Over the years my handicapping for big events has come to rely partially on the historical profiles of past winners. The project started with an interest in and then a detailed review of the so called "rules" for the Kentucky Derby. I found that some were valid and some weren't. Stats had some value but you had to be careful to side step the myths and jinxes. I started looking into Breeders' Cup profiles back in 2002 and decided to create a system that could be used for handicapping. I named the project the "20-20 Profiles". The intent of the project is not only to identify horses that fit the profile but to get a view of the entire field. Exacta's and Trifecta's can be hittable as well. It took years to develop my first few profiles because I was developing everything from scratch and I had only bits and pieces of data.
Now that I've been doing this for a while I've been able to create some methods for noticing patterns better. All the statistical factors I use have to do with one of 7 areas that I consider to be key: Speed, Fitness, Form, Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding. Virtually every factor is derived from the DRF Past Performances.
It has now been six and half years since I first started working on this project and I finally have enough data to begin expanding the Profiles beyond just the Derby and Breeders' Cup. My goal is develop profiles for most of the biggest races in North America. I now have 16 different profiles finished and at least 4 more in the development stage. I only recently finished the 20-20 for the Virginia Derby. Since the Virginia Derby is this weekend I thought I'd share the results a bit.
Most people wouldn't think of the Virginia Derby as a major race worthy of close scrutiny but it has a few key things going for it. It has full fields, a few high class contenders each year and most importantly it's a race that connections point to. The Virginia Derby is rivaled only by the Secretariat for biggest race of the year for 3yo Turf horses. Connections mark this spot on the calender and begin looking at how to get there once they figure out that their horse is better suited to the sod than the twin spires in May.
Here is what this year's 20-20 Profile for the Virginia Derby looks like.
As you can see the 20-20 ranks the field in order of their adherence to the historical profile. Battle of Hastings is the only horse in the race that fits every criteria. He is likely to be well backed but hopefully the "Fans of Barbaro" will prevent him from being favored.
The morning line favorite Nicanor is ranked 5th in this field. Nicanor fell short on factors 4 and 7 which both have to do with form and factor 8 which has to do with class. Specifically I'm not thrilled about his lack of a stakes win and the regression his figures showed last time out. I think Nicanor is a poor gamble for this race. The 20-20 Profile has picked against Sailor's Cap, Circular Quay and Kip Deville who were all favored in past renewals.
If I were betting the Virginia Derby based on the recommendation of the 20-20 Profile I'd have money to win on Battle of Hastings as well as an exacta box with Florentino, Straight Story and Lime Rickey.
Showing posts with label 20-20 Profiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 20-20 Profiles. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Eye Exam
I believe strongly in keeping score. So when I make a pick I keep a record of how it does. It helps me to honestly evaluate my level of competence and also, in a space like this, it may help you to decide whether or not my advice is worth the bandwidth it occupies.
I've spent a fair bit of time talking about my 20-20 systems which are statistical profiles. They're intended to give the viewer a clearer view of the respective chances of each entrant based on how they measure up with the historical profiles. Now that the Triple Crown is over it's time to lay out the results.
We'll start with the quick facts about the 20-20 systems for each Triple Crown race this year.
Belmont
20-20 All Wager - $54.00
Returned - $90.30
Perfect Qualifiers - Charitable Man (4th)
Preakness
20-20 All Wager - $71.00
Returned - $30.80
Perfect Qualifiers - Rachel Alexandra (1st - $5.60) Musket Man (3rd)
Kentucky Derby
20-20 All Wager - $179.00
Returned - $0
Perfect Qualifiers - Musket Man (3rd) Papa Clem (4th)
Perfect Qualifiers
Record: 5-1-0-2
Win/Loss: -$4.40 (-44.00%)
Average Odds: 9.74/1
Based on the raw data it's clear that blindly following the advice of the 20-20 systems in Triple Crown races this year was not a profitable exercise. My apologies to anyone who may have used this data to their own harm. Of course sightless subservience to a statistical system was never the ultimate intent of the project, but it's the only way to consistently judge the value of the system. In a perfect world I would love to have something that allows me to win with my eyes closed. Then if I opened my eyes I could do all the better!
The perfect qualifiers all managed to finish among the top 4, some at decent prices but you still would have lost money by focusing solely on them in the win pool. Rachel Alexandra was the only winner among the five that looked perfectly positioned for victory.
