Horse Racing questions and answers

[str]

Would it be fair to say class drop after a win is always a red flag? Might be an angle in this Beyer age. I believe one needs to beat the Beyers more than anything else to find value nowadays.

For the most part yes. What I would make sure of is that it was a true class drop. Sometimes you win for n/w2 10,000 and run back for n/w3 7,500. Too me, that is not a red flag, especially if the trainer runs them where they belong. If it is an open claimer and the horse drops off of say a 30,000 open win and runs back for open 25,000 than yes, that is a serious red flag.
Personally, I don't look at Beyers but that's just me. I have talked about that a couple of times within this thread probably about a year ago . I agree with you though, Beyers are usually over bet because they make it easy and many like it like that.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks str. I'll keep working on that.

[Dark Horse]

Tracks and biases. Steady weather in a place like California means track ratings as fast or firm mean something. By comparison, the weather is much more varied for a place like Saratoga. Am I exaggerating to note that this track is rated fast or firm a lot with mud flying all over the place? Do you find that tracks tend to rate the surface faster than it really is? If so, why do they do this? How many different track surfaces, rated as fast or firm, could a track like Saratoga really have? What do you look for when dealing with different stages of moisture during the day, and the effects of packing a track down? Other than traction, does mud flying around have a different effect on different horses? Can you train for that, or is it more or less comparable to Scottish and Italian soccer players (even if you never saw a game, you could probably tell who like to leave the pitch with clean outfits)?

[JakeLc]

most people don't like to bet anything other than a fast track so the tracks like to label a track " fast" as quickly as they can so as not to discourage handle for the card

[Dark Horse]

Thanks. That makes sense.

str, I just remembered that you may have addressed some of these questions before. I think you mentioned you made notes of different distances from the rail. I'll look it up. It's a big thread.

Here's a nice shot of the Forego, won by a -clean- Emcee.

http://www.drf.com/slideshows/weekend-stakes-winners-aug-30-sept-3?photo=emcee/forego_stakes_beyer

Makes you wonder if the flying mud impairs a horse's vision, like driving a car in heavy rain.

I can recommend those post weekend slide shows at drf, by the way. Great shots!
(and Beyers now included; thanks drf)

http://www.drf.com/slideshows/weekend-stakes-winners-aug-30-sept-3?photo=dominus/bernard_baruch_handicap_beyer

http://www.drf.com/slideshows/weekend-stakes-winners-aug-30-sept-3?photo=halo_dolly/yellow_ribbon_handicap_beyer

[str]

most people don't like to bet anything other than a fast track so the tracks like to label a track " fast" as quickly as they can so as not to discourage handle for the card

Jake, you nailed it.

[str]

Tracks and biases. Steady weather in a place like California means track ratings as fast or firm mean something. By comparison, the weather is much more varied for a place like Saratoga. Am I exaggerating to note that this track is rated fast or firm a lot with mud flying all over the place? Do you find that tracks tend to rate the surface faster than it really is? If so, why do they do this? How many different track surfaces, rated as fast or firm, could a track like Saratoga really have? What do you look for when dealing with different stages of moisture during the day, and the effects of packing a track down? Other than traction, does mud flying around have a different effect on different horses? Can you train for that, or is it more or less comparable to Scottish and Italian soccer players (even if you never saw a game, you could probably tell who like to leave the pitch with clean outfits)?

Q. Am I exaggerating to note that this track is rated fast or firm a lot with mud flying all over the place? Do you find that tracks tend to rate the surface faster than it really is? If so, why do they do this? How many different track surfaces, rated as fast or firm, could a track like Saratoga really have?

A. A fast drying track can get away with this. And it's not necessarily wrong . It dries out pretty quickly, but track management , as Jake pointed out, also has a reason to label it fast. In Maryland, Pimlico could dry out quickly as well. Old hilltop tells you that the wind will lend a hand in drying out the surface and the underground water table is such that the water has somewhere to go . By contrast, Laurel, which is built in one of the lowest points in Laurel, is a collection area for flood water and run off from miles around. It is a swamp. When it gets wet there, it takes much longer to dry out. The turf course was raised considerably just after I left the game. This was done because the water table was so close to the surface that once it got wet in the fall, turf racing was pretty much over. It just would not dry out.
When a track dries out , it will typically show the same tendencies. Knowing what those tendencies are will improve your chances because most players do not have that knowledge. All this goes back to knowing more about the track you play at. Bouncing around to ten different tracks without any knowledge of tendencies IMO works against the player. If they are OK with that because there model is good enough to sustain whatever win % that lack of knowledge might cost them, that is fine. I just want them to be aware that this type of knowledge does indeed exist.


