big. So something is clearly missing in my method. lol Now that I know the missing element is 'lack of heart' I can start looking for it.

Is this something the horse can't overcome, or could a trainer help him gain confidence in time?

These are traits that will show up early on in a horses career. Once he did what he did in the Hopeful and followed it up in the Nashua the trait was exposed.If not confirmed in the B. Cup race it most certainly was in the Bid. Yes there are a small % of horses that might change over for a variety of reasons but by and large, he has stamped himself as what I have said. Trainers can try and that is what the guy was probably trying to do in the slower work but most times, they are what they are, especially when they are following blood line patterns. I mean, Forest Wildcat did not like being hooked early. Yes It's True and if the mares name points in the right direction Clever Trick. All fairly one dimensional. So bloodlines bringing out the worst trait makes this guy extremely one dimensional. Does that make sense?
Yes, certain trainers that work super hard to relax young horses will have a better chance than others at achieving this, but this guy was stamped pretty hard with the all or nothing gene and while another trainer might have done somewhat better or maybe not, horses are a bit like people when it comes to having guts or heart. Some have it and some don't.
Trainers with a high % with firsters and 2 yr olds rarely have those lofty stats by chance.This trainers stats with babies was suspect on the form you attached. Very ordinary.
Look at the winning stats with babies, of the trainer that won the Bid race. He is one of the finest trainers with young horses in the U.S. He is very underrated with young horses as well as ALL horses . Most all of his relax, split horses, and do things right from the beginning don't they.

[str]

Thanks so much. According to my method he should have run big. So something is clearly missing in my method. lol Now that I know the missing element is 'lack of heart' I can start looking for it.

Is this something the horse can't overcome, or could a trainer help him gain confidence in time?

Too be clear:
If it is worked on from day one of training, months before his first race, you have a chance to overcome it.

Once we are to this point, it is almost impossible to fix.

[Dark Horse]

So bloodlines bringing out the worst trait makes this guy extremely one dimensional. Does that make sense?

It makes plenty of sense. Although it remains a strange combination to me. A lot of speed but afraid to compete. It seems a contradiction in itself. What else would one do with a lot of speed but compete? Like a flower cultivated for fragrance, but scared of bees. Do you think that particular combination is worth studying (examples may be hard to come by?), or is it so rare that it's not worth the trouble? Is such an imbalance, as well as others, on the outer fringes of breeding, or quite common?

[Dark Horse]

Too be clear:
If it is worked on from day one of training, months before his first race, you have a chance to overcome it.

Once we are to this point, it is almost impossible to fix.

I'm getting too attached to this horse. In a Seabiscuit kind of way. lol A mess before a horse whisperer made him right. Maybe I should steer clear off 2 year olds. Too much potential for drama. This is a sad story, and so was Galex just a few weeks ago. It seems more fun to handicap 3 year olds and up that have their act together. Am I wrong to perceive that difference? At this point I don't see an advantage in studying 2 year olds.

[str]

It makes plenty of sense. Although it remains a strange combination to me. A lot of speed but afraid to compete. It seems a contradiction in itself. What else would one do with a lot of speed but compete? Like a flower cultivated for fragrance, but scared of bees. Do you think that particular combination is worth studying (examples may be hard to come by?), or is it so rare that it's not worth the trouble? Is such an imbalance, as well as others, on the outer fringes of breeding, or quite common?

No. Not afraid to compete.Will gladly compete as he did in the Nashua Stakes. However, it must be on his terms. Clear lead or the box and he will try and try. But put him in a spot he does not like and he will quit and live to race another day.
If it's any consolation, horses like that are typically much sounder and stay sounder longer than those that fight gallantly when the deck is stacked against them.
There are plenty of horses like him. He is the typical all or nothing faint hearted speed horse. I say faint hearted but if given the lead until the 1/8th pole, he will try hard that last bit. But he will not try if hooked early. No lead, no win.

[str]

I'm getting too attached to this horse. In a Seabiscuit kind of way. lol A mess before a horse whisperer made him right. Maybe I should steer clear off 2 year olds. Too much potential for drama. This is a sad story, and so was Galex just a few weeks ago. It seems more fun to handicap 3 year olds and up that have their act together. Am I wrong to perceive that difference? At this point I don't see an advantage in studying 2 year olds.

Following 2 year olds and the 3 year olds up to the Derby is not for anyone that is going to get attached .There will be more chipped knees , ankles, pulled tendons, etc. from now until May for sure. It is indeed a rough road to the Derby. And while it is a rough road, the road is so fascinating that it takes on a life of it's own.
This horse had no chance of competing in the races leading up to the Derby due to his breeding. You are best served to observe these races and identify those that have the bloodlines to go two turns.
Even if this horse had won the Bid, he would have been at his limits in the Hutchinson going 7/8s. His Derby run would have had to have ended there either way due to his bloodlines.
So on one hand , handicap the race to see who might win. But... on the other hand jot down notes based on the Derby trail. Make the task two seperate entities.

[Dark Horse]

I hear you. I need to identify a bunch of similar all-or-nothing horses in order to study that aspect; preferably as extreme as Vexor. Easier said than done. They don't exactly gallop their way into the history books.

