Thursday, December 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Aqueduct ™‘ Alw 43000n1x 1Ñ Mile. (I) 3upF&M Wednesday, December 29, 2010 Race 8
Speed Last Race
#8 Bella Lady
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
HANDICAPPING FEATURE
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
Trainer stats don't always tell the whole storyby Steve Zacks
Good information is essential in picking winners. The better the information the more useful it becomes. This applies to trainer information as much as any other kind. When a horse does not run to his speed figure, was it the figure that was incorrect, did the good-figure race drain the horse's reserves or leave him with a problem, or did the user apply the figure incorrectly? These questions are valid and the same ones can be used to evaluate trainer data as well.
Instead of looking at trainer data purely in terms of win percent and dollar return, evaluate them from the perspective of trainer intent and place that intent within the broader context of the trainer's overall approach. Take the time to evaluate the performance of the horse after the race; not in terms of the win or in-the-money statistic, but rather did the horse run the kind of race suggested by the statistic -- good or bad.
Good trainer data will sometimes point you to a particular horse. It can tell you things about the horse, the trainer and his opinion of that horse. Suppose a key trainer has reproduced one of his productive patterns with a horse running today. The preparation, his placement in terms of class, distance and surface, and choice of rider all signal positive trainer intent. A possible wager might exist. Following pattern identification one needs to evaluate that horse's prospects; can he beat this field, or how much does he have to improve? The answers will determine if in fact a bet should be made and the reasonable odds.
This qualifying process may tell you that the horse will have to run a career best race to beat several opponents. There may be unknowns such as a change in distance, surface or equipment and a switch from bug to the hot stable go-to rider. Your database tells you that the trainer has pulled off similar upsets; you anticipate the improved race. The morning line is 6-1; you decide to make your bet if he is that, 6-1, or higher.
The horse opens up at 5-1, and then drifts upward. He goes off at 10-1. The bet is made. Your knowledge of the trainer which you have compiled over several years his says he has done part. You have identified a winning, profitable pattern for today, followed a reasonable method to qualify the horse. Now things rest in the hands of the goddess of racing!
It would be nice if your horse won. What about the information's value if he does not? Only a subjective analysis of the race and the horse's performance will give you a true understanding of the outcome. It could be that the horse won with a perfect stalking trip and really did not need to show improvement, or he won because all of the favorites were unsound. Or he ran a great race and was beaten by better horses exiting stakes races. Your post-race examination should test more than the validity of simple win percent or dollar-return statistics. The race might have been an artistic success from the trainer's perspective, with a poor result for the bet. With the proper analysis, these outcomes could be blessings in disguise for future bets and for gaining a better understanding of the trainer.
Any of the following might occur during the race; they still allow you to conclude that the horse actually did run well, as expected.
-- a trainer gets a dull layoff horse to show good speed after employing a favored and productive pattern of preparation only to see him get caught up in an unexpected and torrid speed duel after which he is allowed to fade with no pressure. The trainer pattern produced the form reversal, but the race match-up came up wrong!
-- a horse placed in an impossible spot in terms of class, distance, or surface runs a much-improved race; trainers of young horses often experiment early in stakes races, at new distances or over new surfaces; the horse ran well but not well enough. The trainer's efforts worked but the placement was wrong today? Careful assessment can be productive as these runners frequently are good bets as overlays when returned to a more suitable spot next time.
-- a horse runs a strong race and gets a bad ride; just be sure it was the bad ride and not your evaluation of the horse or race.
-- a horse runs a good race and encounters bad racing luck. Poor starts, an errant horse, an accident, carried wide are all regular in-race occurrences. These become particularly important for later if you notice the rider wrapping up on the horse.
-- a highly competitive race with a big field often wastes good efforts for several that get forced into unavoidably tough trips because of the way the race came up. The eventual finish position may be meaningless, especially if the horse was not overused throughout.
-- a trainer runs an entry or soft-entry; only one can win. Is one prepping or having a training race today? What does this do to a trainer's statistics?
-- and my personal favorite, NOT: the jockey exits the inside path to go wide and loses a photo to the horse that followed through on the vacated inside path to beat him a nose.
In all of these instances, the trainer may have accomplished what he set out to do: get the horse to run a good race. Often enough, human error or external circumstances negate the finish results and thus the statistics! Only thorough subjective evaluation of the horse and the race will determine how well the horse actually ran; this may be the best and most productive way to evaluate your database or any published statistics. Not all positive outcomes are necessarily reflected in better win or in-the-money statistics. If the horse produced an improved performance then the trainer pattern worked. This reinforces the underlying factor and does not negate it. This subjective and analytical approach gives a better understanding of the trainer's command of his horse and his approach than statistics do.
