Horse Racing questions and answers

[Dark Horse]

str, are you aware of any tote board histories available to the public? A snapshot every 30 or so second in the 10 or 15 minutes before the race.

Example. I had identified two contenders in the Cornhusker with a nice gap to the next horse. One of these horses won the race. He had been 7/2 in the ML and went off at that same price; beating the 1/2 favorite. My other selection lost a photo finish for third, after a strong effort for a horse that had gone off at 16-1. The ML for this second horse was 8/1 and he was bet up to 31/1 (almost four times the ML), before settling on 16-1 (twice the ML).

The question is, of course, which horse had the best value? In the above case I got greedy. From sports betting I'm familiar with the idea that the betting public had discarded the 8/1 ML when it went up to 31/1. Then again, in sports betting you don't get the kind of payouts that horse betting can have, and plenty of longshot horses do win. So I need a better read on when the public is correct in discarding a horse, and when to stay with such a horse; with an eye on the quick decision making required with numbers flashing all over the tote board.

I could also just have bet both the 7/2 and 16/1 horse to win, or to win and show, etc. I'm not trained enough in the speed of the tote board to know where to draw those lines. It's not just overlays I'm looking for, but a combination of overlays and tote board information.

[str]

Out of power for 2 days and counting here so no problem. Answering by phone so bear with me. The jock might have had his choice last time but sometimes they do not. When a trainer gives a call to the jocks agent for a specific race, he has the 1st call. Another trainer can get a 2nd call but the1st trainer has the jock. Only if he excuses the rider to ride the other horse can the rider get off the 1st. Like a contract. So the horse that was left open did not name him because the other trainer already had him tied up in that race. Agents jobs are to line up mounts and this must be done a week or two ahead of time. You can see from this race that it is a lot of work to make the jock and all the trainers happy. Good agents make it look easy but it is real tough. Steve rushing who had edgar prado for years and now has ramon dominguez is as good as they get at doing this. He is a great guy . I hope to get to Saratoga for a couple of days this summer and see him. Was great to talk with him last year.

[str]

No, i am not aware of any. Maybe jake or mike or the other guys can help. As for the value question, in big stakes like that when a ship in is a big favorite , i learned a long time ago that these type of set ups were ripe for overlays. The public so overbets they big favs that middle priced horses usually become value plays if indeed they are legit. Not legit by the publics perception but by yours. Especially stalkers and closers. Everybody sees speed but for races like these where a lot of players assume the winner before even looking at the race, those types will fall between the cracks often enough to make it worth while to follow these headliner races with big favs with the main objective being finding the value. A long time friend of mine that follows these type of races has always said that in cases like the one you stated, he would play both horses to win. Probably the longer shot more heavily than the 7/2 horse if he liked both horses the same and follow it up with an exacta box , just those two and probably a triple or super with the fav 2nd, 3rd and 4th with the 2 plays on top . For the tri that is all you need but for the super he might do an all but in most cases he would only use 1 or 2 more of his contenders that he had left prior to getting it down to those last two horses. He felt that the ALL play was not worth it over time. That is his opinion but he is good at what he does . I would tend to agree with him. I just do not do it often enough to have a solid feel for it. Hope that helps.

[Dark Horse]

thanks str. In the above case, even though the 16/1 horse offered much better value (overlay wise), I believe the 7/2 horse was the better value for a win bet. There were only six horses, so this is different from a 16/1 value in the Kentucky Derby. (Both were speeds, and I figured one would last and the other would not, but I didn't know which one). I did include the trifecta, and missed the third horse (16/1) by a photo finish, so I suppose from a value perspective that was the 'correct' play, but I'm trying to find a better balance between an ok payout and a max payout. More scientific, less intuitive. Which is a challenge with the numbers changing so fast right before the race. Am I correct to think that most bettors play this part intuitively, and therefore leave money on the table? I should probably create a bunch of charts that immediately show the best investments based on the numbers on the tote board right before the race. Oh well. Another project. lol

[str]

thanks str. In the above case, even though the 16/1 horse offered much better value (overlay wise), I believe the 7/2 horse was the better value for a win bet. There were only six horses, so this is different from a 16/1 value in the Kentucky Derby. (Both were speeds, and I figured one would last and the other would not, but I didn't know which one). I did include the trifecta, and missed the third horse (16/1) by a photo finish, so I suppose from a value perspective that was the 'correct' play, but I'm trying to find a better balance between an ok payout and a max payout. More scientific, less intuitive. Which is a challenge with the numbers changing so fast right before the race. Am I correct to think that most bettors play this part intuitively, and therefore leave money on the table? I should probably create a bunch of charts that immediately show the best investments based on the numbers on the tote board right before the race. Oh well. Another project. lol

My best guess would be yes, most players leave money on the table. Not most players like the guys in this forum but of the general population at the track, absolutely.
Being as both horses were speed horses, the exacta play would be a no go . I can not see any reason to box 2 speeds and hope both last. However, if I felt one could control the pace , and walk the dog, that horse might drag the other one around with it but that would be a key on the controlling speed with the inferior speed underneath only, I think. That was not the case so the triple was IMO a smart play and a super would have been reasonable as well, if offered. Betting both speeds to win would not make much sense either, unless the larger play was on the 7/2 shot and a saver on the long shot. Easy to say after the fact but that would be an acceptable way of playing the race IMO. The other choice might have been to play the longer shot and just hope against the 7/2. With the exotics available, no need to play the longshot and save with the 7/2. In my mind, you have to draw the line somewhere. Based on what little I know about the race, I probably would have played the 16-1 to win, no exacta, the triple and maybe the super but you never know until you see the prices.

[Dark Horse]

Based on what little I know about the race, I probably would have played the 16-1 to win, no exacta, the triple and maybe the super but you never know until you see the prices.