[str]

I hear you. I need to identify a bunch of similar all-or-nothing horses in order to study that aspect; preferably as extreme as Vexor. Easier said than done. They don't exactly gallop their way into the history books.

If you look at these types, you will find repeat sires once your sample size grows. This will enable you to form opinions on horses more readily and fairly accurately . Not every horse by a certain sire will be the same but you will recognize traits and see the sire involved and form a conclusion. More times than not, you will be right.

[Dark Horse]

One more question related to Vexor, if you don't mind. What if the jockey knew he had a lot of horse, and the horse refused to run? Is that possible? And if so, would that still fall within the normal range of the horses you described above? I'm asking because of the jockey's frustration, which you pointed out. It's normal for horses to run big if they 'connect', and disappear if they don't. Jockeys know that, and I wouldn't really expect them to fight it. What if Vexor did connect, the jockey knew it, and then some sort of mental override kicked in that made the horse zone out to the point of being completely unreachable (almost like an autistic child)? Perhaps the best way to ask this question is if the level of jockey frustration is normal for the category of horses you described.

[Dark Horse]

Just for the record, the reason I asked last question is to see if my method already covers those horses (and Vexor fell outside of the typical), or if I missed a whole category of horses. I asked around somewhere else for similar horses, and the response didn't produce horses that were not covered by my method. However, it would be a major blind spot if I did miss them, as well as a huge amount of added work, so before committing to that I want to make sure that -with Vexor- I'm not looking at something atypical within a more typical category.

[str]

One more question related to Vexor, if you don't mind. What if the jockey knew he had a lot of horse, and the horse refused to run? Is that possible? And if so, would that still fall within the normal range of the horses you described above? I'm asking because of the jockey's frustration, which you pointed out. It's normal for horses to run big if they 'connect', and disappear if they don't. Jockeys know that, and I wouldn't really expect them to fight it. What if Vexor did connect, the jockey knew it, and then some sort of mental override kicked in that made the horse zone out to the point of being completely unreachable (almost like an autistic child)? Perhaps the best way to ask this question is if the level of jockey frustration is normal for the category of horses you described.

The jockey did not have a lot of horse early on. He broke a bit slow and the jock got him in to a reasonable spot early on but had to ask for it. Once the eventual winner moved up next to Vexor at about the 3/8s pole and forced Vexors hand a second time, Vexor quit trying. You can see him drop 2 lengths within 4 strides midway around the turn. I do not think that the jockey thought he had a ton of horse, if he had, Vexor would have probably been tugging at the jock to catch the leader and most certainly would have responded immediately upon being hooked by the horse moving from 3rd to 2nd and passing him. I think the the jocks frustration was feeling Vexor spit the bit and quit when his right eye was covered up at the 3/8s pole, well before actually getting tired. Take the leader out of the equation for a minute. It was the horse that went from 3rd just behind Vexor , to 2nd just past Vexor that made Vexor give up. While the leader was a burden to Vexor, he was still competing . It was definitely the horse right next to him that made him quit.
He was never running great at any point. His optimum position was taken away early on. While still willing to show some effort, once the other horse hooked him, he packed it in. The mental override was simply Vexor not getting his trip at all.
I would say that the level of frustration was higher than usual by that jock. But... it was a 100k stake and the jock knows that the horse is better than that. You have to remember that the jockey walks away from the horse but the trainer has to look at him every day. I would think that the trainer would have been the most frustrated. I know that I would have been.
Hope that clears it up.

[str]

Just for the record, the reason I asked last question is to see if my method already covers those horses (and Vexor fell outside of the typical), or if I missed a whole category of horses. I asked around somewhere else for similar horses, and the response didn't produce horses that were not covered by my method. However, it would be a major blind spot if I did miss them, as well as a huge amount of added work, so before committing to that I want to make sure that -with Vexor- I'm not looking at something atypical within a more typical category.

If you have speed horses covered , then I think you are fine. This case was just a very blatant case of quitting. It really does happen all the time. This horse just made everyone very aware of it. Had he been more typical, he would have slowly gotten outrun, maybe tried to run with the 2nd horse until they turned for home, and then slowly faded towards the rear . That is what typically happens right?
He is just a more extreme case of what most one dimensional speed horses will do when they get pinned on the inside and outrun. That is what separates speed horses with heart from one dimensional speed horses without heart.
Maybe split speed horses in to 2 categories? I don't know. But we all recognize those gritty, hard trying speed horses, that will give you everything , they have , every time. Because of the wear and tear that comes with that type, they are few and far between. Real quitters are everywhere and as I stated before, usually stay fairly sound. They only give maximum effort every few starts.
If you have access to buying lifetime PPs of any horse, get Crafty Exchange's PPs from the 80s. He was the gray horse that ran Kindest Cut in to the ground when he got beat. For at least a couple of years, he did this all the time. All or nothing. I won a bunch of races with him by entering him in an entry with another horse and scratching him when he had a bad post or the race was full of speed and running him when it looked like he was able to control the speed.He was pretty darn sound for years. He would be the poster horse for this discussion.