What really matters is how the horse performs today race when the trainer employs what is normally a successful move for him. Not all horses respond to the same routines positively. And there are a variety of circumstances where a horse may perform well without winning or even finishing in the money; these will not show up in any of the statistics. Understanding that a pattern may produce and a horse may run well without winning might cause you to evaluate statistics in a different light.
Bad things do happen to well-meant horses. Sound, well-prepared horses from top barns with good riders tend to get into less trouble; but very often, today's race is not the primary objective; with honest and consistent evaluation of the performance of the horse, one will find that the statistics mean something different. Going through this process will also reveal a better understanding of how many trainers operate.
Here are four examples of trainer situations. Somewhere in the examples and analysis there should be one or two ideas that will enhance your appreciation of trainer information, improve your game and help you cash a ticket or two.
1) On January 11, Nick Zito ran two maiden claimers in the 1ST and 4TH races at Gulfstream. In the 1ST, EON (Fusaichi Pegasus) was first time for a price tag and went off at 1-5. He had the lead entering the stretch and folded without obvious excuse. BRIS stats rated Nick at 19 percent overall; 20 percent MSW (maiden special weight) to MCL (maiden claiming); 14 percent first MCL; and his ROI was negative in all categories.
In the 4TH, PICK OFF (Fusaichi Pegasus) was returning from a layoff and dropping from a $30k MCL at Churchill to the $15k level. He went off at 4-5 and won going away after stalking the pace. The stats listed in BRIS' Ultimate PPs had Zito at 19 percent off similar layoffs; 22 percent with shippers; and 22 percent with double droppers. In all cases, he showed negative ROIs. Both horses had the highest BRIS Speed ratings in their fields. Both were double class droppers, both were running related distances, both had multiple up-close calls in their prior races suggesting some degree of current form.
2) This is typical of many situations you encounter. The trainer information may or may not be directly relevant. A first-time starter is running nine furlongs on the turf. The horse has a decent enough pedigree for the surface and has a string of regularly-spaced works. The standard trainer stats say he is 22 percent with first-time starters, 24 percent first time at two turns and 21 percent first time on the turf. He is dollar positive in single digits in all three categories in his ROI.
3) A trainer is running a recent claim back after 60-plus days and is entered in an allowance route. He ran a so-so race in a sprint for a middle claiming price in the pre-layoff race out of which he was claimed. The horse has worked regularly with a series of six-furlong works and has finished up the preparation with two works in the last 10 days. Published stats rate the trainer at 16 percent from multiple starters; he has a hit rate off the claim of 22 percent -- a sign of positive intent; he is 8 percent after a 60 day layoff -- negative intent? His other stats are around 15 percent with class rises and stretch outs. Combinations of details often belie the raw data which very often proves crucial. The simple facts appear to conflict on the surface.
4) There is a large group of trainers with statistics akin to: 10 percent win record with first-time starters and a 23 percent second-start win percent. Some are dollar positive in one or both instances, but very often the lower win percent results in a higher ROI. The range of these stats varies cyclically. Whether it is a question of quality of current racing stock or trainer intent is unclear at times. Trainers like Carla Gaines, Cliff Sise Jr., Jimmy Jerkens, Steve Asmussen and Todd Pletcher all come to mind.
Both of the Zito runners were expensive purchases which have not fulfilled expectations; while each was a possible winner, Zito probably hoped that they would win and be claimed. Of course cheap maiden claimers are not the most reliable; he lost the 1st at 1-5 and won the 4th at 4-5, and neither was claimed. Neither fit the Zito mold of a developing stakes prospect.
There was no pre-race preparation of significance, which I use as a key sign of intent. Nick can burn a lot of the public's money, so with the stats in the BRIS Ultimate PPs in the vicinity of 20 percent and strongly negative ROIs across the board, and with no positive "karma" for support, they were best passed. There was a subtle difference between the first-time maiden claiming stat at 14 percent, below his overall win percentage (19percent), and below the 20 percent stat for MSW to MCL; I could not read a lot into that. There were more favorable numbers for PICK OFF; Nick is 22 percent with both shippers and double droppers -- above his regular win percentage. He had also run an improved race when tagged for the first time at Churchill in a race he was not favored, so perhaps he might be given a chance in what looked like a soft spot.
When I analyzed the results afterward, I stuck with my pre-race thoughts. Neither ran any better than anticipated, there were no surprises and there was no reason to revise my pre-race opinions. Nor did I learn anything that would cause me to put them on my horses to watch list.
The second and third examples illustrate the potential weakness of simple statistics and the value of information that is specific to today's task. Very often statistics are incomplete or conflict. If we know specifically how a trainer does with debut runners going long on the turf we have the more meaningful subset of the general statistics which may not apply. What does one do when statistics conflict as do the claim and layoff numbers detailed in the third case?
The answer lies in information which details a variety of factors which are specific to today; likely sources are a good memory, a notebook or a database. These rarely are found in public sources. Some serious players combine the details about certain winners. They normally keep records so they know what works and what does not and do not rely on win percentages.