Q. What do you look for when dealing with different stages of moisture during the day, and the effects of packing a track down?

A. Each track will show there own tendencies if any exist. For many years at Laurel , the 1st race of the day in the summer would run faster than it normally would if carded as the 2nd or any race after on that day. If the race was split in 2 and carded as the 1st and 2nd the 1st half was almost always faster , usually by close to a full second. This was due to ( IMO but I had this discussion with John Passero the track super and he assumed the same) the heavy rolling and watering that would take place several times while the track awaited the 1st race. They do this so the track won't get sun baked and become loose or beachy. Laurel contained a lot of clay, more so than most tracks. The clay would pack with all the water and rolling and produce a quicker and tighter than normal surface for the 1st race. After the 1st race it would be harrowed and lightly watered but would not be as tight and packed as it was for the 1st for the rest of the card. I claimed or did not claim many horses over time because of this. Betting against certain horses in there next out because of the over inflated Beyer number they received due to the faster time was another angle. Maybe it's just me but I always have loved an angle. The +EV guys would agree. It is an edge that most don't have .


Q. Other than traction, does mud flying around have a different effect on different horses?

A. It can, but not to enough horses to make it worth working on IMO. That would be very hard to factor in when handicapping. A particular horse sure, but how would you as a handicapper know ? You wouldn't in most cases.

Q. Can you train for that, or is it more or less comparable to Scottish and Italian soccer players (even if you never saw a game, you could probably tell who like to leave the pitch with clean outfits)?

A. Trainers can try by putting horses behind a couple of others for the 1st part of workouts in the AM but nobody wants to risk several horses working on a muddy track to help teach one horse about the mud. The rider of that horse might have something to say about it as well. This is done on dry tracks to help teach about the dirt coming back on them but rarely if ever in the mud. I did once , for a particular horse but that's once out of thousands of works. And yes, some people called me crazy at the time.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks very much. I would read a book on weather and track maintenance for each track, especially with races decided by it, but nobody wrote it. There seem to be two sides to the issue. One is taking advantage of detailed track knowledge, the other is avoiding unpleasant surprises; by not having a basic understanding of the track. The avoiding part is a lot easier. The drying out part is complex (lanes from rail out; different parts around track drying out at different rates; and from top layer to layer underneath).

When the weather affects the track, do jockeys sometimes walk the track to identify fast and slow parts, or do they already know the track inside out? Or is it common to see a jockey not aware of the fast lane in the stretch run?

If you visited a track for the first time and didn't know anything about it, who would you talk to to find out about any biases?

[str]

Thanks very much. I would read a book on weather and track maintenance for each track, especially with races decided by it, but nobody wrote it. There seem to be two sides to the issue. One is taking advantage of detailed track knowledge, the other is avoiding unpleasant surprises; by not having a basic understanding of the track. The avoiding part is a lot easier. The drying out part is complex (lanes from rail out; different parts around track drying out at different rates; and from top layer to layer underneath).

When the weather affects the track, do jockeys sometimes walk the track to identify fast and slow parts, or do they already know the track inside out? Or is it common to see a jockey not aware of the fast lane in the stretch run?

If you visited a track for the first time and didn't know anything about it, who would you talk to to find out about any biases?

I will answer this part tonight and the rest tomorrow .

Q. The drying out part is complex (lanes from rail out; different parts around track drying out at different rates; and from top layer to layer underneath).

