Horse Racing questions and answers

[str]

Another question, str,

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

Yes, it is not necessarily fair to write that off as jockey error. Because there was no head on view, I have no idea what was going on while not in the camera. Because the horse had seemingly settled nicely going in to the 1st turn ,I am assuming that the amount of lengths was made larger by two factors. Game On Dude was full of run all the way around the track. With the fractions set, he should have come back to the pack at some point but he did not. Secondly, did the rider of Awesome Gem ask his horse earlier but got no response? Without a head on , I do not know. This happens often enough that it does need to be considered. One reason that head on replays are so important.
When experienced and or good jockeys ride , they have a clock in there head that allows them to judge pace as well as ground needed to be made up. The fact that Game On Dude kept going was very impressive. He ran fast early, middle and late. That is saying a lot. Awesome Gem obviously ran very well also. I think that the jockey of Awesome Gem was as surprised as anyone that Dude kept going.
So if the rider on Gem moves sooner than he should because he is to far back but gets flat from the 1/8th pole home, he is considered to have rode a poor race. If he waits like he did, some will say that he waited too long. A lose, lose, scenario for the rider. And why? Because Dude ran a super race. Now if that race was run somewhere else maybe he wins and looks like a hero but it was run in California and it has favored speed on dirt forever.
I think that it needs to be accepted that Dude ran a huge race in Calif. and held on. I also think the Gem ran a very nice race and can very well turn the tables next time especially outside of Calif. To accent how well they ran, did you see Coil fold up like a cheap suit through the lane? That is because Dude broke his will to compete. If they come back with something like Coil bled and that is why he flattened out, it was Dude that made him bleed.
So if your theory pointed to Gem as the winner, your theory was very good for that race. I say that because, even though he lost , he ran big! That is all you can ever ask for is to find a horse that will run big. If you figured Dude would be in a duel or be 3 wide into the clubhouse turn , you were right. On most days that would have softened him up enough to get caught. Just not that race, in Calif., this time.
Hope that helps.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks again. That definitely helps. If the jockey was surprised by it, I'm fine being surprised as well. Very good race by Game on Dude (1/1); Awesome Gem (5/1) with more value.

[TonyP]

also Gem is a 7 yr old that continues to run everytime

[mrginandtonic]

Yeah this horse run pretty good for his age, but can he still make it in the top 3 in the classic?? I hv my doubts.....

[TonyP]

Yeah this horse run pretty good for his age, but can he still make it in the top 3 in the classic?? I hv my doubts.....

me to have to see how it shapes up first.

[str]

me to have to see how it shapes up first.

Absolutely.

[str]

Yeah this horse run pretty good for his age, but can he still make it in the top 3 in the classic?? I hv my doubts.....

Do not let the age of 7 bother you. Horses at that age can be very consistent .
Will have to see if he can run well against the best.

[Dark Horse]

I wish more older horses would still race. Would make horse racing more colorful and likely more popular as well. Imagine the quality of races if the champions of the last five years could meet. No more crappy races. Instead quality across the board. But other duties call, I suppose. Awesome Gem is a gelding.

[Dark Horse]

str, I think what may have happened in the Goodwood is that Tres Borrachos had an unexpected influence. Game On Dude is a speed horse and Baffert had told Sutherland to be in the front 'at all costs'. (After the race he commented that he maybe shouldn't have said it that strong). Awesome Gem is a closer. But Tres Borrachos can't be categorized as speed, stalk, or close. He's all over the place in his PP's. In the Goodwood he went to the front and pulled Game On Dude with him at a blistering pace. This surprised not only Gem's jockey, but Sutherland as well. However, she followed the instructions Baffert had given her. That's what created the huge gap.

Does that make sense?

[mrginandtonic]

Do not let the age of 7 bother you. Horses at that age can be very consistent . Will have to see if he can run well against the best.

Don't get me wrong, age 7 doesn't bother me at all. It is just my opinion on this particular horse. Awesome Gem had been awesome for the most part. However, I just don't believe he is good enough to win the Classic. On occasions he would win a Grade event, but to me he is Grade 3 caliber horse. If my memory serves me correctly, I think he may have won one or two grade one event in his racing career. I just don't think he is good enough, who knows, may be this year we have a bunch of grade 3 horses competing in the classic.

[mrginandtonic]

While we are on the subject of age, I can't remember how many 7 yr old horses that can still win consistently at grade events. The one that comes to mind is the great John Henry. I think you would agree with me that most horses taper off after age 6. Although nowadays, a lot of great race horse are done after age 3 or may 4 yr old for studs.