[Dark Horse]

Appreciate the insight and advice, as always. I see now that I have to get inside the horse's head more. This horse was basically 'oh I don't like that, don't like that either, and definitely don't like that. @^%#$! Forget this crap!'

Then there's the other side of the coin. I had to laugh last time Shackleford was running, when my wife, who doesn't follow horse racing, goes 'good old Shackleford!'. No quitting in him.

[str]

Appreciate the insight and advice, as always. I see now that I have to get inside the horse's head more. This horse was basically 'oh I don't like that, don't like that either, and definitely don't like that. @^%#$! Forget this crap!'

Then there's the other side of the coin. I had to laugh last time Shackleford was running, when my wife, who doesn't follow horse racing, goes 'good old Shackleford!'. No quitting in him.

That is correct. He had a not so perfect trip and quit. Shackleford , while being a speed horse that will falter without some pace help or a trip is a far cry from this gutless purely one dimensional horse though. We won without the lead. He hung in very well when he had a tough trip and his body of work was representative of a horse that is willing to overcome some adversity and still continue to compete.
So, maybe you do need to categorize with more clarity. Having those two in the same category is confusing the model isn't it?
Hope that makes sense and doesn't confuse the issue more.

[HorsePlay]

Str, a truly superb thread! I have been following it for some time now... reading and re-reading many of your posts. It is one of the most enlightening threads I've read anywhere, and I've learned a lot from you. A great big thanks! At the same time, you have me wondering why I risk any money at all on horse betting... there is so much I don't know. I spend as much time as I have available... which is not much... reading up on handicapping. When I consider all the valuable insight you have provided and compare it to what I have read about so far, it seems in a way that all the bettors who spend time and effort at this process are constantly re-inventing the wheel. By that I mean, bettors who put in time studying numbers and speed ratings... they are all looking at the same numbers in an attempt to discover some sort of breakthrough that's going to enable them to pick a winner(s).

Now, I follow several of the professional handicappers... the DRF types who have written books on the subject and provide their insights and tips in columns they write, or on websites to which they contribute. These guys are wrong more than they are right... I say this with some confidence in this observation, because I often bet according to their tips. And, I lose more often than I win. So, this whole handicapping thing gets me thinking... if the pros struggle with this to the point where I have to wonder if they really do make a living betting. What chance does a guy like me have who has not been doing it for nearly as long as many of them have been doing it... does not have their overall knowledge of the horses, tracks, trainers, jockeys, etc., plus, they probably have access to tools, aids and other "technology" I don't even know about... what can I expect to see in my study, comparison and evaluation of the numbers that's going to provide me with the breakthrough that empowers me to actually win more often that I lose?

I sometimes think I would be better off culling the tips and opinions of the pro handicappers, and when I see that 5 out of 6 say that so-and-so in the 5th race is a great horse... he should win outright... then I'll bet him to show. Forget about doing my own comparisions and measurements... I'll just go with what those who are supposed to be in the know. And then, secure that even further by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and and bet "win" picks to "show". Not even this approach works reliably.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not nearly as cynical as I might sound about the whole handicapping process. And, I am not into horse racing only for the money. I think it is a great sport. I greatly admire the people who make it happen. More than anything, I just love watching the horses perform... even if I have no betting interests at all. I have great respect for the jockeys and intense compassion for the horses. When I read about Ferdinand many years after his actual plight, it brought me to tears and upset me for days afterward. I still hate to think about that wonderful animal and how his life ended.

There are so many elements and facets to the sport of horse racing and while betting and gambling seems to be what drives it financially... making it a viable business... this aspect of horse racing is perhaps just the tip of what attracts people to it. At any rate, I just wanted to say thanks again for providing insight into your experience and the aspects of the sport that have mattered most to you. It has been a highly interesting and enjoyable read. You should write a book! I hope your foray back into the sport is going well.

[Dark Horse]

That is correct. He had a not so perfect trip and quit. Shackleford , while being a speed horse that will falter without some pace help or a trip is a far cry from this gutless purely one dimensional horse though. We won without the lead. He hung in very well when he had a tough trip and his body of work was representative of a horse that is willing to overcome some adversity and still continue to compete.
So, maybe you do need to categorize with more clarity. Having those two in the same category is confusing the model isn't it?
Hope that makes sense and doesn't confuse the issue more.

I'm not sure if I can incorporate this effectively into my model. Will just have to use greater caution with speed horses. In a way I overreacted to this race. I knew it was all or nothing with Vexor, but when the dramatic difference between those two modes played out on the track I began to think I had missed something dramatic. lol Perhaps the safest thing is to simply avoid speed horses like Vexor. The larger question, regardless of the type of horse, is: how do you recognize heart in a horse? The early signs of heart, more so than after the fact. I would love to add a heart rating to my model. What do you look for? Is heart even the correct way of looking at it? After winning the Derby with a 50-1 longshot Borel exclaimed "50 to 1. It's all in the head!"