Statistics/trainer data are a reflection of the trainer and his judgment. The PPs tell what the horse can or cannot do. If they dovetail, then you may have a strong play (e.g. a good record stretch-out trainer gets a young stoutly-bred sprinter).
Both examples show just how inconclusive some trainer statistics are. In the third example, a private database (that one takes the time to compile) might show that the trainer has recently won with this work pattern, has a number of recent misses without them, and also has five winners at 10-1 with a claimed runner, laid up for a similar period, and then worked six-furlongs at least three times before stretching him out, while stepping him up. The public might focus on the positive claim stat or the negative layoff stat -- or simply wind up confused. That database has a detailed trainer pattern which signals very strong positive intent today. Very few people would know these details. This gives him unique ammunition to take to the windows.
The statistics in example four indicate best that these are win-early trainers. The horse is prepared to run his race though may not be honed for a top effort; if the race/trip comes up right and the competition is not too salty, they will win. The first race may be a win or at least a positive learning experience. If the horse runs well without winning, then they receive additional preparation and usually run better second time.
Learn to watch for an improved work or work line; many horses "wake up" after their first experience. Be wary of horses exiting all-out efforts in their debuts if returned quickly; many fail to perform; risk takers might play against these or at least use multiple horses in the serial wagers.
Often there was a reason for that subpar effort; a layoff will indicate that. They usually return with an improved performance -- though not always a winning one. The third start, which is in closer proximity, is often the winning effort. Others that disappoint in their debuts get either a training remake or quickly drop.
To be really meaningful, early-runner statistics should detail the first-, second-, and third-time stats together. Because of published statistics there are trainers who like to fly under the radar and win a little more often with their third-time starters, a statistic seldom seen.
Generally published statistics tell only a small part of the story. The devil is so often in the details; what may first appear as conflicting statistics may contain a hidden story with the missing details added. Sometimes you can piece together multiple relevant statistics about some runners from the various entrants from the same stable on a given day. BRIS' Track Stats can help fill in the data for other categories that may be relevant today. BRIS also offers several other trainer reports if you wish to study a trainer in detail.
By spending time analyzing what happened to the horse and the quality of the race, you will learn just how well the horse ran and how the circumstances affected the actual outcome. This will then give you better insight and understanding of the way a trainer thinks, executes and his overall agenda. That is worth far more than any individual positive statistic or ROI which will be over bet by the public anyway.
Focusing on subjective post-race analysis will tell about how the horse runs in the context of the race. Just because the horse does not win does not mean that the trainer failed in what he was setting out to do. A good winning performance in a poor-quality race might mean less than a strong fifth place finish in strong race.
In the third situation, the horse could have won at big odds, the horse might have performed poorly, the horse ran really well and was simply beaten by a better horse exiting a stakes and taking an edge, or the horse ran well and was unlucky. In three outcomes, the trainer pattern performed to expectations. More careful qualifying procedures might be the lesson for you -- even with improvement a runner cannot win if overmatched. You might learn that this trainer or this particular owner is a bit of a dreamer. You may have a horse for your list and your trainer knowledge was vindicated, even if there was no cash at the end of the rainbow today.
Using the power of personal observation and analysis to evaluate the performance will give you a better understanding of the trainer, the horse, and a better appreciation of statistical data.
| More Features: |
Send this article to a friend
Parx Racing MC 12500 1Ñ Mile. 3,4,&5yo Friday, December 24, 2010 Race 9
Todays horse
Torro Mia (#10)
won 5.40$
Torro Mia (#10)
won 5.40$
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Fair Grounds Mdn 45k * 5½ Furlongs. (T) 2yo Thursday, December 23, 2010 Race 7
TtT'#'##'####m#todays horseTODAYS HORSE
'+##4 Ocho :5 0C ab a l l e r1o7N
'+##4 Ocho :5 0C ab a l l e r1o7N
RACING LEADERS
(through December 20, 2010)
HORSES | ||||||||||
| Name | Starts | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Purses | |||||
| 1. Blame | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | $3,751,467 | |||||