[str]

str, I think what may have happened in the Goodwood is that Tres Borrachos had an unexpected influence. Game On Dude is a speed horse and Baffert had told Sutherland to be in the front 'at all costs'. (After the race he commented that he maybe shouldn't have said it that strong). Awesome Gem is a closer. But Tres Borrachos can't be categorized as speed, stalk, or close. He's all over the place in his PP's. In the Goodwood he went to the front and pulled Game On Dude with him at a blistering pace. This surprised not only Gem's jockey, but Sutherland as well. However, she followed the instructions Baffert had given her. That's what created the huge gap.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense.
Tres showing speed probably did have the pace hotter early than it could have been. The problem with trying to get a solid handle on things at Santa Anita is that it is sooooo speed favoring that horses that close from well behind need a collapse on the front end to get up unless they are far superior in most cases. The early fractions set by Tres did not faze Dude at all. He was there with no problem. Those fractions did not soften Dude up much at all. Without analyzing each of Dudes races my assumption is that the Goodward was an above average race for Dude. Was Gem further back at the 3/8s pole than he was at the 3/4 pole? I would think yes and if that is the case it has more to do with 1:09 flat within the fractions than it does 22 and change and 46 and change. The next quarter went in 25 1/5. That had Gem running about 12 and 12 in those two 1/8s. That is very solid! Too me, Dude won the race right there. Had he come back a little at that point , things would have been different. But he did not and that left to much of a gap.
Following those instructions did prompt that gap in all probability, but again, Dude had enough in him to be able to not wilt earlier.
Obviously, had Tres not tried to set that hot of a pace , Dude would have been even more full of run around the far turn and through the lane and Gem would not have gotten nearly as close to Dude as he got unless Dudes jockey would have eased up . He would have been a handy winner for sure. That is why I say that the race Dude ran was so impressive.

[str]

Don't get me wrong, age 7 doesn't bother me at all. It is just my opinion on this particular horse. Awesome Gem had been awesome for the most part. However, I just don't believe he is good enough to win the Classic. On occasions he would win a Grade event, but to me he is Grade 3 caliber horse. If my memory serves me correctly, I think he may have won one or two grade one event in his racing career. I just don't think he is good enough, who knows, may be this year we have a bunch of grade 3 horses competing in the classic.

I was pretty sure of what you meant but just wanted to make sure that his age was not a bother. He might very well be just a notch below.
With horses like that ( deep closers) so much is predicated on the pace of each race that he can beat horses that are better or lose to weaker horses from race to race depending on the pace and the speed horses trips.

[str]

While we are on the subject of age, I can't remember how many 7 yr old horses that can still win consistently at grade events. The one that comes to mind is the great John Henry. I think you would agree with me that most horses taper off after age 6. Although nowadays, a lot of great race horse are done after age 3 or may 4 yr old for studs.

It is a shame that older horses do not compete like they used to. Nothing was better than those handicap races with weight assignments. Forego was a legend. He ran in the mid to late 70s. I still have a hat they gave away from Delaware Park in 1978 from Forego Day.
John Henry was also a legend. My very close friend Bobby Umphrey sent the attached pic to me. What a great and dear friend he was. I loved that guy.
Each horse is different as to the age they might start to tapper off. Many times the over achievers as 2 and 3 year olds tapper sooner while the Forego's get better with age. I have seen plenty of 7 year olds that had there best year at that age. Not racing at 2 also helps with longevity but in today's racing world where so much emphasis is put on 2 year olds and there is so much money to be had at stud, 7 year olds are indeed a rare sighting in graded races.
Attached are those items.

[mrginandtonic]

Funny that you mentioned deep closers, I think that the jockey plays a very important role. David Flores over the years has strucked me as more of a front runner type of jockey. Eddy delahoussey was a great closer and had always love him when u see him coming home on the far turn, u know that he is gonna be closing fast. Just fun to watch. He has very good gauge of time. His judgement of the pace was phenomonal. David Flores not so sure. Today's jock, I think bejarano and leparouex are the better ones. So in my opinion flores was not a perfect fit. But game on due was just totally game that day. Just my thoughts.

[mrginandtonic]

...dupLicate

[str]

Funny that you mentioned deep closers, I think that the jockey plays a very important role. David Flores over the years has strucked me as more of a front runner type of jockey. Eddy delahoussey was a great closer and had always love him when u see him coming home on the far turn, u know that he is gonna be closing fast. Just fun to watch. He has very good gauge of time. His judgement of the pace was phenomonal. David Flores not so sure. Today's jock, I think bejarano and leparouex are the better ones. So in my opinion flores was not a perfect fit. But game on due was just totally game that day. Just my thoughts.