That's what I did (no super). In retrospect I'm ok with the type of investment, but at the time I couldn't believe Awesome Gem -one of my favorite horses- caught up for third at the wire; and I suppose waiting for the result of that photo finish added to the frustration. All part of the game. lol

On another note, I can't believe how much you taught me in this thread. Over the past year this enabled me to develop a model, in a field I had considered impenetrable, in two separate stages that now combine for something truly cool. So thanks for being such a great mentor. It is appreciated more than you know.

[str]

That's what I did (no super). In retrospect I'm ok with the type of investment, but at the time I couldn't believe Awesome Gem -one of my favorite horses- caught up for third at the wire; and I suppose waiting for the result of that photo finish added to the frustration. All part of the game. lol

On another note, I can't believe how much you taught me in this thread. Over the past year this enabled me to develop a model, in a field I had considered impenetrable, in two separate stages that now combine for something truly cool. So thanks for being such a great mentor. It is appreciated more than you know.

After 5 days without power, we finally got it back last evening. Crazy !

Q. That's what I did (no super). In retrospect I'm ok with the type of investment, but at the time I couldn't believe Awesome Gem -one of my favorite horses- caught up for third at the wire; and I suppose waiting for the result of that photo finish added to the frustration. All part of the game. lol

A. I have been there and done that as probably all the other players that read this have, so we all know "that" sinking feeling.

Q. On another note, I can't believe how much you taught me in this thread. Over the past year this enabled me to develop a model, in a field I had considered impenetrable, in two separate stages that now combine for something truly cool. So thanks for being such a great mentor. It is appreciated more than you know.

A. When I started this thread my intention was to help anyone that was intrigued with horse racing and wanted to take whatever it was that I could offer and use it to the best of their ability. You have done that and I can only hope others have as well.

Way back in the late 70s and 80s at the Maryland tracks trainer Bill Donovan's(Lost Code) wife Donna, used to have a weekly seminar at the track that was racing every Saturday morning. She asked me to be on it a few times and what I found out was that I really enjoyed talking to the patrons at the track. So many of them wanted to know much more about track life and the way that trainers see things . I had never realized that before I did the seminar but found myself doing it every time she asked from that point on.
Dick Wooley, the track announcer had a radio show on Friday nights for a while also. I think it was WBAL but I am not positive. Anyway, I went on that a couple of times also and very much enjoyed it.

I guess the bottom line is, I don't profess to know much about a lot of things, but what I do know, I know well. Those few things that I am well versed in, happen to be things that most people could not learn from a book or without guidance. Because I have always liked helping people that want to help themselves, as well as talking their ears off, I enjoyed those things and I enjoy doing this. But make no mistake, I was not the one that taught you. You taught yourself. I merely provided the information that you could not obtain without assistance from someone willing to share it. You took the answers that you needed and molded those into something that made you much more proficient at betting on horses than you were a year ago. I hope others have as well.
I supplied the answers for you guys to become better at playing the horses and you guys supplied a venue for me to rekindle some of the passion that was such a big part of my life for so many years.
Sounds like a win, win too me.
I hope the questions continue.

[Dark Horse]

Question about bad starts. Yesterday, in the Suburban, #4 Hymn Book was the stalker in a field of speeds and press speeds. (Caixa Eletronica, a closer, was scratched). Not surprisingly the pace was hot, which could have set him up very nicely. From the second call to the finish he made up 5 lengths (not great for a closer, but good for a stalker). But he had a poor start that forced him to run from further back. At the 1/4 he was behind 11 lengths, and at the 1/2 10 lengths. So even though Mucho Macho Man looked pretty much unbeatable, second place Hymn Book did run faster but for a poor start. Of course this happens a lot, so I'm wondering what type of number, if any, you would put on something like that. Five lengths, less, more? I know it's not a constant, but am looking for a general ballpark evaluation and effect on the race. There was no reason to push the panic button, because he figured to run from behind anyway, but this was a little too far back.

A race that reminded me of the same scenario was Coil's win in the Haskell. A very bad start that had Baffert steaming until Coil made up all the lost ground and won the race, beating Shackleford. (love this race, because of how Shackleford fights back as well).

[str]

Question about bad starts. Yesterday, in the Suburban, #4 Hymn Book was the stalker in a field of speeds and press speeds. (Caixa Eletronica, a closer, was scratched). Not surprisingly the pace was hot, which could have set him up very nicely. From the second call to the finish he made up 5 lengths (not great for a closer, but good for a stalker). But he had a poor start that forced him to run from further back. At the 1/4 he was behind 11 lengths, and at the 1/2 10 lengths. So even though Mucho Macho Man looked pretty much unbeatable, second place Hymn Book did run faster but for a poor start. Of course this happens a lot, so I'm wondering what type of number, if any, you would put on something like that. Five lengths, less, more? I know it's not a constant, but am looking for a general ballpark evaluation and effect on the race. There was no reason to push the panic button, because he figured to run from behind anyway, but this was a little too far back.

A race that reminded me of the same scenario was Coil's win in the Haskell. A very bad start that had Baffert steaming until Coil made up all the lost ground and won the race, beating Shackleford. (love this race, because of how Shackleford fights back as well).