[str]

Str, a truly superb thread! I have been following it for some time now... reading and re-reading many of your posts. It is one of the most enlightening threads I've read anywhere, and I've learned a lot from you. A great big thanks! At the same time, you have me wondering why I risk any money at all on horse betting... there is so much I don't know. I spend as much time as I have available... which is not much... reading up on handicapping. When I consider all the valuable insight you have provided and compare it to what I have read about so far, it seems in a way that all the bettors who spend time and effort at this process are constantly re-inventing the wheel. By that I mean, bettors who put in time studying numbers and speed ratings... they are all looking at the same numbers in an attempt to discover some sort of breakthrough that's going to enable them to pick a winner(s).

Now, I follow several of the professional handicappers... the DRF types who have written books on the subject and provide their insights and tips in columns they write, or on websites to which they contribute. These guys are wrong more than they are right... I say this with some confidence in this observation, because I often bet according to their tips. And, I lose more often than I win. So, this whole handicapping thing gets me thinking... if the pros struggle with this to the point where I have to wonder if they really do make a living betting. What chance does a guy like me have who has not been doing it for nearly as long as many of them have been doing it... does not have their overall knowledge of the horses, tracks, trainers, jockeys, etc., plus, they probably have access to tools, aids and other "technology" I don't even know about... what can I expect to see in my study, comparison and evaluation of the numbers that's going to provide me with the breakthrough that empowers me to actually win more often that I lose?

I sometimes think I would be better off culling the tips and opinions of the pro handicappers, and when I see that 5 out of 6 say that so-and-so in the 5th race is a great horse... he should win outright... then I'll bet him to show. Forget about doing my own comparisions and measurements... I'll just go with what those who are supposed to be in the know. And then, secure that even further by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and and bet "win" picks to "show". Not even this approach works reliably.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not nearly as cynical as I might sound about the whole handicapping process. And, I am not into horse racing only for the money. I think it is a great sport. I greatly admire the people who make it happen. More than anything, I just love watching the horses perform... even if I have no betting interests at all. I have great respect for the jockeys and intense compassion for the horses. When I read about Ferdinand many years after his actual plight, it brought me to tears and upset me for days afterward. I still hate to think about that wonderful animal and how his life ended.

There are so many elements and facets to the sport of horse racing and while betting and gambling seems to be what drives it financially... making it a viable business... this aspect of horse racing is perhaps just the tip of what attracts people to it. At any rate, I just wanted to say thanks again for providing insight into your experience and the aspects of the sport that have mattered most to you. It has been a highly interesting and enjoyable read. You should write a book! I hope your foray back into the sport is going well.

First things first. Let me say thank you for your kind words. I started this thread having no idea if anyone would care . As it grows I am happy to help any and all that I can. Some of the guys in this horse racing forum are pretty sharp and seem like great guys. This is a good group of people that hang in here. Glad you joined in.
I might not get to all of your thoughts right now but I will over the next couple of posts.
Reading books on handicapping is a great way to get started. No doubt about that. But what I hope you as well as others do, is to listen to what other handicappers say but don't think that all that they say and do is " the way to do it". It is "their" way of doing it. You find " your " way of handicapping. There is no one way to do this and it is indeed a constant work in progress so realize that first of all. Secondly, I can't imagine that anyone can state how to handicap and have it work from track to track. I just don't see how that is possible. By that I mean for instance, handicapping CharlesTown and handicapping Monmouth are night and day different. Why? Well, the basic premise might be the same as to identifying the speed, stalkers and closers , breaking the race down in that fashion, understanding any track bias as well as track tendencies( be careful there, unless you are sure, continue to try and learn it but don't bank on a broken or uncertain model),etc., but let's get to the part that a handicapper from a major track like Monmouth will not take in to consideration. Expense of training the horse for instance. That is something that I guarantee you many people don't consider. They would not have to consider that at a major track like Monmouth or Belmont or even Laurel or Pimlico. But C.T. or Thistledown or whatever, if you don't you will not fully understand what is going on. The horses are lucky to have hind shoes on for there 1st race back in 6 months or more at a minor cheap track much less be fit and ready to go. Now if a horse shows that it runs well fresh, that is different but the majority of cheap horses trained by small trainers are going to be not nearly as fit and ready to go as the horses with the same layoff period that are trained by the Brown, Runco, Walters, etc. type of guys at C.T. Conversely, trainers are not going to run unfit horses at Monmouth. At least not anywhere near to the severity that it exists at small tracks.
It is things like this that drive me crazy when I see people betting every 6 minutes at 5 different tracks under a T.V. in the grandstand somewhere.They have no chance. IMO you have to have a handle on the track or tracks that you choose to play. And that is not as difficult as it sounds.
So the first thing that I will say is tell me which track or tracks you prefer to handicap and I will try and point out whatever I can. I do not know all the tracks these days but things only change but so much. So , let me know.
Numbers and speed ratings:Too me, as stated, Beyers are a complete waste of time IMO. The sheets are as well IMO. They were not around when I first started reading the morning telegraph and then the racing form but I am not old enough to become so set in my ways that I am not open to something that might actually help improve picking winners. Lets remember that long before I was a trainer, I was a gambler. All through high school and while walking hots and being a groom. It was not until I became a foreman and then an asst. trainer that my focus shifted away from gambling. If someone could show me how these numbers or figures intelligently point out things that I could not otherwise deduce from the form, I am all ears. But from all I have seen, heard, and asked , I don't see anything except what you said earlier. Reinventing the wheel. I have asked Andy Beyer, Dick Jerardi (my all time favorite by the way),Clem Florio, Vinnie Perrone, and others and while not trying to be smug or against these methods, no one has presented any answers that I am willing to say, that's right, it is a better way.
Do also remember that these handicappers that give you picks probably give these out well before the first race that day and maybe even the day before I would assume. If that is the case, how on earth can they know all of the intangibles that go into the process before those intangibles exist? The answer is , they can't.
If you can give me a little help with the people whose picks you are following, I will be glad to comment further. But, if they are guys like the writers that select at a certain track for the DRF for instance they would be the first to tell you that yes, that is who they liked at the time but now, a day later and having witnessed other races on the card or taken the track condition in to account, or scratches and or horses that have drawn in, they now have a different opinion. I guess the best way to put it is that there selections are now stale, having the benefit of more up to date knowledge. Probably not if they are picking the Breeders Cup races or the big race of the day, with no scratches but the vast majority of races I feel certain that they would concur with this assessment. And the tip sheets at the track, PLEASE , don't waste your money. If you knew the guys writing those, you would shake your head.
Do remember that DRF writers are paid and employed by DRF so those guys are NOT pro gamblers. It is their job.
I have to go now, but will pick up next time on the last part of your 2nd paragraph.
Great questions.