Most jockey's definitely have strengths and weaknesses. Buried in this thread is a lot of talk about riders strengths and weaknesses and how I dealt with that.
Speed jockeys can really be detrimental to a deep closer and the opposite is true as well. Delahoussey was indeed a great judge of pace. Most of the greats are.
If Flores is a fine speed rider and not as polished on a deep closer, your point is extremely valid. That could speak volumes as to why Dude was further back at the 3/8s pole than he was at the 3/4 pole. I do not follow the jockey colony much any more so the older guys I know very well but the 10 year or shorter career jocks I just don't know.
Very good insight on your part.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks again str, for filling in the blanks and blind spots. Post race analysis, both in numbers and theory, is very instructive. Gradually the picture is starting to get clearer. It takes time to take it all in and get it to gel. This is the sport. Love it. Compared to other sports this is one steep hill to climb, though. lol Took a month off and that actually helped; enough distance to look at it from a fresh perspective.

Jockeys are a big part of my approach. Their influence appears to be heavily underestimated by the general betting public. This was the 24th time Flores rode Gem, but that doesn't mean he read the race right.

As to the short racing careers because of stud duties. What's up with that? Why can't they just take the sperm from the horse, put it on ice, and allow the horse to continue racing? Seems to work fine for humans.

[Dark Horse]

(I wouldn't want that job, though. lol)

Str, what is a good way to start keeping tabs on next year's top horses? I want to keep detailed records on about fifty horses next year, following them from race to race, with notes that can't be found in the PP's. I suppose this is a question about recognizing potential in 2 year olds, with an eye on their season as 3-year olds.

[str]

Thanks again str, for filling in the blanks and blind spots. Post race analysis, both in numbers and theory, is very instructive. Gradually the picture is starting to get clearer. It takes time to take it all in and get it to gel. This is the sport. Love it. Compared to other sports this is one steep hill to climb, though. lol Took a month off and that actually helped; enough distance to look at it from a fresh perspective.

Jockeys are a big part of my approach. Their influence appears to be heavily underestimated by the general betting public. This was the 24th time Flores rode Gem, but that doesn't mean he read the race right.

As to the short racing careers because of stud duties. What's up with that? Why can't they just take the sperm from the horse, put it on ice, and allow the horse to continue racing? Seems to work fine for humans.

Taking a breather from time to time in the handicapping field can be very beneficial as you recently found out. The game is a grind and because handicapping is a process of determinations, having a refreshing every now and then is usually needed. It helps eliminate slumps and poor decision making. Even a week or two will do wonders if it is needed. If you are not careful, the thought of " missing a great scenario" and thus a great score creeps in to your mind and some guys just can't take that break. That is a mistake, so good for you. Smart move.
A jockeys influence IS underestimated by the betting public. What is overestimated and therefore over bet by the public is the big name riders as we all know. I know I wrote at length about jockeys before in this thread but this is worth repeating. If you are sure about a jockeys strength, like speed rider or great judge of pace from the back of the pack, etc. you can not only spot positive jockey changes on a certain style of horse but also negative changes. This can really help with breaking down a race when it occurs. Yes, I realize that it requires knowing a certain track and jockey colony very well but it is all about having more knowledge than the next guy betting within the same pool. When I had the horse Kindest Cut, and agonized over who was going to ride him during his winning streak, and ultimately choose Jimmy Edwards, a lot of people looked at me like I was crazy. Now don't get me wrong, Jimmy was a very good rider but I rarely rode Jimmy and there were a dozen or more riders asking to be the jockey for that race. But Jimmy was in my mind the closest exact thing to Larry Saumell that was available and Larry had days. That decision worked out well and almost went unnoticed after the fact because it was like, oh well, Kindest Cut won again. Not to me though. In my mind it was one of the better decisions I came up with. It meant a whole lot to me and it worked out. Believe me when I tell you, many a fine jockey would have not been able to win on that horse that day at even money. I am sure of that.
Flores: If he has rode the horse 24 times I am sure that he knows the horse quite well. However, that does not mean that he is the best fit in the jocks room for that horse. Not saying he is not, I do not follow it like that anymore but I made a living out of matching up horses and jockeys better than the other guy plenty of times. Wasn't always right. But was right often enough.
Rules of racing prohibit artificial insemination. It is not allowed for many reasons. Just for starters, could you imagine the B.S. that would go on? OH MY!
How much do you think a shot of Northern Dancer might bring today? Or Mr. Prospector? And what do you think would be thought and said when the Mr. Prospector came out looking like Clint Eastwood's burro and needed a mile and a quarter to win?
It would be a circus for sure.