| 2. Lookin at Lucky | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2,064,278 | |||||
| 3. Zenyatta | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1,830,000 | |||||
| 4. Super Saver | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1,718,534 | |||||
| 5. Blind Luck | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1,679,662 | |||||
| 6. Dangerous Midge | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1,620,000 | |||||
| 7. Unrivaled Belle | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1,614,659 | |||||
| 8. Paddy O'Prado | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1,579,950 | |||||
| 9. Awesome Feather | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1,495,746 | |||||
| 10. Big Drama | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1,420,810 | |||||
TRAINERS | ||||||||||
| Name | Starts | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Purses | |||||
| 1. Todd Pletcher | 1074 | 272 | 177 | 150 | $23,085,188 | |||||
| 2. Steve Asmussen | 2386 | 501 | 426 | 323 | 16,101,680 | |||||
| 3. Bob Baffert | 489 | 120 | 90 | 79 | 10,893,983 | |||||
| 4. Jerry Hollendorfer | 1105 | 278 | 208 | 168 | 9,078,234 | |||||
| 5. Bill Mott | 686 | 116 | 84 | 95 | 8,774,765 | |||||
| 6. Bret Calhoun | 920 | 230 | 164 | 136 | 7,808,483 | |||||
| 7. Rick Dutrow | 583 | 136 | 115 | 78 | 7,656,104 | |||||
| 8. John Sadler | 533 | 111 | 83 | 77 | 6,885,673 | |||||
| 9. Tony Dutrow | 443 | 129 | 92 | 64 | 6,325,918 | |||||
| 10. Al Stall Jr. | 274 | 61 | 46 | 35 | 6,234,275 | |||||
JOCKEYS | ||||||||||
| Name | Mounts | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Purses | |||||
| 1. Ramon Dominguez | 1453 | 362 | 286 | 201 | $16,722,270 | |||||
| 2. John Velazquez | 1186 | 238 | 181 | 156 | 16,717,848 | |||||
| 3. Garrett Gomez | 781 | 159 | 119 | 121 | 15,494,789 | |||||
| 4. Joel Rosario | 1304 | 297 | 218 | 200 | 15,274,104 | |||||
| 5. Rafael Bejarano | 1258 | 297 | 241 | 177 | 13,630,960 | |||||
| 6. Javier Castellano | 1232 | 244 | 199 | 191 | 12,966,399 | |||||
| 7. Julien Leparoux | 1064 | 173 | 157 | 157 | 10,996,538 | |||||
| 8. Martin Garcia | 933 | 154 | 141 | 123 | 10,155,784 | |||||
| 9. Robby Albarado | 1044 | 173 | 183 | 131 | 10,128,502 | |||||
| 10. Jose Lezcano | 1047 | 169 | 167 | 162 | 9,247,322 | |||||
HANDICAPPING INSIGHTS
DECEMBER 17, 2010
by Dick PowellFair Grounds opened up its 139th racing season on Thanksgiving Day and this year's meet is a little bit different than what you might be used to seeing. Open company maiden special weight classes are now running for $45,000 and Louisiana-bred maiden special weight classes have been reduced to $37,000 as the race office is doing everything they can to get the open company races to fill. Purses are up overall and the meet is off to a good start due to good weather and going back to the traditional Thanksgiving Day opening.
One thing that jumps off the page when you go back and examine the charts for this year's meet is how well horses drawn on the inside have done in sprint races. This is dramatically different from last year when horses drawn on the outside had just as good a chance as horses drawn on the inside. Part of it may be due to the terrific weather New Orleans has had so far this year and we haven't had many sloppy tracks where the rail is more tiring than the outside.
Last year at this time of the meet, speed was dominating the six furlong races. The 77 races run at six furlongs on the main track had a BRIS Speed Bias of 74 percent. At the first call, the average distance behind the leader for the winner was only 1.5 lengths. This year, after 57 races were run at six furlongs on the main track, there was a BRIS Speed Bias of 56 percent and the average distance behind the leader for the winner was 2.6 lengths.
In last year's 77 six furlong races run on the main track, 42 percent of them were won gate to wire. In this year's 57 six furlong races run on the main track, 26 percent of them were won gate to wire. For years, I always did well at the Fair Grounds by playing speed horses in the sprints since many other bettors see that long stretch and assume that closers will dominate. This year, those horses that I thought had an edge due to their running style have been getting caught more than usual.
But there seems to be hope as speed absolutely dominated on Monday's card. There are a couple of ways that I look at it to see if there any running biases. One is to watch the races, another is to read all the charts and the third is to take into account the actual chances of the individual horses.
In the 1ST race, OF GAB (High Brite) held on grimly to win at odds of 95-10 and beat the more fancied G G'S GIRL (Buddha) going six furlongs. Race two, at 5 1/2 furlongs, was dominated by the speedy odds-on favorite SPICEY WORLD (Planet Earth), but he was going to win no matter what the bias was. In the 4TH four, MR. FUZZYBOTTOM (Forest Wildcat) went gate to wire to win by less than a length. In race five, the early speed horse, REFLATE THE BUBBLE (Langfuhr), gunned to the front through a first quarter in :21.87 and when he tired, the pace-prompting WISE GOODBYES (Wised Up) took over and won easily.