[HorsePlay]

First things first. Let me say thank you for your kind words. I started this thread having no idea if anyone would care . As it grows I am happy to help any and all that I can. Some of the guys in this horse racing forum are pretty sharp and seem like great guys. This is a good group of people that hang in here. Glad you joined in.
I might not get to all of your thoughts right now but I will over the next couple of posts.
Reading books on handicapping is a great way to get started. No doubt about that. But what I hope you as well as others do, is to listen to what other handicappers say but don't think that all that they say and do is " the way to do it". It is "their" way of doing it. You find " your " way of handicapping. There is no one way to do this and it is indeed a constant work in progress so realize that first of all. Secondly, I can't imagine that anyone can state how to handicap and have it work from track to track. I just don't see how that is possible. By that I mean for instance, handicapping CharlesTown and handicapping Monmouth are night and day different. Why? Well, the basic premise might be the same as to identifying the speed, stalkers and closers , breaking the race down in that fashion, understanding any track bias as well as track tendencies( be careful there, unless you are sure, continue to try and learn it but don't bank on a broken or uncertain model),etc., but let's get to the part that a handicapper from a major track like Monmouth will not take in to consideration. Expense of training the horse for instance. That is something that I guarantee you many people don't consider. They would not have to consider that at a major track like Monmouth or Belmont or even Laurel or Pimlico. But C.T. or Thistledown or whatever, if you don't you will not fully understand what is going on. The horses are lucky to have hind shoes on for there 1st race back in 6 months or more at a minor cheap track much less be fit and ready to go. Now if a horse shows that it runs well fresh, that is different but the majority of cheap horses trained by small trainers are going to be not nearly as fit and ready to go as the horses with the same layoff period that are trained by the Brown, Runco, Watters, etc. type of guys at C.T. Conversely, trainers are not going to run unfit horses at Monmouth. At least not anywhere near to the severity that it exists at small tracks.
It is things like this that drive me crazy when I see people betting every 6 minutes at 5 different tracks under a T.V. in the grandstand somewhere.They have no chance. IMO you have to have a handle on the track or tracks that you choose to play. And that is not as difficult as it sounds.
So the first thing that I will say is tell me which track or tracks you prefer to handicap and I will try and point out whatever I can. I do not know all the tracks these days but things only change but so much. So , let me know.
Numbers and speed ratings:Too me, as stated, Beyers are a complete waste of time IMO. The sheets are as well IMO. They were not around when I first started reading the morning telegraph and then the racing form but I am not old enough to become so set in my ways that I am not open to something that might actually help improve picking winners. Lets remember that long before I was a trainer, I was a gambler. All through high school and while walking hots and being a groom. It was not until I became a foreman and then an asst. trainer that my focus shifted away from gambling. If someone could show me how these numbers or figures intelligently point out things that I could not otherwise deduce from the form, I am all ears. But from all I have seen, heard, and asked , I don't see anything except what you said earlier. Reinventing the wheel. I have asked Andy Beyer, Dick Jerardi (my all time favorite by the way),Clem Florio, Vinnie Perrone, and others and while not trying to be smug or against these methods, no one has presented any answers that I am willing to say, that's right, it is a better way.
Do also remember that these handicappers that give you picks probably give these out well before the first race that day and maybe even the day before I would assume. If that is the case, how on earth can they know all of the intangibles that go into the process before those intangibles exist? The answer is , they can't.
If you can give me a little help with the people whose picks you are following, I will be glad to comment further. But, if they are guys like the writers that select at a certain track for the DRF for instance they would be the first to tell you that yes, that is who they liked at the time but now, a day later and having witnessed other races on the card or taken the track condition in to account, or scratches and or horses that have drawn in, they now have a different opinion. I guess the best way to put it is that there selections are now stale, having the benefit of more up to date knowledge. Probably not if they are picking the Breeders Cup races or the big race of the day, with no scratches but the vast majority of races I feel certain that they would concur with this assessment. And the tip sheets at the track, PLEASE , don't waste your money. If you knew the guys writing those, you would shake your head.
Do remember that DRF writers are paid and employed by DRF so those guys are NOT pro gamblers. It is their job.
I have to go now, but will pick up next time on the last part of your 2nd paragraph.
Great questions.