I want you to watch both Hymn Book and Coil in the gate prior to the break. In Hymn Book's case, the gate crew guy who was helping to settle Hymn Book was holding his head still (this is fairly common) but before the gate opened Hymn Book started to flip his head up and down a bit. That is a fairly typical nervous reaction for a horse that is anticipating the break. The gate guy rubs his head a couple of times to get him to settle and goes back to holding the side of the bit/reign lightly to help keep the horses head straight. You can see his arm if you look closely. When the gates opened, Hymn Book bobbled a bit , more of an up and down bobble rather than the down and up version that happens when the ground breaks out from under a horse or they have too much weight forward at the start. While both look like stumbles, the difference in where the weight is being carried within the horse that separates the two. Hymn Book looks like he stumbled two steps in a row. The first was because he was unbalanced with weight up and the 2nd was when he had too much weight go all forward and down at once. Once the weight is evenly distributed, he is fine. (I hope that explanation is not too confusing). He might have started to flip his head again, just as the gates opened. His left ear moves forward which it did about 6 seconds earlier so something was going on. Either way, this caused Hymn Book's problem. As a result, the rider has no choice but to let the horse " get himself together" or start to run in sync and within himself. Had he tried to rush Hymn Book, the result would have been the same, but the horse would have lost a ton of energy .
The horse, once collected, ran fine, which tells you that going into the race, he was ready for a top effort. Maybe a little too ready. I would bet that Hymn Book will visit the gate several times to stand and back out before the next race to make sure of a better break next time. Those visits will help Hymn Book to be more settled while in the gate. That was a winning effort had it not been for the break as well as a huge, perfect performance from the winner.

As for Coil, if you watch again, before the start, Coil's weight is on his back legs and not balanced or leaning forward slightly as you want. The bottom line here is that Coil was not yet set. IMO the gate crew guy or jock should have hollered " no,no,no" which is code for not ready, and maneuvered the horse so as to get his feet under him. Again, this happens more than you think, almost every race, and can be dealt with , but it is something that you have no idea is going to happen until it does. Someone actually hollers no,no,no , I assume the 6 horse prior to the start. There is enough room in the gate to get the horse to take a 1/2 a step back or forward , to break the awkward stance and get him standing correctly. If you watch # 5 as he is doing the same thing prior to the race. In his case, the gate guy gets the horse to take that 1/2 step in each direction and get back underneath himself prior to the break. Although it is not perfect , as the 5 horse has a bit too much weight forward at the break and as a result, stumbles slightly (down to up, the opposite of Hymn Book), it is much better than laying on the back of the stall which is what Coil was doing.
As it turned out, the jockey once again did the only reasonable thing and he let Coil get himself together and relax before attempting to move forward. It worked out great in Coil's case because if memory serves me correctly, Monmouth was uncharacteristically a closers track that day. Sometimes, everything is working for you.
Standing and backing out in the morning will probably help this type of problem as well, especially if Coil is prone to do this, but I do not know that. It will absolutely help Hymn Book for his next start. That should be interesting to watch for.
There are several keys to all of this. Relaxing and being totally prepared are huge, as these horses are so close to each other that they will take turns winning according to trip obviously, but all that being equal, who is really on their game that day. The jockey allowing the horse to collect themselves is also huge. At lesser tracks or in lesser races you might see riders panic and make the horse try and do something before they are underway. That rarely works.

From a bettors standpoint, obviously you have no control over this . Many could probably care less about why this happened but I wanted to fully explain for those that would like to know the finer points of what really goes on. I hope it was not too confusing.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. So Hymn Book was too ready, and Coil not quite ready. I'm looking at the different type of afflictions that can happen from the start to the first turn. One reason would be to adjust the speed figure the horse earned for that race. A bad start and things like going four wide into the turn don't carry forward, so when that is mentioned in the PP's I want to adjust the number accordingly.

[str]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. So Hymn Book was too ready, and Coil not quite ready. I'm looking at the different type of afflictions that can happen from the start to the first turn. One reason would be to adjust the speed figure the horse earned for that race. A bad start and things like going four wide into the turn don't carry forward, so when that is mentioned in the PP's I want to adjust the number accordingly.

Q. So Hymn Book was too ready, and Coil not quite ready.

A. Well, not necessarily. Something got Hymn Book keyed up , but not knowing the horse well enough to know how he typically reacts in the gate , it is unfair to say. I would suggest looking at the gate video of his previous races too see how he was in the gate for those races. I can not think that he normally acts that way. Without details and knowing the horse, something could have gotten him fired up prior to loading. But, he was indeed on edge. Could have been a quicker than normal short work 2-3 days before the race that he usually does not have or any number of things. I just do not know the horse well enough.
As for Coil, I am not saying that he was NOT ready to run. I mean, he ran great. He was just not prepared to run when the doors opened. That is a habit that some horses but not many have( laying on the back doors). Again, I don't know if that is his normal gate routine or not but I doubt it.

[Dark Horse]

I'm currently studying the start and early race into the first turn. Just warning you, because it may produce some silly questions. Races are not won here, but they can be lost, even when a horse runs a great race after the poor start. I had largely overlooked this part of the race, but it is totally fascinating to me now.

Would you say that the effect of a bad start is the same for a one turn and two turn race? Or is it easier to overcome when there is more time for positioning, as in a long run-up to the only turn?

[str]

I'm currently studying the start and early race into the first turn. Just warning you, because it may produce some silly questions. Races are not won here, but they can be lost, even when a horse runs a great race after the poor start. I had largely overlooked this part of the race, but it is totally fascinating to me now.

Would you say that the effect of a bad start is the same for a one turn and two turn race? Or is it easier to overcome when there is more time for positioning, as in a long run-up to the only turn?

Typically, the longer the race, the easier it will be to overcome.