The 6TH six confirmed any doubts about the speed-favoring nature of Monday's main track going six furlongs. WHAT AN HONOR (Double Honor), the near 22-1 longshot, gunned to the front and opened up a clear lead. In his last two starts, against this claiming level, he finished 22 3/4 and 20 lengths behind while running BRIS Late Pace figures of 43 and 52. Watching Monday's 6TH race, you kept expecting What an Honor to quit in the stretch but he kept on going to the final yards. MAUI CRUSIER (Smooth Jazz) was the one doing all the chasing and finally wore him down in the final yards. He didn't win but What an Honor certainly benefited from the speed bias there was on Monday.
Finally, in the last race of the day, U SCENE MORONI (Orbit's Scene) chased the favored GOLDIE'S FINEST (Finest Hour) around the track and held on easily for second at 31-1 odds.
When a racetrack has a historical pattern and then doesn't conform to that historical pattern, the chances are that it will eventually return to that historical pattern unless there is some extenuating circumstance. The Fair Grounds main track looks like it is returning to the norm of being speed-favoring in dirt sprints and we'll keep track of it in the coming weeks.
The turf course at Fair Grounds seems to behaving in a rational manner; closers still dominate. For instance, last year there were 53 races run at a mile on the Stall-Wilson turf course with a BRIS Speed Bias of 30 percent and only 11 percent of the races were run gate to wire. This year, there have been 16 races run at a mile on the turf and the BRIS Speed Bias is 38 percent and there have been no gate-to-wire winners. For races run at 1 1/16 miles on the turf, the results have been almost identical as speed continues to struggle.
In the turf sprint races, last year there were 40 races run at the distance of about 5 1/2 furlongs and they had a BRIS Speed Bias of 45 percent and 20 percent were won going gate to wire. This year, there have been five races run at about 5 1/2 furlongs and they have a BRIS Speed Rating of 40 percent and 20 percent were won going gate to wire.
The Fair Grounds turf course is a sand-based one and it behaves differently than most. When it is dry, it will perform like a cuppy, dirt track and yield very slow times and not favor horses that run on the lead. When it gets some moisture in it, it will help the speed more since it will stay together better. Therefore, don't assume a race run on "good" turf will be less kind to speed horses than one run on "firm" turf. Usually, it's the opposite.
HANDICAPPING FEATURE
OCTOBER 17, 2009
The Jockey as a Handicapping Factorby Steve Zacks
For most of my handicapping career I regarded the jockey factor as incidental. Still I could never escape the feeling after many of the tough beats that are a part of the game that I was the victim of a poor ride, and that maybe the jockey factor really did matter more than I was prepared to give it credit for.
I recently explored the jockey as a handicapping tool to see if a jockey-based method of play could be found or if the jockey factor could aid in deciphering those otherwise unfathomable handicapping puzzles that so often creep into the serial bet sequences.
After spending too many hours and not getting the hoped for results, I did reach several conclusions. The jockey is a very significant factor in the handicapping/decision-making process; one way or another they influence the outcome of every race that is run, either through clever or plain-bad riding.
I did not find a consistent way to use the jockey factor automatically. With the proper judgment, discipline, effort and bankroll, a workable and profitable methodology might be devised that starts (and ends) with the jockey factor. There are in fact winning players who focus on every handicapping tool using them profitably -- be it pace, speed, trainer and work patterns and more.
I assembled and explored dozens of ideas; after paring the numbers and getting them into a manageable format I tested the final group at Del Mar and Saratoga, thinking that if ever riders wanted to do well and gain a higher profile these summer meetings were ideal. You can likely add in any of the other major boutique or high-profile meetings. The longer the meeting, the more likely swings in and out of form are likely to occur.
My judgments were soft and personal, intending to capture the intent of the law. I research by hand and have no programming skills so I am limited in the data I accumulate. I do not track the number of starters, only the winners. I use my powers of observation to make judgments and do not rely just on the simple numbers!
The sample covered the 703 non-steeplechase races run at Del Mar and Saratoga in 2009. Maiden races accounted for 158 of these and 57 of the maiden subset were won by first-time starters. About 15 percent of winners paid $20 or more and almost 40 percent paid off at 5-1 or higher.
Right Questions
If one looks simultaneously through the windows of the trainer, the jockey's agent and the handicapper, you should ask most of the right questions. Some handicappers and race observers might even like to throw the horse into the mix as well.
Sometimes the questions will be hard to answer; that fact alone could send up a warning flag. When you see a top-five rider on a ship-in or from a low-key outfit does it hint of a sharp performance today or does it mean that that outfit has a promising young horse in the barn? What should you think when the leading rider from another circuit ships to ride a seemingly overmatched horse in Saturday's stakes race? Is the horse live, or does the rider simply want to ride at Saratoga?
Finding plausible answers to these questions will help you to decide whether a horse has a legitimate chance. Just as you, the handicapper, wants to win races and cash bets, so do trainers and jockeys. The latter, with their agents, are only as good as the live horses they ride in the right spots. An agent's job is political; his job is as much about managing other horses and future races as it is finding the right horse today.
A trainer might ask:
-- I have a ready horse, who is the best rider I can get?