Thanks so much for your very thorough reply. Like always, I have to read and re-read your posts to make sure I'm getting the full take of your insights and experience. The very first handicapping book I picked up was Brad Free's Handicapping 101. It was the first version of the book. I understand he has revised it in the paperback edition to update it with new developments... mainly as they pertain to synthetic surfaces. So, I follow some of Brad's advice on specific picks he makes... primarily at Hollywood Park. Because I live in Arizona, I tend to follow west coast tracks since they are more in my time zone as opposed to east coast tracks. I most often bet Hollywood Park and Golden Gate Fields at the nearest OTB to where I live. I also follow Mike Superstein, Mike Hammersley, Mike Watchmaker and Craig Petersen... of Pace Pals.

Your comments about picks going stale make a whole lot of sense. I should have thought that through before putting too much faith in what the pro's do. It kind of fits into a newer approach I've been taking in the last couple of weeks and I'll share that later. But, right now, I have to move on myself to get some other things done, but I will look forward to reading your additional comments when you have the time. Thanks again!

[str]

Str, a truly superb thread! I have been following it for some time now... reading and re-reading many of your posts. It is one of the most enlightening threads I've read anywhere, and I've learned a lot from you. A great big thanks! At the same time, you have me wondering why I risk any money at all on horse betting... there is so much I don't know. I spend as much time as I have available... which is not much... reading up on handicapping. When I consider all the valuable insight you have provided and compare it to what I have read about so far, it seems in a way that all the bettors who spend time and effort at this process are constantly re-inventing the wheel. By that I mean, bettors who put in time studying numbers and speed ratings... they are all looking at the same numbers in an attempt to discover some sort of breakthrough that's going to enable them to pick a winner(s).

Now, I follow several of the professional handicappers... the DRF types who have written books on the subject and provide their insights and tips in columns they write, or on websites to which they contribute. These guys are wrong more than they are right... I say this with some confidence in this observation, because I often bet according to their tips. And, I lose more often than I win. So, this whole handicapping thing gets me thinking... if the pros struggle with this to the point where I have to wonder if they really do make a living betting. What chance does a guy like me have who has not been doing it for nearly as long as many of them have been doing it... does not have their overall knowledge of the horses, tracks, trainers, jockeys, etc., plus, they probably have access to tools, aids and other "technology" I don't even know about... what can I expect to see in my study, comparison and evaluation of the numbers that's going to provide me with the breakthrough that empowers me to actually win more often that I lose?

I sometimes think I would be better off culling the tips and opinions of the pro handicappers, and when I see that 5 out of 6 say that so-and-so in the 5th race is a great horse... he should win outright... then I'll bet him to show. Forget about doing my own comparisions and measurements... I'll just go with what those who are supposed to be in the know. And then, secure that even further by giving them the benefit of the doubt, and and bet "win" picks to "show". Not even this approach works reliably.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not nearly as cynical as I might sound about the whole handicapping process. And, I am not into horse racing only for the money. I think it is a great sport. I greatly admire the people who make it happen. More than anything, I just love watching the horses perform... even if I have no betting interests at all. I have great respect for the jockeys and intense compassion for the horses. When I read about Ferdinand many years after his actual plight, it brought me to tears and upset me for days afterward. I still hate to think about that wonderful animal and how his life ended.

There are so many elements and facets to the sport of horse racing and while betting and gambling seems to be what drives it financially... making it a viable business... this aspect of horse racing is perhaps just the tip of what attracts people to it. At any rate, I just wanted to say thanks again for providing insight into your experience and the aspects of the sport that have mattered most to you. It has been a highly interesting and enjoyable read. You should write a book! I hope your foray back into the sport is going well.