Also, races ARE won early when a horse immediately starts to dominate a race. Mucho Macho Man did exactly that. Without any prompting from his rider, he was in complete control of that race within 6 seconds of it starting. Although I knew he had won when I saw the replay, I said to myself, the race is over before they left the chute. He dominated the race.
If you watch any replay, without knowing who is who, try and identify the winner before they have gone a 1/4 or 3/8s of a mile. Doing this will force you to watch the riders, understand the easy trips, and the tough ones, see who is dictating to who and making riders react sooner than they might want to, etc. It will not come easily, but in a month or two, you will get MUCH better at it than you are now. You don't need a program, and can peak at the odds, but trying to "air bet" before they have run 3/8s of a mile will allow you to understand whats going on without the benefit of a form. And peeking at the odds will let you see 1st hand that the trip can overcome many more favorites than you think. Just watch TVG or whatever and you will be amazed at what you pick up. Your understanding of what is REALLY going on out there will increase 100%, I guarantee it.

[Dark Horse]

I will do that type of study for sure. Would you have said the same thing about MMM winning after 6 seconds if Hymn Book hadn't had a bad start, if you knew that the horse had a great race in him?

Going back to the earlier two videos, how many lengths do you feel (ball park) that the bad starts cost Hymn Book and Coil? And did Coil save energy, like a closer, in that race by just accepting the new, unplanned scenario? If so, perhaps the bad start didn't cost him nearly the 'visual' number of lengths?

Here's a similar scenario in a race with a stunning stretch run. The horse had lost the race, but somebody forgot to tell him...

Caracortado is not a deep closer (I have him as more of a stalker), and just seemed not to fire; as the track announcer noted as well. The trainer had walked away from the television screen when he saw Caracortado 13 lengths back at the 1/2 marker. What does this look like through your eyes? Did a switch flip in the horse's head after a slow start? The lazy first half saved him energy for the stretch, but that was not the strategy going into the race. The stretch run stunned the audience well beyond the two speeds running out of energy.

[str]

I will do that type of study for sure. Would you have said the same thing about MMM winning after 6 seconds if Hymn Book hadn't had a bad start, if you knew that the horse had a great race in him?

Going back to the earlier two videos, how many lengths do you feel (ball park) that the bad starts cost Hymn Book and Coil? And did Coil save energy, like a closer, in that race by just accepting the new, unplanned scenario? If so, perhaps the bad start didn't cost him nearly the 'visual' number of lengths?

Here's a similar scenario in a race with a stunning stretch run. The horse had lost the race, but somebody forgot to tell him...

Caracortado is not a deep closer (I have him as more of a stalker), and just seemed not to fire; as the track announcer noted as well. The trainer had walked away from the television screen when he saw Caracortado 13 lengths back at the 1/2 marker. What does this look like through your eyes? Did a switch flip in the horse's head after a slow start? The lazy first half saved him energy for the stretch, but that was not the strategy going into the race. The stretch run stunned the audience well beyond the two speeds running out of energy.

Q. Would you have said the same thing about MMM winning after 6 seconds if Hymn Book hadn't had a bad start, if you knew that the horse had a great race in him?

A. Yes. I say this because I had no idea who was who in the race. Too Honor and Serve was in a good spot early but MMM was where he was with sooooo much ease and fluidity. Too me, it did not matter who broke poorly, it was about the control that MMM had established.
Do know that when I do this I am not always right. No way. But... it is rare that the horse that I think will run great, does not. I do not say that very often. I felt that Bodemeister was in complete control from the gate in the Preakness and even though he was, he lost. Same with the Belmont. Baffert's horse owned that race from the git but let it slip away. So while I say that I said too myself that he could not lose, it is more of a thought that , if he does, he threw away a golden opportunity.

Q. Going back to the earlier two videos, how many lengths do you feel (ball park) that the bad starts cost Hymn Book and Coil?

A. I don't look at it that way. I think that because the circumstances have changed, the type of effort the horse that is overcoming trouble will need to put forth has also changed. So has the effort of the horse in front possibly. It is just different and IMO not comparable.
When a horse comes flying from way back and runs for the last 3/8s of a mile and just gets beat with a nice final burst in the last 50 yards, some people think, " if he had just moved sooner". But had he moved sooner he probably does not have that final burst to make it that close and the rider on the lead horse might have done things differently as well. Too many variables for each case to just make that blanket statement. Each race is it's own thing. Hope that makes sense.

Q. And did Coil save energy, like a closer, in that race by just accepting the new, unplanned scenario? If so, perhaps the bad start didn't cost him nearly the 'visual' number of lengths?

A. Yes and yes.

I will answer the other part in a bit.

[Dark Horse]

Q. Going back to the earlier two videos, how many lengths do you feel (ball park) that the bad starts cost Hymn Book and Coil?

A. I don't look at it that way. I think that because the circumstances have changed, the type of effort the horse that is overcoming trouble will need to put forth has also changed. So has the effort of the horse in front possibly. It is just different and IMO not comparable.
When a horse comes flying from way back and runs for the last 3/8s of a mile and just gets beat with a nice final burst in the last 50 yards, some people think, " if he had just moved sooner". But had he moved sooner he probably does not have that final burst to make it that close and the rider on the lead horse might have done things differently as well. Too many variables for each case to just make that blanket statement. Each race is it's own thing. Hope that makes sense.

Yes, thanks. The parts of the race are not independent, nor are the horses. All is connected. A closer runs voluntarily from behind. The energy saved in the slower start helps him in the stretch run. Other style horses may be forced into that scenario by a bad start. The question is if they have a 'turbo' factor for the stretch run, as well as a good strategy for the race after the deck is shuffled in the start. Because the strategy (pace/race shape/jockey decisions) and stretch run, when both strong, can still make a winner, regardless of the start, I decided to subtract nothing (speed figure) based on a bad start only. A slow pace -with a speed horse taking a breather- plus a bad start would be much worse than such a start with a fast pace, even though the lost ground would be less.

[str]

I will do that type of study for sure. Would you have said the same thing about MMM winning after 6 seconds if Hymn Book hadn't had a bad start, if you knew that the horse had a great race in him?