[Dark Horse]

I hear you. Rules and regulations. Still, if there were a regulated sperm bank somewhere in the country, it could add a couple of years to racing careers. At least in theory. Breeders wouldn't lose out in the meantime, and the extended careers of top horses may benefit the sport's popularity. I may be wrong, but it looks as if horse racing is spreading itself pretty thin, and the public is taking notice. A small track nearby canceled the meet. Out of money. Has there ever been a market research about the relationship between top names and horse racing's popularity? Look at the buzz created by Zenyatta. Incredible. I'm thinking of horses like Animal Kingdom, who ran great in two TC races, got injured, and may not even have shown yet what he's truly capable of. If he's retired, we'll never know.

[str]

(I wouldn't want that job, though. lol)

Str, what is a good way to start keeping tabs on next year's top horses? I want to keep detailed records on about fifty horses next year, following them from race to race, with notes that can't be found in the PP's. I suppose this is a question about recognizing potential in 2 year olds, with an eye on their season as 3-year olds.

This is difficult to do with all the turnover in 2-3 year olds during the winter. Understanding the game plan of certain trainers with respect to the Triple Crown and the way they bring there horses up to those races might help but that is a daunting task. I think that it is best to simply watch and observe the late 2 year old races with an eye on the future. What you might see at 1 1/16 and what you see at 1 1/4 are so far apart it is more of just getting a feel for who is who. I might suggest finding horses that can NOT win in your opinion instead of who CAN win. This really helps with seeing through horses that get all hyped up by the press.
A for instance: Uncle Mo had so much hype that instead of paying attention to many others, most followed him like he could not lose.
Although not a Triple Crown race, let's see how the Classic takes shape. I heard that Mo ran a 118 Beyer or something like that last week. Game on Dude ran a 102 or something like that. That is a joke. Race for race Dude ran better than Mo last week. That is why I never paid any attention to Beyers. They are based on assumption and I don't much care what whoever is assigning the number at each track assumes.
As a result of those numbers and press coverage, he will be over bet and will be a certain play against at very low odds. If he wins, he wins, but in my mind there is only one way to look at the Classic once it takes shape and that is without Uncle Mo on the ticket. If he wins, he is a super horse. If he loses he bounces. Seems awfully convenient to me.
This type of race set up happens all the time from claimers to stakes with Beyer numbers. They lead you to the favorite and that is no way to try and beat the game. Favorites win, and sometimes they are indeed the play but not nearly as often as people think.
Hope that helps.

[str]

I hear you. Rules and regulations. Still, if there were a regulated sperm bank somewhere in the country, it could add a couple of years to racing careers. At least in theory. Breeders wouldn't lose out in the meantime, and the extended careers of top horses may benefit the sport's popularity. I may be wrong, but it looks as if horse racing is spreading itself pretty thin, and the public is taking notice. A small track nearby canceled the meet. Out of money. Has there ever been a market research about the relationship between top names and horse racing's popularity? Look at the buzz created by Zenyatta. Incredible. I'm thinking of horses like Animal Kingdom, who ran great in two TC races, got injured, and may not even have shown yet what he's truly capable of. If he's retired, we'll never know.