A. This is a popular misconception. Yes, the track can dry out unevenly depending on shade vs. direct sun and such especially down the back side but rarely if ever have I seen it lane to lane. The unevenness in patches of the track you can't concern yourself with. Way to much detail and you have no idea if the 10 horse going 7/8s will drop over or be way outside. Don't waste your time.
The lane difference for instance, "it favors the 3 or 4 path " etc. is something that I have seen several writers talking about lately. This blows my mind that they can't see the clear picture. The lanes are not effected by the drying out, it is the fact that the inside has gotten heavy with the dirt falling down hill towards the rail from the harrows or floats. The greater the pitch on the track the faster it falls. Because you can't grade mud and make the surface the same depth across, the lowest point( towards the rail) will have more cushion than the outward paths. Once graded, after the races or before the next days first race, the rail becomes fine or the place to be depending on how much cushion is pushed back towards the outside. It might be even but if more storms are in the forecast and the window to grade it over the next couple of days is closing , the track superintendent might very well choose to over grade the rail to allow for some dirt( mud) to fall back down the grade towards the rail and still be even. That will make the rail red hot, or heavily favor speed. He will especially do this if the last time he could not grade when he wanted to, the writers busted on him for the track being outside ( don't think he doesn't hear all about what is written). His job is to try and make it fair but if he can't do exact track maintenance because of a lot of weather, he will try and avoid making the same bias twice by grading it differently next time, if for no other reason than to keep the writers from predicting what will happen. However, if the writers don't mention it, a pattern of bias can definitely show up, like inside every Friday in the fall, or closers every whatever day. Keeping a simple chart of these occurrences will give you a chance to find the track superintendent's pattern in track maintenance.
Once you get a feel for any particular track, you can start to anticipate what is going to happen from day to day. Never fool proof, but it will make sense often times.

[Dark Horse]

I wrote lanes, but was thinking of more general areas (measured from the rail). The race that comes to mind is last year's Breeder's Cup Classic. Smith (Drosselmeyer) later said he knew that in the stretch run he was on the fast part of the track. Was that just the way the race unfolded, because he was on a closer and was going wide anyway? Or was it general knowledge that Sutherland on Game on Dude could have used as well?

[str]

Thanks very much. I would read a book on weather and track maintenance for each track, especially with races decided by it, but nobody wrote it. There seem to be two sides to the issue. One is taking advantage of detailed track knowledge, the other is avoiding unpleasant surprises; by not having a basic understanding of the track. The avoiding part is a lot easier. The drying out part is complex (lanes from rail out; different parts around track drying out at different rates; and from top layer to layer underneath).

When the weather affects the track, do jockeys sometimes walk the track to identify fast and slow parts, or do they already know the track inside out? Or is it common to see a jockey not aware of the fast lane in the stretch run?

If you visited a track for the first time and didn't know anything about it, who would you talk to to find out about any biases?

Q. When the weather affects the track, do jockeys sometimes walk the track to identify fast and slow parts, or do they already know the track inside out? Or is it common to see a jockey not aware of the fast lane in the stretch run?


A. Until about 15 years ago, it was rare to find anyone that was aware of what a bias was or that it existed at all. A handful of top riders saw it for what it was but for the most part, they were oblivious.
I never saw a rider walk the track in Md. to identify an inconsistency. Other than myself and you know that I took notes on it daily and walked portions of it if necessary daily, I only remember seeing one other trainer do it. I might be forgetting someone but nobody really knew of it. Michael Dickenson walked it at Laurel one day before the 1st race and I remember saying to myself , damn, he knows. I think that was the late 80s.
While jockeys do know the track inside and out, when it came to this, most if not all were typically unaware of the best place to be.

Q. If you visited a track for the first time and didn't know anything about it, who would you talk to to find out about any biases?

A. I found out a long time ago that when you are at the track there is no shortage of opinion. But you just cant trust all of the opinions.I doubt I would ask anyone. So do it yourself. You can see somewhat on your own if you are there at least enough to get an understanding of the process. It starts with following the charts to see if you can isolate a possible pattern. Next, go down to the track and look at the portion just under the inner rail. When grading starts, the blade of the earth mover will have to start just under the inner rail where the horses feet can not touch. See if it is smooth and clean or if clots of dirt are sitting on it and it has been disturbed. That will give you an indication as to when the track was possibly last graded. Match that thought process up to any trends that you might have noticed and the picture becomes a little clearer. Or, stay 30 minutes after the last race and see if a road grader comes out on the track and starts working the dirt. This work takes about an hour and a half so it must be done after the last race, between 10:30 AM and 1st post or on a dark day. See if it is a full blade of dirt or just a 1/4 blade of dirt. A full blade will obviously be a more radical change than a small amount. In the east and north, the track must be worked all night when freezing temps threaten the surface . If so, the track will need to be graded 3 or 4 days a week . The more the harrow goes around and the steeper the pitch, the more dirt falls down the slope towards the rail. Start with that, and once you get a feel for that, ask for more detail. I will be happy to give more detail but don't want to bore you if it does not pertain .