-- that horse ran big for the bug-boy, maybe I can get a top rider for him today. He is doing really well and might even have a better race in him.
-- I have a really nice two-year-old or a European stakes shipper...who will do me a favor with this one to get on that other later?
An owner might think:
-- I have guests coming on Saturday and want to impress them; which high-profile rider can I get?
-- Do I want to interfere with or make demands on my trainer?
The horse might think like this, and a good trainer should do it for him:
-- I like to run my races in a certain way, which rider do I have confidence in? I need soft hands, I need to be allowed to settle, I hate being inside etc... Which rider will give me the best ride so that I can run my best and win?
An agent has a lot of questions to ask:
-- I have a top rider, which horse do I want to ride in today’s race?
-- Will my steady customers allow me to ride another horse today, so I can ride their new prospect later on? Or will I lose the barn if I go elsewhere today?
-- That horse ran a big race with the 10-pound bug up; there is a good race for him next week; I am open so I will see the trainer to get the mount (for the meet's leading rider).
As a handicapper:
-- Does the outfit care about riders? Does this rider fit their normal profile?
-- I like this horse in a race, which riders would I like to see? And which others will I accept to make a bet?
-- Will this rider make any difference to the way my horse runs today?
-- Does this rider produce wake-up performances when he rides a new horse?
-- What story did a trainer have to give the agent to ride this horse today; after all the last race was not too good, and/or it is taking a big class rise, and/or it is coming off a layoff with a non-descript work tab and so on? If this coincides with a top rider riding for a non-client or non-descript trainer it may take on greater significance and if one of the rider's regular customers has a live horse in the same race maybe this is a live long shot?
Winning Profiles
Here are eight ideas that frequently show up in the profiles of winners. The problem with them is that so many of the horses share one or more of these concepts that it has little direct value in terms of winner selection. Rarely is there only one in a race. What may be the most significant of all is the fact only about 10 percent of the winners had none of the jockey-related factors on their resume for their winning race. More than three-quarters of the winners had more than one factor.
1) Hot Trainer: I wanted to know if trainer status was important. It is. At the recently concluded Saratoga meeting, names such as Alan Jerkens, Bruce Levine and Tom Albertrani were cold as ice. Riders need live and well-meant horses to win races. That is when smart rides really matter.
A trainer was "hot" if at the time the race was run the trainer was (a) one of the meet's leading trainers (b) a high-percentage outfit (20%+) but not on the leading trainers' list due to limited starters or (c) a trainer had won at least one race within a few days of today's race (I chose to leave many doors open; determining when short cycles begin and end is an art form and mostly guesswork). Some stables are historically slow or fast starters or win races in bunches; some just pick their spots. More than 400 winners, or almost 60 percent, were won by jockeys riding for live outfits that fit these parameters.
2) Hot Rider: This is a potent factor as almost 70 percent of the winners at both meetings fit my definition of a hot rider. I included every rider who had won a race within the last three racing days. The condition book influences the flow of races, thus a trainer's or jockey's win patterns. The meet leaders generally qualify as they have recent wins; occasionally a top rider might qualify for some of his wins and not for others; this is frequently the case for trainers. At Saratoga, several top 10 riders went for a week or more without a win. Frequent updating allows you a better understanding of whether fallow periods relate to the rider being cold or the improbable horses he was riding. If you are using this factor and playing 20 tracks, the statistics will likely have to speak for themselves.
Two peculiar situations occur regularly: one is when a certain rider wins three or more races. Twenty-five times a rider scored three wins, and on seven occasions there were four (evenly divided between meets). If you think a rider may be in the midst of one of these days, he may be worth including in serial plays or take a look at the win price and bet any overlays. Occasionally a rider ships in for a day. Jeremy Rose held a hot hand on everything he rode at Saratoga. Justin Sheppard shipped into Lone Star for a day and scored five wins on the card. While these days are usually unpredictable in advance, it can produce dividends to be alert when these events are in progress.
3) Winning Combination: Horse and Rider: The rider has won with the horse in the past. I based this on the last 10 starts; if you have particular local knowledge you may qualify a horse if the rider has won with the horse at any time. Both approaches work well. Based on the races for winners, more than 40 percent of the winners had been ridden by jockeys who had won with them before. Of these winning combinations, 25 percent switched riders for today's race while 75 percent had ridden them last time.
4) Go-To Rider: Trainer and Rider: BRIS reports "trainer with jockey" for the past 60 days in many of their PPs. Many outfits use multiple riders on their winning horses. Your definition of "go-to" will influence the qualifying horses. I included those with a past win on the horse, regardless of the timing as well as those with one win from five or fewer starts, or more than one from six or more starts in the BRIS stats for the last 60 days. Using these definitions, go-to riders rode about 60 percent of the winners.