A quick thought on a sperm bank : Uncle Mo donates future sperm between races. Would the form have a line item for the bettor ? If he gets beat, did the public have knowledge of this and did it affect his race? You can only imagine the complications. Someone would ultimately play "the race was fixed" card would'nt they?. Also, would his potency and sperm be the same while in rigorous training ? Certainly not when steroids were a very acceptable and widely used way of helping a horse between races with recovery, appetite, weight, coat, muscle tone, etc. And even though most of them are no longer in use, there are plenty of medications that could and I would assume would possibly alter a specimen. It is a slippery slope.
Spreading to thin: This has been a problem for decades. It is absolutely spread too thin. But, with ownership from track to track being an every man for himself venture, no one wants to be the guy that loses out. So many just barely hang on in hopes of a slots bailout or relief from simulcasting or maybe something else.
The sad reality is that a lot of tracks would LOVE to become a non racing track and just a betting parlor. Expenses go way down so profit goes way up. These days the track cancels a card if it's windy or it might snow! Each state deals with there own racing dates within itself and not collectively. Yes , ALL OF THIS could be fixed and it is not rocket science but track owners wanting to protect there stake, horseman not wanting to be thrown out and uprooted with possibly no where to go and therefore out of business and states collecting tax and revenue from even the weakest tracks all want to hang on because THEY don't want to be the ones thrown aside for the betterment of others. It's like dropping one french fry and six sea gulls fighting over it. Which five are going to leave? The answer is none of them.
The market research is very clear. Larger fields by way of less dates within conflicting tracks in neighboring states is the way to go. But who loses out and to what effect? States will not cooperate with each other any more than track owners and horseman will.
Back in the day, New York shut down for the winter and Bowie was the only winter track on the east coast. Maryland shut down in the summer except for Marboro and the big T. both of which are bull rings. Monmouth, Atlantic City, Liberty Bell or Delaware Park was the place to go. Those places ran in the summer. Charles Town/ Shenandoah closed from early December until mid February. Penn Nat. did not exist. Then, after Pitt Park failed , Penn. Nat. , The Meadowlands and Keystone sprung up. You know the rest. Now, it's a mess, and it's been one for awhile. This same scenario has played out all over the country.
Just like almost everything else, the public COULD get this fixed. Same with what is going on at Wall Street these days. But it won't happen fast and it will take a ton of work. People just have to become sick and tired of it, and be willing to stand up for it. All through history, things finally get changed when enough of the public demands it. But even then, like in the 60s with Vietnam, race riots, college students raising up(Four dead in Ohio) etc. it takes a long time.
Racing has tried to play on the big named horses whenever they can but inevitably, it goes away until the next horse comes along. They do realize that it is a great promotional tool but let's face it, the game is so messed up in so many ways right now that a great horse or rivalry is only going to go so far. And if the lasix ban goes into effect, and it looks like it will, it's going to get worse before it gets better. The thought process is so screwed up they can't see that the light they see at the end of the tunnel is a train coming right at them. That train is lasix and it is going to hit them right where it hurts the most. Public perception and allegations of animal cruelty.

[mrginandtonic]

First I want to apologize if this question has been asked before. As a trainer, I think you have a good idea about your horse peaking and sitting on a win, right? Does a trainer ever change a jockey so that he may get better odds for the race?? Meaning, using a second tier jock or even an apprentice??

[Dark Horse]

A quick thought on a sperm bank : Uncle Mo donates future sperm between races. Would the form have a line item for the bettor ? If he gets beat, did the public have knowledge of this and did it affect his race? You can only imagine the complications. Someone would ultimately play "the race was fixed" card would'nt they?. Also, would his potency and sperm be the same while in rigorous training ? Certainly not when steroids were a very acceptable and widely used way of helping a horse between races with recovery, appetite, weight, coat, muscle tone, etc. And even though most of them are no longer in use, there are plenty of medications that could and I would assume would possibly alter a specimen. It is a slippery slope.
Spreading to thin: This has been a problem for decades. It is absolutely spread too thin. But, with ownership from track to track being an every man for himself venture, no one wants to be the guy that loses out. So many just barely hang on in hopes of a slots bailout or relief from simulcasting or maybe something else.
The sad reality is that a lot of tracks would LOVE to become a non racing track and just a betting parlor. Expenses go way down so profit goes way up. These days the track cancels a card if it's windy or it might snow! Each state deals with there own racing dates within itself and not collectively. Yes , ALL OF THIS could be fixed and it is not rocket science but track owners wanting to protect there stake, horseman not wanting to be thrown out and uprooted with possibly no where to go and therefore out of business and states collecting tax and revenue from even the weakest tracks all want to hang on because THEY don't want to be the ones thrown aside for the betterment of others. It's like dropping one french fry and six sea gulls fighting over it. Which five are going to leave? The answer is none of them.
The market research is very clear. Larger fields by way of less dates within conflicting tracks in neighboring states is the way to go. But who loses out and to what effect? States will not cooperate with each other any more than track owners and horseman will.
Back in the day, New York shut down for the winter and Bowie was the only winter track on the east coast. Maryland shut down in the summer except for Marboro and the big T. both of which are bull rings. Monmouth, Atlantic City, Liberty Bell or Delaware Park was the place to go. Those places ran in the summer. Charles Town/ Shenandoah closed from early December until mid February. Penn Nat. did not exist. Then, after Pitt Park failed , Penn. Nat. , The Meadowlands and Keystone sprung up. You know the rest. Now, it's a mess, and it's been one for awhile. This same scenario has played out all over the country.
Just like almost everything else, the public COULD get this fixed. Same with what is going on at Wall Street these days. But it won't happen fast and it will take a ton of work. People just have to become sick and tired of it, and be willing to stand up for it. All through history, things finally get changed when enough of the public demands it. But even then, like in the 60s with Vietnam, race riots, college students raising up(Four dead in Ohio) etc. it takes a long time.
Racing has tried to play on the big named horses whenever they can but inevitably, it goes away until the next horse comes along. They do realize that it is a great promotional tool but let's face it, the game is so messed up in so many ways right now that a great horse or rivalry is only going to go so far. And if the lasix ban goes into effect, and it looks like it will, it's going to get worse before it gets better. The thought process is so screwed up they can't see that the light they see at the end of the tunnel is a train coming right at them. That train is lasix and it is going to hit them right where it hurts the most. Public perception and allegations of animal cruelty.