Going back to the earlier two videos, how many lengths do you feel (ball park) that the bad starts cost Hymn Book and Coil? And did Coil save energy, like a closer, in that race by just accepting the new, unplanned scenario? If so, perhaps the bad start didn't cost him nearly the 'visual' number of lengths?

Here's a similar scenario in a race with a stunning stretch run. The horse had lost the race, but somebody forgot to tell him...

Caracortado is not a deep closer (I have him as more of a stalker), and just seemed not to fire; as the track announcer noted as well. The trainer had walked away from the television screen when he saw Caracortado 13 lengths back at the 1/2 marker. What does this look like through your eyes? Did a switch flip in the horse's head after a slow start? The lazy first half saved him energy for the stretch, but that was not the strategy going into the race. The stretch run stunned the audience well beyond the two speeds running out of energy.

We will never know the reason that the horse took himself back that day, but there was a reason. Zenyatta did the same thing in her last race. The rider did the right thing as we have discussed.
When Trevor says that he has dropped far, far back, it does not look to me that he has gone that much further back, what I see is that the duel has taken shape and those two have accelerated and the 3rd horse has gotten underway and is trying to get into the mix. Those three are all kicking but the trailer is still in his same mode.
By the time they start to cross over on the dirt, Cara HAS indeed leveled off and is in gear . He is closer at that point to the 3rd horse than he was 10 seconds earlier. At the 1:02 mark of the tape and until the 1:06 mark, Caro is on his left lead and wanting to rally but that lead is running out of stamina. From 1:07- 1:10 he reappears on the TV but is still on that left lead that he has been on since before the 3/8s pole ( so for at least 3/8s of a mile). When watching this race, a trainer's last desperate hope is that he will switch over to his right lead and that will certainly provide some extra kick. When Caro shows back up into view at 1:15 he IS on his right lead. He has switched and the explosive finish is a combination of the other three starting to level off from running on for quite a while, battling each other , and Caro who is fresh with the late lead change. I can't say that this late charge is anything but stunning. It sure is. But it is also very clear as to why it occurred.
Remember when watching while playing those "air bets" to monitor lead changes when they turn for home. Many cheap speeds will stay on their left lead and never switch when they run through the stretch. That , more than anything else, is why they get tired.
It is hard to identify at first but you will get better at it. If they do not switch leads, it is like a boxer only punching with one hand. That arm will get over tired unless you use the other one as well.

[Dark Horse]

The decisive burst was because he had switched leads! Hadn't noticed that. Much appreciated, str.

Does switching leads (into first turn, and again going into the stretch) mean that the horse is using the rested side of the body, front as well as back, to push off from? So basically another major form of 'energy distribution'.

I never realized that there was such a connection between unintended slow starts and strong stretch runs. Fun to study. And interesting that the changes in lead legs mark these two parts of the race as well (the end of the start and the start of the end, so to speak). In a one turn race, when a horse can't switch leads going into the first (of two) turns, do they normally switch leads only going into the stretch?

[str]

The decisive burst was because he had switched leads! Hadn't noticed that. Much appreciated, str.

Does switching leads (into first turn, and again going into the stretch) mean that the horse is using the rested side of the body, front as well as back, to push off from? So basically another major form of 'energy distribution'.

I never realized that there was such a connection between unintended slow starts and strong stretch runs. Fun to study. And interesting that the changes in lead legs mark these two parts of the race as well (the end of the start and the start of the end, so to speak). In a one turn race, when a horse can't switch leads going into the first (of two) turns, do they normally switch leads only going into the stretch?

Q. Does switching leads (into first turn, and again going into the stretch) mean that the horse is using the rested side of the body, front as well as back, to push off from? So basically another major form of 'energy distribution'.

A. Yes. Horses are taught to run on straightaways with their right lead and turns with their left. That is why horses check so hard just as they go into the turn( either one) if they are on the inside but do not have their head up into the hole yet.
When a horse switches leads, they move over 3-4 feet from where they were on the track. Basically, their body width. If you ran on a lead, you would also move your body width when you switched. So, if you do not have your body into the hole that is front of you, and the horse next too you but slightly in front switches to it's left leg, the hole just got 4 feet smaller because it moved over 4 feet in front of you. Jocks will pull out of that spot just before the turn or use the horse to get up into the hole before the outside horse switches. Hope that makes sense.

Q. Does switching leads (into first turn, and again going into the stretch) mean that the horse is using the rested side of the body, front as well as back, to push off from?

A. Yes, the front and hind legs work in conjunction with one another. If they do not, they look like a car looks that has had a bent frame and is going forward but looks like it is moving somewhat sideways at the same time. For the rider, it feels like the horse broke down and when you see a jock pull a horse up in the race but then the horse does not seem that bad, it might have cross leads and felt like it was going to fall down.

Q. In a one turn race, when a horse can't switch leads going into the first (of two) turns, do they normally switch leads only going into the stretch?

A. They switch to the left going into the turn and back to the right as they turn for home and straighten away. If they break running on their left lead and stay on it all the way to the stretch( usually does not happen) they can run a not so good race and most will not realize why. Typically, the jock will try and shift their weight down the backside to get them to be on the proper leads.
This is why watching a head on replay is important if you can. Most people will only watch the normal angle and be satisfied but there is much too learn from the head on shot as well sometimes.

[Dark Horse]

Q. In a one turn race, when a horse can't switch leads going into the first (of two) turns, do they normally switch leads only going into the stretch?

A. They switch to the left going into the turn and back to the right as they turn for home and straighten away. If they break running on their left lead and stay on it all the way to the stretch( usually does not happen) they can run a not so good race and most will not realize why. Typically, the jock will try and shift their weight down the backside to get them to be on the proper leads.
This is why watching a head on replay is important if you can. Most people will only watch the normal angle and be satisfied but there is much too learn from the head on shot as well sometimes.