[Dark Horse]

Great info. I'm surprised not more trainers and jockeys would walk the track. I want to make sure I'm not overlooking the different tools and machines used by track maintenance. Could you maybe quickly list them? Or does it come down to watering, loosening soil, and packing down soil, combined with drying out (sun, soil beneath and water level)? I'm still trying to picture the different combinations, such as loosened up moist soil that is then packed down, etc. Are we basically talking about the same principles as used by kids building a sand castle?

And I just read something by Davidowitz saying that tracks like Belmont or Santa Anita tend to treat the track so that it will be faster on special days, such as the Breeder's Cup. He mentions that tracks without much of a bias may suddenly show a clear bias on such days.

[unusialsusp5]

stop reading and overanylzing and just bet for chrissakes and lose like everyone else does. yes, str knows his horse stuff but all you really have to know is that only 1 out of 3 favorites win and the average win price is less than 6.00, therefore throw out the favorite (always) and bet another horse to win and exactas with that one and use a progressive money management system that increases your bets if you are ahead and decreases them if you are behind on a given day. weather shmeather although a fast track is preferable, worry about how each track maintains it would depend on who is driving the tractor (tough to analyze that) even if you know the track bias on a given day how do you know what the jockey is going to do when the gate opens(he does you don't so why bother worrying about it) just be a degenerate if you like horse racing and play lucky numbers or favorite jockeys if you can't read the drf.

[Dark Horse]

str, I can't quite picture the process you were referring to yet. Are you saying that the track has a slight slope towards the rail? So when the track is graded the loose soil moves towards the rail. Now, when it's at the rail, does that mean the layer near the rail is looser and thicker, and therefore slower? And then, if they pack that layer down, does it then become faster near the rail? Or does the rail get faster, because they can't let the soil build up there, so they have to rake it back, exposing the harder soil underneath?

Also, just as a ballpark figure, what percentage of races do you estimate are decided by track bias?

[str]

I wrote lanes, but was thinking of more general areas (measured from the rail). The race that comes to mind is last year's Breeder's Cup Classic. Smith (Drosselmeyer) later said he knew that in the stretch run he was on the fast part of the track. Was that just the way the race unfolded, because he was on a closer and was going wide anyway? Or was it general knowledge that Sutherland on Game on Dude could have used as well?

It might have been the best part of the track but by how much? Not a ton IMO. Because it was not an outrageous difference, there is no way that Sutherland could have gone that wide on the lead without being called out for such a terrible ride .
When a slight advantage is at a certain part of the track and it is that far outside, anyone on the lead just does not have the option to be there even if they want to be in a race of that stature that is so dissected by the media and the fans. The bias that day, if any, was not so prominent that being that far outside was an option unless you were circling and closing. Smith was content until the 1/4 pole to be in the 2-3 path. As he turned for home he had no choice but to be that far out with the wall in front of him. In the end it worked out fine for him but for him to say that 25-30 feet off the rail was the best part and he knew it and that's where he planned to be sounds great and some of that might be true but if there was no wall in front of him and he could have stayed in the 2-3 path all the way around he would have IMO. You could ask why, if it was so great, weren't you there down the backside .
Could you imagine what would have been said if he just went to the middle of the track because he wanted to be there? Sometimes, even though you know it is a little better that far out, being there is not an option. The criticism would have been overwhelming. So while it sounds great, and might actually be right, he was lucky to have been able to use that knowledge through the lane.

[Dark Horse]

Yeah, I'm starting to see that Smith's post-race comments can have a little flavor to them. Grain of salt territory. Thanks for explaining.

This track bias topic is going to be slow progress for me. One track at a time, basically. I like to distill complex stuff into simple solutions, but I've barely begun to scratch the surface (!) of this topic. Anyway, enjoying every part of the ride and learning process.

[str]

Great info. I'm surprised not more trainers and jockeys would walk the track. I want to make sure I'm not overlooking the different tools and machines used by track maintenance. Could you maybe quickly list them? Or does it come down to watering, loosening soil, and packing down soil, combined with drying out (sun, soil beneath and water level)? I'm still trying to picture the different combinations, such as loosened up moist soil that is then packed down, etc. Are we basically talking about the same principles as used by kids building a sand castle?
And I just read something by Davidowitz saying that tracks like Belmont or Santa Anita tend to treat the track so that it will be faster on special days, such as the Breeder's Cup. He mentions that tracks without much of a bias may suddenly show a clear bias on such days.