Picking up at the bottom of paragraph 2 you were asking how you will be able to pick winners when others have possibly more tools at their disposal.
I would simply look at this as trying to win in a parimutuel pool. You might not be the # 1 player in the pool but rest assured that you are not at the bottom either. As your style is perfected you will become more comfortable within it. And no matter how good you are, you are never always right.
These 2 pros that I speak of once asked me if I liked a cheap claimer I was running at Pimlico. I said that I thought he had a decent chance. He should run well ,was my opinion. He was roughly 5 or 6-1. They looked at one another and started smirking and the one guy says " your horse has zero chance . He will get crushed." I said that I was sorry to hear that . About an hour later my horse won the race. Not being the kind of guy to ever gloat or talk myself up, I typically never would have gone back to see them afterwards but the brash , cocky way that they put me down prior to the race left me no choice. Being as competitive as I am, I could not resist. I went back to see them and told them that I do enjoy hearing their opinion but if they want to talk down to me in the future I suggest they know what the hell they are talking about before they try to do so. The one guy said that they probably deserved that. The other guy, would not speak. It took that guy about a month before he was decent again. Most of you that follow Andy Beyer have heard of the guy I am talking about that would not speak. Andy refers to him as an economist and a consultant in some of his articles when needing sources. He is a top notch gambler and as good as they come when it comes to playing the horses. His people skills could have used some work though.
Getting a consensus and betting to show: Please don't do that. You will not gain anything from that. I would also suggest not betting to place. I know that a lot of people do bet place but the risk, reward ratio is not very good at all IMO. What I might suggest is to bet very small amounts and set a goal for yourself of maybe 6 months. So by May 1st of next year, you want to have improved your handicapping skills quite a bit. Start with how you look at each horse.That starts with reading the conditions of the race and seeing the distance the race is. Too me, you should look at each horse as you read it's form, the same way. Start with it's name, then owner, breeder, trainer, it's breeding and a quick overview of it's last races. Get a feel for who the horse is. Don't throw it out or like it, just get a feel. Start with the one horse. Do this for all in the race. Maybe put a mark on the side as to what type of horse it is. Like speed, stalk, closer. Now that you have seen the overview of the race start over and get in to each horse a little more. Get a feel for the horses current form. The stats telling you each horses record at that track is very helpful, as is the trainer stats , distance stats, and all of those tools. I will get in to as much detail as you would like on this so let me know and I will go step by step if that will help. But do remember, this is MY style of handicapping. That does not make it THE way to do it. It is MY way. Others will have their way of doing things .There are many paths to the winners circle. Not just one.
I have heard guys say that this would take forever and today's player does not want to spend that much time on each race. While that is probably correct, my answer to that would have to be, maybe today's horse player, but not today's handicapper that is not just trying to play a race every 6 minutes. A handicapper is going to put in the necessary time to formulate an opinion. I have spent a ton of time on races and then passed them altogether. That stinks! But that's the way it is. I don't bet to bet, I bet to try and win. If you bet to bet, that's exactly what you will do. Bet. Handicappers bet to win. At least that is the way I always did it. I would say that if I spent 15-20 minutes on a typical race the night before and 20 minutes on the race the day of, I would be ready to go. It might take less. Far less once I knew the horses, track,etc. but no more.
I know that I have probably bored the hell out of people telling them to watch replays. But I know of no other way to learn what is going on from race to race but to watch and understand in time, what I am seeing. With that, I will offer to anyone, that if they post a replay , I will answer any question they might have about it. Even if it is a race where all that is asked is to help teach me how to watch a replay and get something out of it. I will be happy too. Please provide the form of the race as well and I will break it down for you. But I will need the form to be able to identify who is who and why they did or did not like their spots throughout the race.
I share your compassion for the horses that compete in the game. What happened to Ferdinand was unreal. Japan needs to wake up. It is disgusting .
The U.S. has many measures in place to prevent this type of thing from happening these days. All trainers used to try and find horses good homes and give them away, myself included. It happened too me once, but the horse although very underweight was still alive. We went and picked the horse up and got him squared away eventually. That was it for the "giving them away" deal for me. From that point on, all my "giveaways" were leases( usually for one or two hundred dollars) with a contract with specific terms to keep that or the "killers" from happening. The horse could not be re sold, raced, or removed without my express consent. I took a few more back over the years and relocated them but that fixed the problem for me.
Too me, while Ferdinand was a classic horse, some of my very favorite horses from the thousands I must have had, were claimers. I guess it comes down to this. It doesn't matter how great you ability to win is, it is how great your will to win is. Just like people, they come in all shapes, sizes and levels of ability. What separates them is not so much their wealth or success but their willingness to strive to succeed. That is what always touched me in horses as well as people.
Hope I answered them all, if not let me know.

[str]

I'm not sure if I can incorporate this effectively into my model. Will just have to use greater caution with speed horses. In a way I overreacted to this race. I knew it was all or nothing with Vexor, but when the dramatic difference between those two modes played out on the track I began to think I had missed something dramatic. lol Perhaps the safest thing is to simply avoid speed horses like Vexor. The larger question, regardless of the type of horse, is: how do you recognize heart in a horse? The early signs of heart, more so than after the fact. I would love to add a heart rating to my model. What do you look for? Is heart even the correct way of looking at it? After winning the Derby with a 50-1 longshot Borel exclaimed "50 to 1. It's all in the head!"

You can not simply avoid horses like Vexor because horses like him do win.
Heart in a horse: Pretty simple. Witness a race where the horse overcame or fought through an adverse condition and continued to compete. Yeah , I know, the replay again. But... this is one of the big reasons it should be used. If a horse is in between horses and a head off the lead the whole way and wins, that win is huge in comparison to an outside (box) trip while off the lead a head. Didn't Vexor win like that with the box? You saw what he did when he got pinned.
I think the willingness to try while under adverse conditions describes what you are looking for. This is something that every horse will have a different threshold for.
I have no idea what Borel was trying to say. I don't think he was talking about heart though. I'm not sure what he meant.