5) Rider Switch: Excluding debut winners, about half the races were won with a rider switch and half with a returning rider. Did today's winning jockey ride the horse last time, was he riding the horse for the first time or had he ridden the horse in the past and was switching back today? Did the switch entail the move from a lesser rider to a top-five, or go-to rider, or back to a winning combination? This may be one of the more fertile areas for exploration and tinkering for a playable method. This was the best factor for 10-1+ winners; 65 of the 109 had rider switches.
More than a quarter of all winners were repeaters, and 33 percent of them switched riders (many were shipping to a different circuit) and 67 percent were ridden by the same. While one would have expected more of the switches to have come at Saratoga, because of several injuries to top jockeys at Del Mar, they were almost evenly balanced.
Paying attention to a rider switch makes sense, though a switch can also fool you. When a rider vacates a last-out winner or a dropping horse in good form, what does it say about that horse or the other horse he is riding today? Success with this idea is dependent upon making the right judgment. A rider may have ridden a winner for one of his occasional customers and may be vacating that one to ride for one of his regulars today. The new barn may have a promising young horse or a stakes horse to ride later on. What you see in these situations may not always be what you see on the surface.
On the day after the Travers (G1), third-leading rider Rajiv Maragh jumped off back-to-back winner Beneath the Crown (Regal Classic); he left the Timmy Hills horse to ride a non-descript looking, allowance horse, Piazza Di Spagna (Lycius), for Gary Sciacca. Maragh guided him home to a $20+ win mutuel.
On September 18 at Belmont, Kent Desormeaux switched off a live Bill Mott second-time starter Show the Way (Forest Camp) to ride a first-time starter Peteloveshisboots (Texas Glitter) for A.J. Bizelia and Paul Pompa Jr. Desormeaux had ridden several first-time turf winners for Mott at the Spa. Mott's horse won at generous odds. There is a strong likelihood that Peteloveshisboots has a future and might be worth another shot -- especially if Desormeaux rides him back.
Rider switches are a productive source of winners at good prices! Asking why the rider is on the horse today is an interesting approach when a top rider shows up on a morning-line long shot, or for some relatively unknown or low-profile trainer. It is more interesting when one of his prime connections has a seemingly live horse entered in the same event.
6) Top-Five Rider: Statistical: The top five riders frequently win 50 percent of the races at any given meeting. The makeup of the list can be in constant flux as occurred this summer past. The intent of the rule is to focus on riders who are riding well and for live outfits. One can focus on this group.
Most trainers with fit and ready runners try to get the best rider they can especially at these boutique meets where everybody wants to win. A rider attracts attention by winning a lot of races or a high-profile event or two. Then his agent gets more live calls. Success breeds success. Trainers and owners want live riders; agents with hot riders get live mounts far more easily than for a rider with one win from 25 mounts.
The Top Five won close to 50 percent at both meetings. Del Mar totals were influenced by injuries to two top prospects. Saratoga had eight constantly vying for several of the top five spots so counts could vary.
7) A Personal List: One of the ideas I experimented with was to make up a personal list of top riders. This works better if you know the jockey colony well. The list might include some of the top five riders, some of the unappreciated lesser-profile riders and some specialists and is flexible and variable and personal. Where did you put Edgar Prado going into the Saratoga meeting after the rather quiet Belmont? He came alive at Saratoga but has been quiet again back at Belmont. Jose Lezcano was in the top five at the Belmont spring meeting and while he had had good success over the winter at Gulfstream and had made a successful transition to Belmont in the spring it was uncertain that his profile and client base would keep him up top.
If there is a very strong rider colony such as there was at Saratoga, limiting the list to four or five may be self-defeating. Variable lists for fast, slop, turf, routes and sprints will work in some cases. The list changes as riders heat up or cool off. The list is your perception of the various riders on your circuit.
A lesser-known or lower-profile rider with talent who is underappreciated by the betting public is a great addition to your list. A few years back a friend suggested I pay serious attention to Alan Garcia when he came to New York; it did not take long for me to jump on his bandwagon and he has been paying dividends since. While Dominguez was on my radar a long, long time ago, he is too popular at the windows; while you rarely get a generous overlay on him, you do get a reliably good ride very consistently. Maragh, now in the top-five rankings, still rides numerous generously-priced winners.
Due to a couple of accidents involving top riders at Del Mar, the numerical and personal lists were in a state of flux. Alonso Quinonez made my personal list as under-appreciated and rewarded me with several long-shot winners I might not otherwise have played.
Each should bring your own ideas to this process. The more personal the approach the more likely it is to be a little outside the norm and therefore have some wager value attached to it.
8) Top Rider: 10-1 Odds: While it is dependent upon your skill and decision-making, there is one nugget that comes close to a profitable and semi-automatic play. It is to pick one or several top riders (you can also do this with a list of trainers) and play that rider automatically when the horse goes off at odds of 10-1 or higher. To make it automatic you would have to rely on the morning line and live with the fact that some will be bet down too low and that you may miss a few which could turn the angle either positive or negative at any given meeting.