Q. Could you maybe quickly list them?

A.
Road Grader to move the dirt.

Harrows to get rid of tire marks from the gate , foot prints and hoof marks from the previous race.

Heavy steel or wooden flat board to make the track smooth. It's called a float. This seals the track before a rain to prevent washing out or helps squeeze the water in the track to the top so it can runoff or evaporate from the sun or wind.

A roller typically looks like a Zamboni only with 8-10 tires across the front and back slightly offset so when it runs the dirt over every part that was run over is compressed by tires.

Water truck to apply water.

That's all that comes to mind right now.

Q. Are we basically talking about the same principles as used by kids building a sand castle?

A. Basically yes . The track surface is not sand though. It is a mixture of clay, sand and other types of dirt . The clay helps to allow for compression. You can't compress dry sand. This combo allows for watering, compression and uniformity. Too much sand and the horses can't run on it. Too much clay and it gets too thick when wet or hard as a rock when sun baked and dry.

Q. And I just read something by Davidowitz saying that tracks like Belmont or Santa Anita tend to treat the track so that it will be faster on special days, such as the Breeder's Cup. He mentions that tracks without much of a bias may suddenly show a clear bias on such days.

A. This is true for all tracks on there important days. Now we all know WHY and how these biases show up.

[str]

stop reading and overanylzing and just bet for chrissakes and lose like everyone else does. yes, str knows his horse stuff but all you really have to know is that only 1 out of 3 favorites win and the average win price is less than 6.00, therefore throw out the favorite (always) and bet another horse to win and exactas with that one and use a progressive money management system that increases your bets if you are ahead and decreases them if you are behind on a given day. weather shmeather although a fast track is preferable, worry about how each track maintains it would depend on who is driving the tractor (tough to analyze that) even if you know the track bias on a given day how do you know what the jockey is going to do when the gate opens(he does you don't so why bother worrying about it) just be a degenerate if you like horse racing and play lucky numbers or favorite jockeys if you can't read the drf.

This is classic . Really funny U5, and, for some players, I totally agree. Those that want to be entertained, throw down a couple chillies, smoke a cigar, just hang out and make some bets, why not. If they don't want to really understand the game but just have a good time and try and get lucky, sure, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all IMO. I had an owner that only played numbers. He just did not want to deal with the other stuff. He combined 1,4,8 in a triple 3,6,9 in a triple 2,5,7 in a triple or would do a 1,2,5 with the 1,2,5 with the 2,5,7,10. I would ask him about a 1,2,8 tri and he would say nope, the numbers don't go. He did not get hurt , had a blast, and hit a few big ones so to each there own I guess.
The grader driver is a solid observation. I questioned that as well when I used to monitor the grading in Md. Mr. Passero, the track super, usually drove it himself, but either way, it was always set at a minimum angle. It could only be more severe when he knew weather was going to be a problem. Only reason I know is that I asked him. So when I saw it I knew it would be at least a typical change in track or more severe, never less. That helped a lot .

The jocks not going where they should could drive someone insane. You are right, can't trust them to make the right move at all. So what I would do was locate the speed furthest inside, especially long where they break near the turn, then figure out where the inside horses would settle like stalk or drop way back. Having the turn so close to the break helped quite a bit with knowing that the jocks did not have many options early. In some of those races, you could fairly easily figure out the three inside or on the rail horses by sorting them out. By that I mean, the three that will be in the one path , the leader, the stalker behind the leader, and the closer with the inside trip, not the three across the track.
Trying this going out of the mile chute or 7/8s was brutal. The riders would screw you up half of the time. The 2 turn races were much more predictable especially 1 1/16th.
This stuff is only for someone that pays a lot of attention. The casual player has as good a chance doing what you said as they would doing anything else. Numbers or grey horses in the mud or turf( that really works, their feet are more tender than the other types and typically relish the softer impact on there feet) are as good as any, and yes, if you are a casual player, toss the favorite . Sounds good to me.