Does this sound about right: Caracortado came out slow, with his right leg leading. Then he picked up speed going into the turn/switching to left leg. And he had a ton of energy left on the right side, when he changed leads back to the right. (Can there be a difference in race-readiness between left and right side? In other words, could his right side have been more or less sleep-walking until the change to his left woke it up?) Another thing is that the first part of the race was downhill, so perhaps he reacted to that?

[str]

Does this sound about right: Caracortado came out slow, with his right leg leading. Then he picked up speed going into the turn/switching to left leg. And he had a ton of energy left on the right side, when he changed leads back to the right. (Can there be a difference in race-readiness between left and right side? In other words, could his right side have been more or less sleep-walking until the change to his left woke it up?) Another thing is that the first part of the race was downhill, so perhaps he reacted to that?

I could not tell if he started out on his right lead. I assume he did, or got over to it fairly early on. Yes, he switched to his left lead into the far turn just like all the others did. ( That does not mean he immediately accelerates, it means that if the rider wants him too, he could). The last part is yes, he had a fresh lead and therefore more energy to give on the right lead once he got too it.
Because all the horses are trained to run the same way, the right leg will usually be used a little more than the left on mile tracks. The simple difference between straightaways and turn sizes.
Not really sleep walking, but think of it like swimming where you pull through the water, after a while, one side will get weary without a breather.
The down hill could cause a bit of confusion if he had not run it before. I never raced on that surface but the downhill is the reason that certain horses are almost downhill specialists at that track. Certainly an advantage to have raced over it IMO.

[str]

If you go to post 286 ( Kindest Cut) you will see that in his wins shown, he finished on his right lead( the proper thing too do). The day he lost, you will see him finish up on his left lead. He never switched that day.

[Dark Horse]

Amazing. I had never thought about the connection between the start of the race (into the first turn) and the stretch run in the context of the same lead leg.

When I first began focusing on the starts, during this part of my research, I thought a bad start was just bad luck. But then I started to see that bad luck would often translate into good luck in the stretch. That (luck and bad luck) seemed too easy. The lead leg perspective explains it.

[Dark Horse]

Here's a bad start in the Breeder's Cup by race favorite Turbulent Descent. According to my model it did not cost her the race. She could have overcome this. What did cost her the race was the horse being checked sharply by the jockey later on. She still gained the lead in the stretch, but ran out of gas. In your evaluation, if the jockey had been able to steer the horse to a clean trip (after the poor start), rather than check her sharply, would the difference in energy and momentum have made her the likely winner?

[str]

Here's a bad start in the Breeder's Cup by race favorite Turbulent Descent. According to my model it did not cost her the race. She could have overcome this. What did cost her the race was the horse being checked sharply by the jockey later on. She still gained the lead in the stretch, but ran out of gas. In your evaluation, if the jockey had been able to steer the horse to a clean trip (after the poor start), rather than check her sharply, would the difference in energy and momentum have made her the likely winner?

I would have wanted to see the head on in a perfect world to fully understand what took place, but let's go with what we have. First my answer. No, I do not think it cost her much in the way of energy at all. It looks like the horse inside of her comes out to avoid getting pinned before they all switch leads . As a result, the jockey has to check and veer over somewhat to make room for the inside horse. Because T.D.'s head is in front of the 2 horses outside of her, she is able to slide them over with her body to create the necessary room. The checking did not cause T.D. any loss of ground or loss of momentum. It did not do much good at all really, as T.D. did not put the brakes on one bit when checked. At that stage of the race the jockey only had 2 not so good choices anyway. Lose plenty of ground around the turn and hope she can kick on again, the 1st kick on being getting up to the point where she was after a flat footed start, or allow her to stay with the momentum she already had used from the slow start and see if it could last throughout. The jockey went with the 2nd choice and it did not work out. I see no fault in his choice though.
Some horses, when pulled on by the rider to check, will react the opposite way that it is intended, that is, will grab the bit and run on instead of check. My impression of her is that she may be that type of horse. Nothing wrong at all with that. It is simply who they are.
Poster WTT owned a piece of this horse and maybe he can help with this conversation. I would like to hear what the jock said after the race if WTT was privy to that. It might shed some light on the result.
Don't let this confuse what you are trying to learn. The bottom line is, that the checking cost her no ground and no momentum backwards as she never put the brakes on and shifted her weight to put her toes in the ground, thus losing momentum, when the rider asked her too. It looks to me that it cost her being one more wide around the turn than she otherwise would have been. That is something, but not enough to say it cost her the race IMO
Would she have won if it never took place? I don't think so. Here is why. She broke very flat footed, not an indication that she was in a perfect "readiness type of position" be it mentally or physically. When this happened to one of my horses, and they would lose when expected to win, I would look as hard as I could to see what might have caused any potential problem. Maybe I knew going in and was hopeful that all would be O.K. but that flat footed type of break was not something I saw as bad luck. I saw it as something was not as good as it could have been with the horse. I do not think that all trainers see it this way, but I did. That is how I was taught.
By no means is this ANY type of knock on the trainer. Not at all. It happens to all of us from time to time.Sometimes it is something that took place in the gate, but more times than not, it is not gate related at all. Would this be something along the lines of when a team starts a game flat? We hear this all the time. I would say yes, it is similar by comparison to a certain extent. But with a race horse that only runs every 6-8 weeks , it is different than a team that can read it's schedule from day one, and plays a lot of games. They can be flat because they come off playing a 1st place team and have another 1st place team next up and show up flat to a bad team sandwiched in the middle. That is not the case here. This race is what you point for, so breaking flat footed as the 7-5 choice says too me that "something", whatever it was, was just not as good as it could have been with the horse that day.
Do not try and over think what I just said. Trust me, it will make you crazy. What I would do though, is when you see a favorite or a horse that certainly is solid in a race, break flat footed like that when they usually do not, and then not finish so well,when they usually do, see how the horse breaks and runs in it's next start. Many more times than not, the horse will break much more attentively and be a major factor at the finish.
As a handicapper, unless you spot something in the post parade or being saddled, which most players do not watch, there is rarely a way to detect this beforehand. I guess that all you can do is document it when it happens, and see if it happens again. If it does, the horse is off form for a very real reason. If it does not happen a 2nd time, which is normally the case, the horse will run very well and you can know that the poor race was a case of the horse not being at it's best that day, for whatever reason.
Hope that makes sense.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks str. The main reason I'm looking at these bad starts is to see how they relate to the stretch run. Plenty of times energy saved at the start comes back in the stretch; after the horse changes leads to use that more rested side of the body. I also look at clean trips, from a jockey perspective. At this point I don't quite understand how a jockey putting on the brakes like that does not tap into the horse's energy reservoir. So my question was not about positioning at that point, but purely about energy.