Wow. Lot of problems to fix. Really hope horse racing figures it out. If golf, of all sports, can get the regular national tv coverage, then why not the far more spectacular horse racing?

[str]

First I want to apologize if this question has been asked before. As a trainer, I think you have a good idea about your horse peaking and sitting on a win, right? Does a trainer ever change a jockey so that he may get better odds for the race?? Meaning, using a second tier jock or even an apprentice??

Yes, trainers do have an idea about their horse peaking or sitting on a win. Not every horse. Trainers can certainly be surprised both good and bad but more times than not, yes.
Some trainers are out there that are locked in on cashing a bet and I guess that is how a trainer looking to cash a bet might think but it is really important for you guys to know that the betting angle is NOT the thought process that 95% or more of the trainers that I ever knew have or had from race to race.
Betting on races when you are not running a horse in it is not what I am talking about. I mean, when you are participating in a race, betting it is way down the ladder of importance. When a scenario comes along that I have written about before, such as a factor that was not done for any reason but did take place and the horse is squared away and doing very well, sure, trainers will bet. Not all of them , but some. But betting is a mentality and many guys just don't look at it from that angle. That is as plain and honest as I can say it.
I spent some time with a very close friend of mine at the Spa this summer and I will guarantee you he hasn't made a bet in forever. It's just not who he is. His sole concern is his horses and that is as far as it goes. For him, odds mean absolutely nothing and he pays no attention to them whatsoever.
Switching to a second tier rider or an apprentice can be for a ton of reasons. For every one time it might be for that, at least ninety nine times it will not be for that. Looking at it from that angle will screw up your thought process of handicapping, so I would avoid that angle. Has it happened? Yes, almost assuredly. Does it happen often enough to consider it? No, not in my opinion. I have never used that angle.
Good question.

[str]

Wow. Lot of problems to fix. Really hope horse racing figures it out. If golf, of all sports, can get the regular national tv coverage, then why not the far more spectacular horse racing?

Yes there are but don't let it get you down. These problems have been around for decades. It's nothing new. Continue to focus on the good within the game because there is also plenty of that.

[Dark Horse]

General question. I'm doing a close analysis of the past ten Kentucky Derbies. What puzzles me is that three speed horses won from 2002 to 2004, and after that the race has been won by closers and stalkers only. Probably not related, but this change coincided with the prize money doubling from 1 to 2 million. Is this just randomness or is there another reason why speed horses are getting reeled in? Is it possible that jockeys are taking more risk in this race nowadays, and are willing to steer horses through the tiniest of holes?

[str]

General question. I'm doing a close analysis of the past ten Kentucky Derbies. What puzzles me is that three speed horses won from 2002 to 2004, and after that the race has been won by closers and stalkers only. Probably not related, but this change coincided with the prize money doubling from 1 to 2 million. Is this just randomness or is there another reason why speed horses are getting reeled in? Is it possible that jockeys are taking more risk in this race nowadays, and are willing to steer horses through the tiniest of holes?