[str]

str, I can't quite picture the process you were referring to yet. Are you saying that the track has a slight slope towards the rail? So when the track is graded the loose soil moves towards the rail. Now, when it's at the rail, does that mean the layer near the rail is looser and thicker, and therefore slower? And then, if they pack that layer down, does it then become faster near the rail? Or does the rail get faster, because they can't let the soil build up there, so they have to rake it back, exposing the harder soil underneath?



Also, just as a ballpark figure, what percentage of races do you estimate are decided by track bias?

Q. I can't quite picture the process you were referring to yet. Are you saying that the track has a slight slope towards the rail?

A. Absolutely. Some more so than others. Depends on the track. Look at the ad on the top of the gate of the B C classic video as they load. See the angle that the gate is sitting on? That is the pitch of the track that I am talking about.

Q. So when the track is graded the loose soil moves towards the rail.

A.Let's go with "graded" = the grader moving the dirt. Harrowed= the combing of the track between races and maybe all night to keep the track from freezing.
When the track is first graded it is 3 1/2 inches or 4 inches of cushion all the way across, whatever is posted as typical for that track. It is typically a little deeper in the winter ( cold weather tracks) than in the summer( more cushion to work with if it starts freezing).( Some tracks may lose a weekday racing day saying they are "winterizing" the track. They are adding cushion and that cushion might be treated with some anti freezing chemicals but that is what they are doing). After you run the harrows ( like a comb effect) around the track the dirt HAS to move ever so slightly down by the gravity pull. The harrows are the culprit in the dirt movement. If it all moves a 1/4 of an inch with each pass, it might take 3 days of harrowing after each race and morning training to change the depth enough to have to redistribute it evenly . But if they had to harrow the track most of the night because of the severe cold weather, grading will need to take place every day. If it can't, the rail will be 4 1/2 inches deep and the 4 or 5 path 3 inches deep. That is a huge difference over the length of the race.
If the track superintendent knows that several days of rain/sleet is on the way , and you can't grade mud, he will have to make a decision as to whether or not he will grade that track at all. If he does , he might be grading before it really needs it and will adjust the blade more severely because it will have to last through the rain and drying (4 or 5 days) period before it can be graded again. That will likely produce a great rail. He can not opt to lose cushion off the track and into the drains. Cushion is very expensive for management and the Health Dept. is all over him monitoring the silt runoff . If he chooses not to grade it, the rail will be dead for a few days and favor the outside and in all probability, closers. This is not the same magnitude of problem in the summer time that it is in the winter and late fall or early spring.
Laurel was a bias machine during the winter. Pretty sure Aqueduct was also. Beulah 10-12 years ago in real cold temps was so deep, powdery and outside you could almost box the 9-12 in the triple blindly and have a chance at taking down the entire pool. Or go 8-12 and be a bit selective. December through February are without a doubt the months to be looking anywhere extreme cold can be. I guarantee it!



Q. Now, when it's at the rail, does that mean the layer near the rail is looser and thicker, and therefore slower?

A. Simply deeper.

Q. And then, if they pack that layer down, does it then become faster near the rail?

A. The texture of the surface is the same throughout. If they want to roll the track, they will roll the entire racing portion of the track .

Q. Or does the rail get faster, because they can't let the soil build up there, so they have to rake it back, exposing the harder soil underneath?

A. It's all about the depth of the cushion. It will maybe go from dead inside to even. Or, from even to very good rail. It all depends on if they can do the maintenance when THEY want to or when the elements make them. Remember, it is the track super's job to try to make the track as fair, fast, even and safe as possible. When we see these biases crop up it is due to having to dance around the weather , human error, or the pressure from management to have the track very tight for a key race.

Q. Also, just as a ballpark figure, what percentage of races do you estimate are decided by track bias?

A. No idea. Not all that many really IMO. But the lure of finding them is so great because it is info that not all parimutuel players will have and when it is prominent, it can alter the outcome of the race. The side benefit from a bias and probably more valuable in the long run is knowing a certain horse ran great or poorly because of that bias. Winning money on bias day is wonderful but betting on or against next time is often times more opportunity for profit than bias days. As stated earlier, the jocks can screw things up and leave a golden rail and ruin your ticket. If any effected horse from a bias runs back on an even track or better still "with" any bias next out your trip notes identifying severely effected horses in there next out is a monster advantage. Talk about potential value!!