Still it was not all doom and gloom. In every Triple Crown race of 2009 3 of the 4 top finishers were ranked in top half of the field. 8 of the 12 Triple Crown superfecta finishers had just one strike or less against them. It's just a shame that Mine That Bird had so many strikes against him in the Derby. He was certainly the statistically most unlikely Derby winner of the modern era. The data on him clearly did not reflect the quality he had.
Looking towards next year there is always the goal of honing each system to be as accurate as possible. The Belmont and Preakness systems are specifically likely to undergo some subtle changes simply because these were the first released versions. It will likely take years to mold them into proper, reliable profiles.
I've spent a fair bit of time talking about my 20-20 systems which are statistical profiles. They're intended to give the viewer a clearer view of the respective chances of each entrant based on how they measure up with the historical profiles. Now that the Triple Crown is over it's time to lay out the results.
We'll start with the quick facts about the 20-20 systems for each Triple Crown race this year.
Belmont
20-20 All Wager - $54.00
Returned - $90.30
Perfect Qualifiers - Charitable Man (4th)
Preakness
20-20 All Wager - $71.00
Returned - $30.80
Perfect Qualifiers - Rachel Alexandra (1st - $5.60) Musket Man (3rd)
Kentucky Derby
20-20 All Wager - $179.00
Returned - $0
Perfect Qualifiers - Musket Man (3rd) Papa Clem (4th)
Perfect Qualifiers
Record: 5-1-0-2
Win/Loss: -$4.40 (-44.00%)
Average Odds: 9.74/1
Based on the raw data it's clear that blindly following the advice of the 20-20 systems in Triple Crown races this year was not a profitable exercise. My apologies to anyone who may have used this data to their own harm. Of course sightless subservience to a statistical system was never the ultimate intent of the project, but it's the only way to consistently judge the value of the system. In a perfect world I would love to have something that allows me to win with my eyes closed. Then if I opened my eyes I could do all the better!
The perfect qualifiers all managed to finish among the top 4, some at decent prices but you still would have lost money by focusing solely on them in the win pool. Rachel Alexandra was the only winner among the five that looked perfectly positioned for victory.
Still it was not all doom and gloom. In every Triple Crown race of 2009 3 of the 4 top finishers were ranked in top half of the field. 8 of the 12 Triple Crown superfecta finishers had just one strike or less against them. It's just a shame that Mine That Bird had so many strikes against him in the Derby. He was certainly the statistically most unlikely Derby winner of the modern era. The data on him clearly did not reflect the quality he had.
Looking towards next year there is always the goal of honing each system to be as accurate as possible. The Belmont and Preakness systems are specifically likely to undergo some subtle changes simply because these were the first released versions. It will likely take years to mold them into proper, reliable profiles.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Belmont 20-20
This week has been one of indulgence. My wife and I generally devote a good deal of time to staying fit. We hit the gym, play semi-competitive soccer and my wife has even begun to run in long distance races. But not this week, this week we've been watching old JAG episodes and working our way through two tubs of ice cream. Almost like a mini vacation right here at home.
I suspect the Kennedy household week of indulgence will continue right through to Saturday night because no week devoted to pleasure could be devoid of horse racing. The Belmont Stakes and undercard is as tasty as the finest fudge crackle I've been sampling. Another favorite thing of mine will come into play this weekend and that is the maiden launch of my new Belmont 20-20 system. My goal was to have a 20-20 system ready for all three Triple Crown races this year. The Derby model worked out okay without being profitable while the Preakness was just about dead on. I'm not sure what to expect from the Belmont. It's such a wild and varied race, it was unlike any race I've looked into before.
In case this is the first time you've heard of anything of this nature the 20-20 systems are statistically based handicapping systems that can help you pinpoint exactly which horses fit the historical and statistical mold of past winners. The name 20-20 is derived from the fact that my first version of the Derby system had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. It seemed to fit well since the goal of the system is to see the entire field ranked in order of probability, hopefully with the most likely winners towards the top. Although the model is very different the concept is similar to what you'd find at The Downey Profile or Crushing the Cup.
I have been working on the concept in the Kentucky Derby and Breeders' Cup since 2003. The first working models were published online in 2006. Since then I've dabbled around with races like the Preakness, Belmont, Epsom Derby, Santa Anita Handicap and the Woodbine Mile. My hope is to eventually have 20-20 profiles for many of the major stakes events in North America.
I do not have as much back data for the Belmont as I do for the Derby and Breeders' Cup. It was only possible to create a profile from the year 2000 and onwards. I also threw it together in a few weeks as opposed to the several years it took me for the other projects. So as I share the results here I do warn you that this is still a work in progress.