If I remember correctly WTT mentioned that day, before the race, that TD doesn't like the mud.

[str]

Thanks str. The main reason I'm looking at these bad starts is to see how they relate to the stretch run. Plenty of times energy saved at the start comes back in the stretch; after the horse changes leads to use that more rested side of the body. I also look at clean trips, from a jockey perspective. At this point I don't quite understand how a jockey putting on the brakes like that does not tap into the horse's energy reservoir. So my question was not about positioning at that point, but purely about energy.

If I remember correctly WTT mentioned that day, before the race, that TD doesn't like the mud.

Q. The main reason I'm looking at these bad starts is to see how they relate to the stretch run. Plenty of times energy saved at the start comes back in the stretch; after the horse changes leads to use that more rested side of the body.

A. Remember, it is not the MORE rested side when they turn for home, it is the RECENTLY rested side. In a perfect world, she would have been on the right lead from the gate to roughly the 3 1/2 pole(3 1/2 F.) switched to the left around the turn( 3 1/2 to past the 1/4 pole so lets call it the 3/16s pole, so 1/4 of a mile or 2 F.) and back to the right lead from the 3 1/16ths to the wire.
There will be more use of the right lead than the left,( roughly 5 F. to 2 F. )going 7/8ths but that is how they are conditioned so they are fit for that.

Q. I also look at clean trips, from a jockey perspective.

A. As well you should.

Q. At this point I don't quite understand how a jockey putting on the brakes like that does not tap into the horse's energy reservoir.

A. If you ever played baseball and ran right through a stop sign by the 3rd base coach even though you saw it, and another time in the same scenario, stopped your momentum when seeing it and then a second later said screw it and went all out again, THAT would be the difference. It is night and day energy wise, especially if you have already been running for a while . She would have nothing to do with the rider checking, and that very well could have been because he was not checking straight back on her as much as he was checking to the right to swerve out some to make room. The head on would have probably shown that.

Q. If I remember correctly WTT mentioned that day, before the race, that TD doesn't like the mud.

A. That could have been it because it was sure something that was on her mind.

[Dark Horse]

A. Remember, it is not the MORE rested side when they turn for home, it is the RECENTLY rested side.

That makes sense. The recently rested side.

A. She would have nothing to do with the rider checking, and that very well could have been because he was not checking straight back on her as much as he was checking to the right to swerve out some to make room. The head on would have probably shown that.

So the horse wanted one thing, and the jockey another. And the horse ran through the stop sign, so to speak. This is going to sound a little strange, but what if the horse was right? Is it possible that the horse had a better read on the race than the jockey? Could this have been a race where the jockey getting out of the way may have been preferable? I'm not looking for jockey error, but for something more subtle, like a lack of feel for the race; as opposed to, for instance, Johnny Velazquez threading the needle through traffic with Animal Kingdom in his KY Derby win. After the race Velazquez gave all credit to the horse: 'a good horse will get you out of trouble.' So, along those line, TD is 'a good horse' as well...

Can this type of struggle between horse and rider in any way effect the race? It doesn't matter how crazy or subtle it may be. Bruised trust, undermined willingness to run eyeballs out for the jockey, anything.

[str]

That makes sense. The recently rested side.



So the horse wanted one thing, and the jockey another. And the horse ran through the stop sign, so to speak. This is going to sound a little strange, but what if the horse was right? Is it possible that the horse had a better read on the race than the jockey? Could this have been a race where the jockey getting out of the way may have been preferable? I'm not looking for jockey error, but for something more subtle, like a lack of feel for the race; as opposed to, for instance, Johnny Velazquez threading the needle through traffic with Animal Kingdom in his KY Derby win. After the race Velazquez gave all credit to the horse: 'a good horse will get you out of trouble.' So, along those line, TD is 'a good horse' as well...

Can this type of struggle between horse and rider in any way effect the race? It doesn't matter how crazy or subtle it may be. Bruised trust, undermined willingness to run eyeballs out for the jockey, anything.

Q. So the horse wanted one thing, and the jockey another. And the horse ran through the stop sign, so to speak.

A. Not real sure. The jock was probably checking to the right more than checking to slow down. Really need the head on to see that.


Q. Is it possible that the horse had a better read on the race than the jockey?

A. No.

Q. Could this have been a race where the jockey getting out of the way may have been preferable?

A. It ultimately pushed him wider but the jock had no choice really. The safety of the riders has to be first . If that code is abused by a rider , it will get sorted out in the jocks room afterwards. ( I have seen a couple of serious ass whippings when two riders throw down after a race, in the room). But until it is, they always need to look out for one another. Remember, it might be him in a bad spot next time and the other rider in his previous spot. A race is a bad place to carry a grudge between riders. The Stewards constantly look out for this, especially the former jockey of the group if there is one. The Stewards are always talking to the riders and keeping a solid open communication.