I find that you can select a couple that make the top five list; it is also useful if you have a name or two that flies under the radar, but who you think is capable but underrated.
At Del Mar, leading rider Joel Rosario was productive with four $20 + winners; Tyler Baze had two, Joey Talamo scored six winners mostly near 10-1, Garret Gomez a trio. Two under the radar riders there, Michael Baze won four and Quinonez five to lead the bomb squad.
At the Spa, second leading rider Garcia hit the $20 number five times, as did Javier Castellano and the steady, though not-in-fashion Mike Luzzi, a year-round New York mainstay. Desormeaux won a trio of races at 10-1+ and all were first time on the turf; leading rider Dominguez scored two, Robby Albarado and Maragh had four baggers.
Conclusion
When all is said and done, whether you are an owner, a trainer, or simply a handicapper with an opinion on a horse in a race, your fate ultimately rests with the jockey and the decisions he or she makes during the running of the race.
As a player, no one single factor is likely to frustrate you as much as some of the rides you get! Just how important the jockey factor should be to you is a decision you must make to suit your own game. The better the jockey the lower the odds are likely to be; you must tie your tolerance for poor rides to your desire for higher odds.
In the process of using the jockey factor one must learn to separate the horse and his training from the blame the rider game. Losses are frequently the horse’s fault as it will not run inside or lacks the athleticism/turn-of-foot to explode through the holes when they open. Big stables have a much better chance of schooling their horses in the mornings. Young horses can go out in sets of five or six and can train inside, outside and between others and can learn to take dirt in their faces. If one exercise rider does not get along with a horse, then maybe another will. The smaller stables frequently lack these opportunities and the horses get their in-company experience in their early races. If a trainer knows any of these quirks of a particular horse it is his responsibility to warn the rider of its foibles.
In evaluating horses, rides and trips, one should appreciate all of these factors along with stable intent. If the trainer's win percentage is 12 percent with debut runners and 28 percent with second-time starters, it may not be a bad ride if the horse fails to get there in time. The intent was to give the horse an education.
Five decades of racing experiences in all facets of the game teach that the jockey cannot win the race without the horse. The best horse can win without the best ride and a less-than-best horse can win a lot of races with a good ride and/or when the best horse gets a poor ride. So many races are very contentious that the trip along with the luck of the draw and the various rides in the race determine who is in the photo. Saving ground and expending the horse's energy at the right time are usually crucial. Along with their other skills, the better riders do this more frequently than the less successful ones. A lot has to do with the horses they ride, but the cream normally rises to the top.
Most of the top outfits go out of their way to get top riders, or a rider with a particular style that suits the horse. Why put in so much time and effort and then leave the last detail to chance? When every effort has been made to get a horse properly prepared they tend to go for the best in terms of athletic skill and in-race judgment.
The better riders have better physical skills and a better style of race riding. They make fewer errors in judgment. They try to save ground and save horse and avoid trouble. Generally the top riders make the right decisions more often than do the lesser riders. Thus they get the choice of the better mounts. Simply put: the good jockeys lose fewer races on the best horse. They tend to understand the surface they are riding over, find ways of getting the horse the good trip and avoiding trouble.
Using the rider as an entry point is never an easy game. After two weeks of the Belmont Championship fall meeting, three of the names atop the Saratoga final list are not near the top, while a couple of those who are usually near the top, but who could not be found at the Spa seem to be back riding in better form. Some of this relates to trainers who were not productive at Saratoga but are winning races on Long Island.
Paying particular attention to jockeys, those who are riding well, those who are cold and those who fly beneath the public radar are all worthwhile endeavors that will add to your bottom line.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no easy or simple or work-free way to use the jockey as a key handicapping factor. That said, any time you can get 10-1 or more on a top rider, along with any reason that helps to explain why he is there, you might be on to something. At the current Belmont meeting, the vast majority of the $15 to $40 winners have been ridden by those who are near the top of the jockey standings. Sometimes it works...but alas...not always!
Good Luck!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
3rd Race - Penn National - Tuesday, December 21st, 2010
Todays Horse
# 1A DESERT BABY
result : SCRATCHED
# 1A DESERT BABY
result : SCRATCHED
At the races
Welcome to horse racing fans! In this blog i will post each day my best horse selections , so if you need a winner just have a look , Iam sure you will find it intersting and the best of all it will make you money ,,, FREE, stay tuned and check my posts,wish you happy times and all luck.
TODAYS HORSE
PHILADELPHIA PARK race 9
#10 L.A. GIRL
result WON paid 12.40$
TODAYS HORSE
PHILADELPHIA PARK race 9
#10 L.A. GIRL
result WON paid 12.40$
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)