Without further ado you can check out the results of the Belmont 20-20. Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance factor #10 has to do with Tomlinson Distance Ratings and the ratings themselves denote that certain horses have an insufficient sample size to draw an accurate conclusion. It doesn't seem fair to award or subtract points based on inconclusive data.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. You may notice the column entitled "WAGER". That is simply a guideline to show me if the points assigned by the statistical system are actually worthwhile. The theory is that you could bet the designated amount to win on each entrant and that would hopefully give you a chance to make money without even thinking. In the Belmont you'd have made 219.59% from betting the system blindly and outperformed equal win wagering on all contenders by an astonishing 122%. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system. It's merely an attempt to help shape your thinking.
One way I like to use the system is to focus on the horses that are "perfect" qualifiers. That is, those horses with no strikes against them. You can see from the small table on the side of the spreadsheet that there have been 11 perfect qualifiers in the Belmont not including Charitable Man this year. Those 11 horses combined for a 11-6-2-0 record in the Belmont and would have yielded a 1069% ROI.
Payouts in the Belmont have been massive. No race I've studied has had such a healthy dose of longshot winners in it's recent history. Simply betting every horse in the race since the year 2000 would have made you a 97% profit. In other words almost anyone could turn a profit in this race if they stayed away from the favorites. Still favorites have gone 9-2-3-1 during that time and are definitely useful in the exotics.
It is interesting that none of the four horses that had a chance at the Triple Crown were well regarded by the system. There is no factor written into the system that automatically eliminates Triple Crown candidates it just so happened that none of them fit the historical mold. Some lacked experience over the track, some were over the edge fitness wise and War Emblem was simply not bred for it, among other things.
Charitable Man is the horse tabbed by the system this year as the only Perfect Qualifier. He is already going to be the hot horse on the board. I can't remember this much hype around a non Triple Crown race winner in the Belmont since Empire Maker. Let's hope he does as well as Bobby Frankel's colt did.
Calvin Borel may have guaranteed victory on Mine That Bird but he certainly isn't the most obvious choice from a statistical point of view. Mine That Bird is ranked in the lower half of the field. Ironically his father Birdstone was the only horse to win the Belmont while ranked in the lower half of the field by the 20-20 system.
The system is far from infallible, especially since this is the first version of it but if anyone is interested in checking out the past results of other projects you may notice that the Derby 20-20 and Preakness 20-20 are available in the same spreadsheet as the Belmont 20-20. You can also check out the Breeders' Cup 20-20 if you like.
I suspect the Kennedy household week of indulgence will continue right through to Saturday night because no week devoted to pleasure could be devoid of horse racing. The Belmont Stakes and undercard is as tasty as the finest fudge crackle I've been sampling. Another favorite thing of mine will come into play this weekend and that is the maiden launch of my new Belmont 20-20 system. My goal was to have a 20-20 system ready for all three Triple Crown races this year. The Derby model worked out okay without being profitable while the Preakness was just about dead on. I'm not sure what to expect from the Belmont. It's such a wild and varied race, it was unlike any race I've looked into before.
In case this is the first time you've heard of anything of this nature the 20-20 systems are statistically based handicapping systems that can help you pinpoint exactly which horses fit the historical and statistical mold of past winners. The name 20-20 is derived from the fact that my first version of the Derby system had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. It seemed to fit well since the goal of the system is to see the entire field ranked in order of probability, hopefully with the most likely winners towards the top. Although the model is very different the concept is similar to what you'd find at The Downey Profile or Crushing the Cup.
I have been working on the concept in the Kentucky Derby and Breeders' Cup since 2003. The first working models were published online in 2006. Since then I've dabbled around with races like the Preakness, Belmont, Epsom Derby, Santa Anita Handicap and the Woodbine Mile. My hope is to eventually have 20-20 profiles for many of the major stakes events in North America.
I do not have as much back data for the Belmont as I do for the Derby and Breeders' Cup. It was only possible to create a profile from the year 2000 and onwards. I also threw it together in a few weeks as opposed to the several years it took me for the other projects. So as I share the results here I do warn you that this is still a work in progress.
Without further ado you can check out the results of the Belmont 20-20. Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance factor #10 has to do with Tomlinson Distance Ratings and the ratings themselves denote that certain horses have an insufficient sample size to draw an accurate conclusion. It doesn't seem fair to award or subtract points based on inconclusive data.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. You may notice the column entitled "WAGER". That is simply a guideline to show me if the points assigned by the statistical system are actually worthwhile. The theory is that you could bet the designated amount to win on each entrant and that would hopefully give you a chance to make money without even thinking. In the Belmont you'd have made 219.59% from betting the system blindly and outperformed equal win wagering on all contenders by an astonishing 122%. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system. It's merely an attempt to help shape your thinking.