Q. I'm not looking for jockey error, but for something more subtle, like a lack of feel for the race; as opposed to, for instance, Johnny Velazquez threading the needle through traffic with Animal Kingdom in his KY Derby win. After the race Velazquez gave all credit to the horse: 'a good horse will get you out of trouble.' So, along those line, TD is 'a good horse' as well...

A. In that case, A.K. had a position, was waiting to go , and went when asked, thus the complement from the rider. In this case, T.D. was playing catch up from the start, so I think that "feel' for a race goes out the window when you have to play catch up in a sprint with a horse that wants to be forward basically all the way around. If she had gained that position and sat for a bit, then yes, feel for a race can come into play. She, in this case never had the luxury to sit. She was on the move basically from the gate, to the 1/8th pole. Do you see the difference?

Q. Can this type of struggle between horse and rider in any way effect the race? It doesn't matter how crazy or subtle it may be. Bruised trust, undermined willingness to run eyeballs out for the jockey, anything.

A. It can certainly affect the horse in questions race. As to trust, if the jock can not trust the horse , there really can not be any strategy. If the rider has never ridden the horse before, the jock has no choice but to assume that the horse will respond the same way it shows in the form that it can. The jock must also assume that what the trainer says about the horse is solid info.Once the rider gets to know the horse, they have there own feel .If that trust never develops or is broken, chances are the rider will not be on that horse next time.

[Dark Horse]

A. In that case, A.K. had a position, was waiting to go , and went when asked, thus the complement from the rider. In this case, T.D. was playing catch up from the start, so I think that "feel' for a race goes out the window when you have to play catch up in a sprint with a horse that wants to be forward basically all the way around. If she had gained that position and sat for a bit, then yes, feel for a race can come into play. She, in this case never had the luxury to sit. She was on the move basically from the gate, to the 1/8th pole. Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference. Completely different scenarios. What I'm comparing is the path opening up for AK, but in a way that was very tight (not like the Red Sea parting), and the path closing down for TD. For my present purpose it doesn't really matter where that happened in the race. I'm trying to understand to what extent a jockey's skill and split second decisions determine outcomes and to what extent it's down to luck because the dynamics of the race are beyond his control. And I'm also looking at combinations of different parts of the race. After a bad start a horse pretty much needs a clean trip to still have a chance. The margin for error is way down. So I didn't like the way Flores, who is TD's regular rider btw, rode the horse; but there may have been nothing he could have done differently if it was down to luck.

[str]

I do see the difference. Completely different scenarios. What I'm comparing is the path opening up for AK, but in a way that was very tight (not like the Red Sea parting), and the path closing down for TD. For my present purpose it doesn't really matter where that happened in the race. I'm trying to understand to what extent a jockey's skill and split second decisions determine outcomes and to what extent it's down to luck because the dynamics of the race are beyond his control. And I'm also looking at combinations of different parts of the race. After a bad start a horse pretty much needs a clean trip to still have a chance. The margin for error is way down. So I didn't like the way Flores, who is TD's regular rider btw, rode the horse; but there may have been nothing he could have done differently if it was down to luck.

Q. What I'm comparing is the path opening up for AK, but in a way that was very tight (not like the Red Sea parting), and the path closing down for TD.

A. It really didn't close down, at least I don't think it did, he had to move out I think and of course, that cost him ground around the turn.

Q. I'm trying to understand to what extent a jockey's skill and split second decisions determine outcomes and to what extent it's down to luck because the dynamics of the race are beyond his control.

A. Got it.
About the only place it won't matter that much is when you have a clearly superior rider riding against clearly inferior riders. I don't want to knock Md. racing when I was there and this is not a knock but... the riders there were like most other tracks in that there were better riders and lesser riders but when Kent was there and had the bug and after he lost the bug, in most cases, that was a mismatch. It was worse when Chris McCarron was there although back then, the colony was even stronger than it was for Kent. All things being fairly equal though, the jockeys skill and decisions is a sliding scale that works for most tracks. There abilities do help determine the outcome sometimes, so you are on the right track with that thought process.

Q. and to what extent it's down to luck because the dynamics of the race are beyond his control.

A. A certain amount of luck is usually needed unless it is complete domination in a particular race. That luck can be in the form of the trip as well as the surface and how it plays that day. IMO for instance, Grace Hall could easily be undefeated this year if it was not for the track playing outside at Gulfstream in her 1st start this year and if Churchill had not helped carry speed the day before the Derby , in the Oaks. That's a biased opinion but that is how I feel.

Q. After a bad start a horse pretty much needs a clean trip to still have a chance. The margin for error is way down.

A. Absolutely.

Q. So I didn't like the way Flores, who is TD's regular rider btw, rode the horse; but there may have been nothing he could have done differently if it was down to luck.

A. Steady moves forward from the gate to the wire rarely work. In hind sight, his ride was maybe not the best but I am not sure exactly what he could have done differently. She seemed to be flat early which made him prompt her a bit, and when he did, she wanted to be very active from that point on, in a more subtle way than Hansen was, but kind of the same energy wise. As things unfolded along the way, it just seemed to go from bad too worse.
He is a good rider, but that day, she might have had a hand( Hoof) in making him look bad. I am sure that he was not happy watching the replay.

[yahoonino]

thanks str,, this horse racing forum need people like you ,,

[Dark Horse]

Appreciate the detailed responses, str. A big help again. This race is in the books.

[bozeman]

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

[str]

thanks str,, this horse racing forum need people like you ,,

It's my pleasure.

Feel free to ask anytime.