[Dark Horse]

You can not simply avoid horses like Vexor because horses like him do win.
Heart in a horse: Pretty simple. Witness a race where the horse overcame or fought through an adverse condition and continued to compete. Yeah , I know, the replay again. But... this is one of the big reasons it should be used. If a horse is in between horses and a head off the lead the whole way and wins, that win is huge in comparison to an outside (box) trip while off the lead a head. Didn't Vexor win like that with the box? You saw what he did when he got pinned.
I think the willingness to try while under adverse conditions describes what you are looking for. This is something that every horse will have a different threshold for.
I have no idea what Borel was trying to say. I don't think he was talking about heart though. I'm not sure what he meant.

Love replays. Major advantage of the internet age that races are easily accessible for study. Plus it's fun to watch horses race. Doesn't quite put tears in my eyes, but at the level right below that.

Went back to some old research after asking about this. With what I learned from you I could connect some more of the dots about horses with heart there. The challenge before me is that I have to fit info into a model (aside from replays); I have one for heart now, or at least working on clearing that up. Took Man'o War and Secretariat as the mold... lol It was a factor I had put aside for a while, as being secondary to other elements I was working on. But now was the time to fit it in. So much obliged once again, kind mentor.

[str]

Thanks so much for your very thorough reply. Like always, I have to read and re-read your posts to make sure I'm getting the full take of your insights and experience. The very first handicapping book I picked up was Brad Free's Handicapping 101. It was the first version of the book. I understand he has revised it in the paperback edition to update it with new developments... mainly as they pertain to synthetic surfaces. So, I follow some of Brad's advice on specific picks he makes... primarily at Hollywood Park. Because I live in Arizona, I tend to follow west coast tracks since they are more in my time zone as opposed to east coast tracks. I most often bet Hollywood Park and Golden Gate Fields at the nearest OTB to where I live. I also follow Mike Superstein, Mike Hammersley, Mike Watchmaker and Craig Petersen... of Pace Pals.

Your comments about picks going stale make a whole lot of sense. I should have thought that through before putting too much faith in what the pro's do. It kind of fits into a newer approach I've been taking in the last couple of weeks and I'll share that later. But, right now, I have to move on myself to get some other things done, but I will look forward to reading your additional comments when you have the time. Thanks again!

Brad Free : What I might suggest is to read his analysis prior to the race but not bet on it. Instead, understand his logic and then see how it plays out. This might lead you to a conclusion that some of his way of seeing things is better than others. Not that a win or a loss dictates right or wrong , but if what he said makes as much sense after the fact as it seemed too beforehand over time. He will probably repeat a pattern of logic as well , which will then show you a specific angle that he likes to use.
All of those writers I am sure, are good at what they do. The problem with using their picks is that everybody sees what they say and any value on a play is probably long gone.
In the long run, betting a lot of heavy chalk is a losing proposition. Having said that, betting a favorite in any given race is fine. It really depends on if the 2-1 fav should in your opinion be 7-5 or less. If so, go ahead and play the horse. But don't fall into the trap of betting more on the fav than you would on a 5-1 or 7-1 shot just because it is the favorite. People have a tendency to bet more on a small priced horse than they normally would bet per race. Unless your strength of opinion matches the strength of bet, you are making a mistake. I hope that makes sense.
Being from the east, I never followed California racing very much. I would think that it is no different from other tracks in that it has plenty of tendencies , trends, etc. I know they exist, I just don't know them off the top of my head like I do many eastern tracks. So my advise would be to get very familiar with those tracks as to the trainers, jockeys, track trends and so forth. Find stats on post position win % for the various distances. Closely monitor the strengths and weaknesses of trainers, much of which is in the form down by the workouts. Jockey trends can be real tricky. Tread lightly there. But do know who rides for who and try to at least have some understanding as to which riders are speed, turf, closer preferred riders. This absolutely exists although the jocks don't want to admit it. Knowing that will really help in the long run. Do remember, the strengths and weaknesses of jockeys will be more pronounced at lesser quality tracks( more so at GG than at Hollywood or Santa Anita).The top notch riders really don't have many flaws at all. Same with trainers. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. And maybe figure out how good certain claiming trainers are with fillies and mares vs. boys. This also exists a lot more than people realize. I don't know if anyone keeps records on that but some guys will excel at first off the claim with fillies/mares. I should know this. I did! My stats were very different 1st off the claim between boys and girls. I might have been the only one that knew it though back in the day. Actually, any pros would have known this if they were indeed pros.
Last thing, WTT posted the takeout in another thread for all the various betting options. This is huge IMO. Find the pools that are not ripping you off and try to stick with them. I know that 25% is pretty much all triples and sometimes you might play them but compare both tracks and if there is a sizable difference between the two in a specific category, try and avoid over paying all the time. At least know what you are up against before playing. Over time, it really is important to understand.