One way I like to use the system is to focus on the horses that are "perfect" qualifiers. That is, those horses with no strikes against them. You can see from the small table on the side of the spreadsheet that there have been 11 perfect qualifiers in the Belmont not including Charitable Man this year. Those 11 horses combined for a 11-6-2-0 record in the Belmont and would have yielded a 1069% ROI.
Payouts in the Belmont have been massive. No race I've studied has had such a healthy dose of longshot winners in it's recent history. Simply betting every horse in the race since the year 2000 would have made you a 97% profit. In other words almost anyone could turn a profit in this race if they stayed away from the favorites. Still favorites have gone 9-2-3-1 during that time and are definitely useful in the exotics.
It is interesting that none of the four horses that had a chance at the Triple Crown were well regarded by the system. There is no factor written into the system that automatically eliminates Triple Crown candidates it just so happened that none of them fit the historical mold. Some lacked experience over the track, some were over the edge fitness wise and War Emblem was simply not bred for it, among other things.
Charitable Man is the horse tabbed by the system this year as the only Perfect Qualifier. He is already going to be the hot horse on the board. I can't remember this much hype around a non Triple Crown race winner in the Belmont since Empire Maker. Let's hope he does as well as Bobby Frankel's colt did.
Calvin Borel may have guaranteed victory on Mine That Bird but he certainly isn't the most obvious choice from a statistical point of view. Mine That Bird is ranked in the lower half of the field. Ironically his father Birdstone was the only horse to win the Belmont while ranked in the lower half of the field by the 20-20 system.
The system is far from infallible, especially since this is the first version of it but if anyone is interested in checking out the past results of other projects you may notice that the Derby 20-20 and Preakness 20-20 are available in the same spreadsheet as the Belmont 20-20. You can also check out the Breeders' Cup 20-20 if you like.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Preakness 20-20
Over the past several weeks I've taken on a new project that I feel may eventually be of some benefit to those that bother to read this space.
As I've shared in the past perhaps my favorite racing related project is the 20-20 systems. My spare time that is dedicated to racing is likely split 50-50. Half the time I'm working on stats, ideas and theories for the 20-20 systems and the other half of the time I'm doing everything else. That includes handicapping, writing on this blog and the Thoroughbred Champions message board as well as keeping the TCR systems up to date.
The amount of time I spend on the 20-20 projects is grossly disproportional to the amount of space I dedicate to them in this blog. Just 27 posts from my 661 entries have dealt with the subject but I have decided, where appropriate, to start trying to inject those projects in here on a more regular basis.
For those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about the 20-20 systems are statistically based handicapping systems that can help you pinpoint exactly which horses fit the historical and statistical mold of past winners. The name 20-20 is derived from the fact that my first version of the Derby system had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. It seemed to fit well since the goal of the system is to see the entire field ranked in order of probability, hopefully with the most likely winners towards the top.
I have been working on the concept in the Kentucky Derby and Breeders' Cup since 2003. The first working models were mentioned online in 2006. Since then I've dabbled around with races like the Belmont, Epsom Derby, Santa Anita Handicap and the Woodbine Mile but never with the Preakness. A few weeks ago I decided to set my hand to the forgotten middle leg of the Triple Crown.
I do not have as much back data for the Preakness as I do for other events. It was only possible to create a profile from the year 2000 and onwards. I also threw it together in a few weeks as opposed to the several years it took me for the other projects. So as I share the results here I do warn you that this is still a work in progress.
Without further ado you can check out the results of the Preakness 20-20. Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance factor #4 has to do with average closing fractions and Big Drama did not have any race beyond 7f this season so his closing fractions can't be compared with the rest of the field. You can't assume he closed fast enough but you also can't really fault him.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. You may notice the column entitled "WAGER". That is simply a guideline to show me if the points assigned by the statistical system are actually worthwhile. The theory is that you could bet the designated amount to win on each entrant and that would hopefully give you a chance to make money without even thinking. In the Preakness you'd have made 7.20% from betting the system blindly and outperformed equal win wagering on all contenders by a good 62%. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system. It's merely an attempt to help shape your thinking.