Each of those races had a legit reason behind it IMO. War Emblem got away with very slow early fractions( pace makes the race). I remember Funny Cide very well. He did not make the lead until the 3/16s pole. He laid 3rd or 4th about 3-4 off of a duel. I remember because it was Barclay Tagg's horse and I shared a grazing area with him at Laurel. A great guy and one hell of a horseman. A typical Frank Whiteley raised guy. Was so happy for him. Smarty Jones was the 3rd one and he was just much better and faster than the others. I can not see how it had anything at all to do with the purse being raised. It just happened that way.
Because the race typically has close to if not 20 horses in it, there will most times be multiple speed horses. Remember, when the speed wins , it is one or two horses. When the stalkers or closers win , it is the other 17 or 18. Also, the speed horses are usually just not born to show speed AND get a 1 1/4. American breeding is pointed more towards a mile. As most of you know, the difference between a mile and 1 1/8 is significant. It is even more significant from 1 1/8 to 1 1/4.
I do not see jockey's taking any more risks today than they used too.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks. It's a very different kind of race from a capping perspective. Hard to pick a winner in the Derby, but a sweet spot for exotics.

Can't thank you enough for all your insight, and the way it has helped me develop a working model. Another winner today with Together at Keeneland. Just the second race I capped this month, so a very slow 2-0. The race went just about exactly as envisioned, and I know I couldn't have learned that from any books. All those books I've read about horse racing pale in significance next to this thread.

[Dark Horse]

About speed, stalk, and close. You mentioned earlier that the simple answer to how many types of these categories there are is three. Is there another answer beyond the simple one? If there were a fourth category, for instance, would it be a horse that runs about 1-2 lengths off the lead? Not quite speed, not quite stalk. When looking at the PP's how many lengths do you use to determine each category?

[str]

About speed, stalk, and close. You mentioned earlier that the simple answer to how many types of these categories there are is three. Is there another answer beyond the simple one? If there were a fourth category, for instance, would it be a horse that runs about 1-2 lengths off the lead? Not quite speed, not quite stalk. When looking at the PP's how many lengths do you use to determine each category?

First things first... Thank you for the kind words in the previous post. It is great that you and hopefully some of the others are having a better understanding of the game.

Speed , stalk, close:
Here is the more complex answer: You identify the PURE speed first. That is horses that can only run one way.

Then, identify horses that would enjoy being the speed but have shown you that they can lay off a few( 1-3) lengths. With these horses, make sure that before accepting that each horse can actually do this , they have proven it to you. By that I mean they have had a non perfect trip and been able to accomplish it. Any horse with some ability can lay third to a duel outside and no horse ever close to it's outside eye and run well. Although getting a great right eye clear / left alone trip is not the fault of the horse it is certainly NOT of equal merit to the horse that sat off while in between horses with it's right eye covered up by the outside horse down the backside, then was able to move when asked to get clear of the outside pressure and secure a nice trip from that point on. One horse inherits a great trip and the other horse EARNS the nice trip from the 3/8s pole home. That is a night and day difference. Now, the horse that gets a great trip might be able to also accomplish dealing with a tougher trip, and there is no way to know this if they have not had to previously. More won't than will , so scrutinize the trip if possible.

Next is mid pack runners. These horses seem to always find themselves right in the middle of the field. In 10 horse fields , they would usually be 5-6 . There should only be few of these , even in the Derby. Problem with these horses is in the Derby, they will be probably laying 6th-12th depending on how much speed is in the race. If they do not have the ability to fire whenever the jockey needs them and the pedigree to have the stamina required, they will fail. Some of these horses might give you a hint from previous races but some will not and for those types, a good amount of guess work will be required.

Next is typical closers. They consistently close for each race from near the rear. Most of these types are horses that have learned at an early age to relax. These are typically horses( not always) that have been pointed towards the Derby for the last 6-8 months at least. The most viable of these are horses that have been able to show some ability to either be closer or move sooner depending on how the race shapes up.

Last is the deep closers. They get to the rear of the pack no matter how many are in the race and no matter how slow or fast the fractions are. Simply put, they like to come from last.

So the answer is 5 categories if you are working on a race like the Derby(18-20 horses).
If not such a cluttered group and for most races , 4 categories. Eliminate the mid pack group and move them forward or back depending on what they have showed. This is simply because it is damn near impossible to figure out which 10-12 stalkers will be where. By using a 5th category, it helps split that large group for hopefully more clarity. At least it has for me.

Again, for 99% of the races, use 4 categories.