[Dark Horse]

Very informative! Thanks so much.

[Dark Horse]

If a horse runs good or bad first time out in the mud, is that something that sticks? The natural assumption may be that he likes or doesn't like the mud, but that may not be the case. After all, he could have run a bad race for a whole lot of other reasons as well. But since the mud is such a strong association, does the horse's memory carry it to future mud races? Or have you seen horses turn their first mud experience around from negative to positive or the other way around?

[Dark Horse]

And what about turf? This is yesterday's Bowling Green Stakes at Belmont. Track was rated as 'good'.

#3 Newsdad just drops away after being in a good spot, even though the pace was very slow. I expected the jockey's hands to move up when that happened (Junior Alvarado). They didn't. Not really. It basically was an early surrender. Do you think it was the heavy turf that had sapped all the energy out of Newsdad?

[str]

If a horse runs good or bad first time out in the mud, is that something that sticks? The natural assumption may be that he likes or doesn't like the mud, but that may not be the case. After all, he could have run a bad race for a whole lot of other reasons as well. But since the mud is such a strong association, does the horse's memory carry it to future mud races? Or have you seen horses turn their first mud experience around from negative to positive or the other way around?

A horse will not run well in the mud a time or two and then dislike the mud after that. They can run poorly in the mud and then show improvement in more mud races if indeed they do like the mud. If that is the case, it only seemed to the handicapper that the mud was the problem when indeed , it was not.
If any of you have ever been around large animals, including some dogs, like a Great Dane for instance, they are extremely protective of their legs. I guess they inherently know that if something bad happens to their legs, they are in big trouble. Horses think along those same lines.

So, running well or poorly in the mud is as simple as this:

If the horse TRUSTS the surface and is COMFORTABLE EXTENDING over that surface, they will run well over it. If not, they will take shorter strides and raise their head slightly because they are cautious of the footing, thus running much slower. For all it's possible complexities, it's really as simple as that.

[str]

And what about turf? This is yesterday's Bowling Green Stakes at Belmont. Track was rated as 'good'.

#3 Newsdad just drops away after being in a good spot, even though the pace was very slow. I expected the jockey's hands to move up when that happened (Junior Alvarado). They didn't. Not really. It basically was an early surrender. Do you think it was the heavy turf that had sapped all the energy out of Newsdad?

Pretty much the same with turf as stated above.

As for Newsdad, unless he has shown an obvious disdain for softer turf ( I have no clue), they way he broke , so sluggish and his head up a bit, leads me to believe that he was just not feeling up to a top effort that day. If the footing was bothering him so much, I am not sure why he would have been OK with running up to the lead around the 1st turn and cutting a second 1/4 mile in 24 +/- while up there. Also, while the jock did not push his hands up towards the horses ears, he did slacken the reigns from any hold that he had, waiting and hopeful that the horse would grab the bit and engage the fight. The horse had seemingly no interest in it, so maybe it was the looser footing but my first guess would be to look elsewhere unless the jock said he was great warming up until he entered the turf course.

On a side note, the grey horse on the turf was the longest shot in the field and gets beat a lip. Unreal, who would have thunk it. Wait a minute, I've heard that somewhere before haven't I ?

" grey horses in the mud or turf( that really works, their feet are more tender than the other types and typically relish the softer impact on there feet) "
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while I guess.

[Louisvillekid1]

Great info str,

This thread is one of the best on SBR...

pal

[JakeLc]

The first horse I owned was not athletic at all and very unsure of himself on any wet surface. He would barely go faster than a 2 minute clip on an off track. He needed to feel solid footing underneath before he would extend himself.

[Dark Horse]

Also, while the jock did not push his hands up towards the horses ears, he did slacken the reigns from any hold that he had, waiting and hopeful that the horse would grab the bit and engage the fight. The horse had seemingly no interest in it ...

I'm not sure I understand. Instead of asking for more, the jockey waited for the horse to decide?

Is that an alternate strategy, or possibly a decision that killed any chance the horse might have had?

[str]

Great info str,

This thread is one of the best on SBR...

pal

Thanks Kid.

Really appreciate it.

[str]

The first horse I owned was not athletic at all and very unsure of himself on any wet surface. He would barely go faster than a 2 minute clip on an off track. He needed to feel solid footing underneath before he would extend himself.

Had more than my fair share of those Jake.