One way I like to use the system is to focus on the horses that are "perfect" qualifiers. That is, those horses with no strikes against them. You can see from the small table on the side of the spreadsheet that there have been 14 perfect qualifiers in the Preakness and 8 of them were winners and another 3 hit the frame. That could have been good for a 181.43% profit.
One of the first things one notices about the Preakness is that it's usually won by a logical contender. From 2000 to the present there have only been two winners that were more than 5/1. You can see from the data included that if someone had simply bet every horse in the Preakness in the new millennium they'd be down -55.52%. The Derby by comparison is a much more generous -6.52%. There are prices to be had in the Derby, not so in the Preakness. At least not recently. So it automatically begs the question. Why would anyone need a system to point out the obvious horses?
I gave this matter a fair bit of thought and came up with this answer. It is useful to place special emphasis on the obvious horses if it keeps you from spending money on the interesting horses. If I could identify one thing in handicapping that has cost me the most it's turning away from the obvious horses because they were 3/1 and going for an interesting horse that was 12/1. I'm not saying to ignore value and bet the favorite but sometimes the obvious horse is the best horse to be betting on because they're the most likely winner.
If you peruse through the Preakness 20-20 you may notice that certain interesting horses like Gayego, Brother Derek, Circular Quay, High Fly, Lion Heart and Peace Rules were all ruled out from being perfect qualifiers. While obvious horses like Big Brown, War Emblem, Funny Cide and Curlin came to the top.
This year it seems like the obvious horses are Musket Man and Rachel Alexandra. Friesan Fire, Big Drama and Pioneerof the Nile don't come out looking as good while Papa Clem and Mine That Bird are just one factor short of being perfect qualifiers.
The system is far from infallible, especially since this is the first version of it but if anyone is interested in checking out the past results of other projects you may notice that the Derby 20-20 is available in the same spreadsheet as the Preakness 20-20. You can also check out the Breeders' Cup 20-20 if you like.
As I've shared in the past perhaps my favorite racing related project is the 20-20 systems. My spare time that is dedicated to racing is likely split 50-50. Half the time I'm working on stats, ideas and theories for the 20-20 systems and the other half of the time I'm doing everything else. That includes handicapping, writing on this blog and the Thoroughbred Champions message board as well as keeping the TCR systems up to date.
The amount of time I spend on the 20-20 projects is grossly disproportional to the amount of space I dedicate to them in this blog. Just 27 posts from my 661 entries have dealt with the subject but I have decided, where appropriate, to start trying to inject those projects in here on a more regular basis.
For those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about the 20-20 systems are statistically based handicapping systems that can help you pinpoint exactly which horses fit the historical and statistical mold of past winners. The name 20-20 is derived from the fact that my first version of the Derby system had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. It seemed to fit well since the goal of the system is to see the entire field ranked in order of probability, hopefully with the most likely winners towards the top.
I have been working on the concept in the Kentucky Derby and Breeders' Cup since 2003. The first working models were mentioned online in 2006. Since then I've dabbled around with races like the Belmont, Epsom Derby, Santa Anita Handicap and the Woodbine Mile but never with the Preakness. A few weeks ago I decided to set my hand to the forgotten middle leg of the Triple Crown.
I do not have as much back data for the Preakness as I do for other events. It was only possible to create a profile from the year 2000 and onwards. I also threw it together in a few weeks as opposed to the several years it took me for the other projects. So as I share the results here I do warn you that this is still a work in progress.
Without further ado you can check out the results of the Preakness 20-20. Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance factor #4 has to do with average closing fractions and Big Drama did not have any race beyond 7f this season so his closing fractions can't be compared with the rest of the field. You can't assume he closed fast enough but you also can't really fault him.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. You may notice the column entitled "WAGER". That is simply a guideline to show me if the points assigned by the statistical system are actually worthwhile. The theory is that you could bet the designated amount to win on each entrant and that would hopefully give you a chance to make money without even thinking. In the Preakness you'd have made 7.20% from betting the system blindly and outperformed equal win wagering on all contenders by a good 62%. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system. It's merely an attempt to help shape your thinking.
One way I like to use the system is to focus on the horses that are "perfect" qualifiers. That is, those horses with no strikes against them. You can see from the small table on the side of the spreadsheet that there have been 14 perfect qualifiers in the Preakness and 8 of them were winners and another 3 hit the frame. That could have been good for a 181.43% profit.