Do not think that the deep closer category must have a horse in it. Some years it just does not. It takes time to develop running habits and styles and some years by Derby time, no horse has developed that style yet. Usually by Classic time or certainly when the horse turns 4, that style will usually have started to develop if it is going to. Remember, that style is not always developed by choice . Sometimes it is developed by a horse being weak behind ( a slight muscle soreness or weak hind end muscles, maybe a confirmation flaw, but a muscle tightness or a lack of muscle, that needs to get moving and get in to motion to loosen up. One of many reasons that you might see certain horses warming up more than others. Jogging will help the shoulders where jogging and then galloping quite a bit, will help the hind end. When horses have a stiffness in one area they will sometimes over compensate , thus creating a new stiffness or soreness somewhere else, but now I am rambling.
Anyway, with these categories, you should be able to identify where most horses will plan to be if things go right. And because in the Derby, things might not go right, you need to have identified those that have created there own good fortune during not so perfect circumstances if you can.
Also , remember that the Derby gets very strung out , so the lengths off the pace will most times be many more for all the horses than what they were accustomed too. That's O.K. though because they all have to deal with it at the same time. This goes back to earning a trip instead of inheriting one. Chances are, in the Derby, it will need to be earned.
The other problem with the Derby is that if most of the horses have run 5-6 times, many have not found there true comfort spot yet. Sure, the speed has, and the deep closers have but for many it is a work in progress. That is what makes it so great and of course, very profitable if you can figure it out.
Again, just for the Derby type events, I try to eliminate somewhat by category instead of bunching 20 together and picking a few. If I can find a solid few horses that have overcome tougher trips, or finished faster through doing math within fractions than others, or something like that, I think it goes a long way.

When looking at the PPs how many lengths determines each category? :
I never went by lengths other than just off the lead. Pace of each race as well as surface , speed of various tracks, where and when the timer starts at each track( Pimlico 6F virtually no run up, Monmouth 6F a big run up, for instance), etc. can skew that too much. I went by a general overview of each PP taking speed , surface, and what I just mentioned in to account. Start with each horses most recent win or best effort and work around that. Also, following the Derby trail will allow you to know from closely monitoring the races along the way that, for instance, the Florida Derby had a ton of speed, while the Wood had solo speed and the pace setter walked the dog so laying 3rd with a first quarter in 24 1/5 is not near the same as laying 3rd in the Fountain of Youth in 22 4/5. It might seem like that would take forever, but it really takes about a minute per horse to categorize as long as you understand and have followed the races leading up to it.
With the Derby being such a unique race, so much work can go into one race and then some faint hearted horse gets a perfect trip and it seems like it is all for naught. That's how it will be some years, but I will tell you this. You do this for the months leading up to the Derby and you will be so much better off than if you don't. Why? Because you will have force fed yourself the breaking down of a bunch of races and began to understand how to do it. In the long run( 8 months from now) you will be able to look at some typical everyday races and start to be able to see things that you never saw before. At that point, having a firm grasp on how 2 or 3 races on a card will probably play out will allow you to skip or bet drastically less on the others. Because ordinary races during any given card consist of horses that have run many more times and at the same track or distance much more often than the Derby horses had, the entire challenge of breaking down a race can only become easier than the most complex race each year in which we try to figure everything out with horses that have never run at the distance that we are trying too decipher. All this will make you a smarter handicapper, better at money management, and most of all , you will have developed an understanding of what is actually taking place on the track instead of just following the pack around the track hoping your numbers come in and not knowing why they did or did not. Don't get me wrong, some people just want to bet a few bucks and if they win, great. If not, oh well. That is fine, but if you really want to understand the game, doing what you are doing is a huge step in the right direction.
Great question. Keep me posted.

[Dark Horse]

Great info and advice. Thanks again. The development through the 3rd year is definitely another point of serious interest. Planning to be on Derby trail early next year.

[str]

Great info and advice. Thanks again. The development through the 3rd year is definitely another point of serious interest. Planning to be on Derby trail early next year.

I was sure that you were . I read it in a post of yours recently. That is why I responded that way. I hope that was what you were looking for.
Like I said, for Breeders Cup races, use 4 categories. Only for huge fields use 5.
That should really help .

[mrginandtonic]

great stuff str, thanks for taking the time to answer all our questions so thoroughly. I remember a few of the races in the past that I think show these types of running style. Concern won the breeders cup classic with an amazing closing style. (he was ridden by Bailey). Cigar who also the breeders cup classic with front running type style (he was also ridden by Bailey). Bailey with Cigar created his own perfect trip cuz he was able to get in striking position from the beginning to avoid traffic problems that usually come with a big field. Then last weekend, we saw Sarah Lynx in the Canadian International with mid pack type of running style. She was ridden by Soumillon who I thought gave her a perfect ride. Not only did he give a perfect ride hugging the rail, but I thought he also knew how to keep others from cutting in front of her, thereby creating that rail opening turning for home. Sometimes the importance of the jockey is so vital to winning a race.