Also had a few that ran a 2 minute clip (15 sec. 1/8 miles) when it was dry. Lol.

[str]

I'm not sure I understand. Instead of asking for more, the jockey waited for the horse to decide?

Is that an alternate strategy, or possibly a decision that killed any chance the horse might have had?

Q. I'm not sure I understand. Instead of asking for more, the jockey waited for the horse to decide?

A. No. A rider does not want to have the horse drop the bit during the race. They will take what is called a cross on them, meaning they bring the reigns together and set their hands back on the neck early on. Typically, as they ask the horse for more, the easy way to watch for how much a horse and rider has left is to see how far down the neck the cross is. But if the horse drops the bit early on, you are left with nothing. Kind of like trying to push a chain up a hill. So they will reset the grip and wait for the horse to grab the bit. If they won't, the rider has nothing to push with.
You have probably heard of a jock saying that during the race they were scared to move there hands because they had so much horse they did not want the horse to take off too soon? This is the opposite side of the fence. If the horse does not create some tension on the bit side of the reigns, the rider has nothing to work with . I hope that makes sense.

Q. Is that an alternate strategy, or possibly a decision that killed any chance the horse might have had?

A. No. Without some pull from the horse, the rider has nothing to push against. Sometimes, you can see a rider trying to get a horse to grab the bit by basically dropping the reigns and resetting them quickly waiting for the horse to cooperate. Horses are supposed to want to run into the bit. If they drop the bit, or as the saying goes, spit the bit, the rider has nothing to work with.
Look at my avatar and it shows that both riders are well up on the horses neck but look at the reigns. They are still somewhat tight . As the riders have asked the horses, their crosses have worked there way closer to the bit, shortening the distance between the bit and there hands.
Again, hope this makes sense to you.

[JakeLc]

speaking of tension on the bit did Sutherland drop the reigns about the 1/16th pole on Game on Dude?

[Dark Horse]

str, the rider had lost the tension in the reigns/on the bit and was trying to reestablish it? He didn't move his hands up on the neck to ask the horse for more, because he had no tension in the reigns?

At what point in the race video do you notice that the tension is gone?

[str]

speaking of tension on the bit did Sutherland drop the reigns about the 1/16th pole on Game on Dude?

She sure did. I watched this race on TV live and was waiting for someone to ask about it.

Dropping the reigns in a race like that is unbelievable. It is such a "riding 101" type mistake. It was incredible to see. With that said, it did not get Game On Dude beat IMO. It was race over before they turned for home.
Baffert announced that she has lost the mount and Bejarano will be the new rider. He really had no choice. That was such a bad mistake to make in any race , but in the classic, it is unacceptable.
Good eye Jake!

[str]

str, the rider had lost the tension in the reigns/on the bit and was trying to reestablish it? He didn't move his hands up on the neck to ask the horse for more, because he had no tension in the reigns?

At what point in the race video do you notice that the tension is gone?

She dropped the left reign, not both. And tension is not always a "must have" if the horse has put tension on their side of the bit. That means that the horse has grabbed the bit and is running into it. So, the horse IS running hard at the time.
She dropped the reign at about the 1/16th pole. TVG zoomed in on it and made a big deal about it as well they should. They even asked Chantel about it after she weighed in and she said it did not make a difference in the outcome. She was right about that, but you just can't make that mistake in that kind of race. Maybe you can find the zoomed in version of the tape , as shown by TVG of the last 1/16th of a mile.
Looking at the human side of it, if Baffert keeps her on the horse, and people are already chirping about those 2 having a "thing goin on" , not that I know that, but, I've been on the backside enough in my life to know that it has been said a million times over the years about every girl rider riding for a male trainer( heard my share of it when I rode a girl), if he doesn't take her off, he is all but admitting it. If he does take her off, maybe some of the chatter goes away. And, don't think his wife hasn't heard and/or thought about it.
When you see and feel it from a backstretch perspective, he really had no choice, did he.

[JakeLc]

I watched the race on my computer and didn't realize TVG talked about after the race. I agree I don't think it got her beat but as you said it's unacceptable.
When I heard about the rider switch I was trying to put the pieces together so I went back and watched the DelMar race looking for something and saw the reigns.Also Baffert had made a comment in the winners circle after the Hollywood Gold Cup that she looked nervous coming into the paddock for the Gold Cup race.