One of the first things one notices about the Preakness is that it's usually won by a logical contender. From 2000 to the present there have only been two winners that were more than 5/1. You can see from the data included that if someone had simply bet every horse in the Preakness in the new millennium they'd be down -55.52%. The Derby by comparison is a much more generous -6.52%. There are prices to be had in the Derby, not so in the Preakness. At least not recently. So it automatically begs the question. Why would anyone need a system to point out the obvious horses?
I gave this matter a fair bit of thought and came up with this answer. It is useful to place special emphasis on the obvious horses if it keeps you from spending money on the interesting horses. If I could identify one thing in handicapping that has cost me the most it's turning away from the obvious horses because they were 3/1 and going for an interesting horse that was 12/1. I'm not saying to ignore value and bet the favorite but sometimes the obvious horse is the best horse to be betting on because they're the most likely winner.
If you peruse through the Preakness 20-20 you may notice that certain interesting horses like Gayego, Brother Derek, Circular Quay, High Fly, Lion Heart and Peace Rules were all ruled out from being perfect qualifiers. While obvious horses like Big Brown, War Emblem, Funny Cide and Curlin came to the top.
This year it seems like the obvious horses are Musket Man and Rachel Alexandra. Friesan Fire, Big Drama and Pioneerof the Nile don't come out looking as good while Papa Clem and Mine That Bird are just one factor short of being perfect qualifiers.
The system is far from infallible, especially since this is the first version of it but if anyone is interested in checking out the past results of other projects you may notice that the Derby 20-20 is available in the same spreadsheet as the Preakness 20-20. You can also check out the Breeders' Cup 20-20 if you like.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
What On Earth Happened?
Horse racing is one of the most difficult games on earth to figure out. Week after week you break down races and play the probability that certain elements of past form will translate into future success. Most of time you either win or are beaten by a horse that you could have made a case for.
Longshots have won the Derby before. There was Giacomo, Charismatic, Thunder Gulch, War Emblem and even Sea Hero. None of them were without weaknesses but upon reflection there were some positive points to pick out. Not every handicapper feels as if their mind was blown and their world was shaken because they can explain the performance somewhat retroactively.
I don't see any of this being true this year. Mine That Bird truly came out of nowhere and there were virtually no clues about this ability beforehand. He was not the longest shot on the board, Join In The Dance and Atomic Rain both started at longer odds and I could have rationalized a win by either of them but even looking back there is nothing about Mine That Bird to like.
The only positive angle that I came up with on this horse is the somewhat cheeky anti-Dosage angle. I've mentioned it several times in this space that I think Dosage is overrated and useless as a predictive factor. From 1996 to the present there has been just 27 horses that ran in the Derby than did not have a Dosage index of less than 4.00. So virtually 18 of the 20 starters each year can apparently win according to the Dosage theory. A blind cat could randomly toss two horses each year and still usually have the winner. The interesting thing about the anti Dosage angle is that it has actually been extremely profitable to play. 27 horses and 4 winners in the last 14 runnings including Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Charismatic and Real Quiet. That's the three longest priced winners of the last two decades! If you're going for a longshot make sure you check out the anti-dosage angle.
Realistically I don't think this breakout performance will ever by fully explained. We want to find complicated reasons why it may have happened but he simply ran faster than everyone else that day. The morning of the Derby, once I Want Revenge had scratched, I wrote a quick post about how I thought the complexion of the Derby had changed. My conclusion was that when you remove all the fast horses from a race it becomes a weak race and it opens up to everyone. I think that was more or less what happened. Quality Road, I Want Revenge, Win Willy and even horses like Old Fashioned and The Pamplemousse would have made this race faster. Slow horses win less often when in the presence of fast horses.
Aside from Mine That Bird being 6 lengths ahead of everyone else I thought the Derby was pretty formful. There was a tight three horse finish for second place between three contenders that made a lot of sense. Although Mine That Bird was the worst ranked winner on record according to the 20-20 system I don't think the year was a complete loss for the statistical profile. Mine That Bird was simply an anomaly and no statistical system would ever pick up a winner like that. However if you took him out of the equation the 20-20 system would have had the top four finishers among it's top six contenders. So although it was not a great year for stats and profiles I think there is still cause to be optimistic about the project as a whole.
No explanation will ever be fully sufficient in my mind other than recognizing that sometimes things just happen in racing and one horse is faster than all the others on that day. Thankfully we don't have to deal with out of the blue winners like this too often in our high profile races. I see a response from a lot of people that goes something like this "Speed figures are useless" "Experts know nothing" "Throw out the form and just pick who you like". I don't think any of those are intelligent responses. Picking winners is all about probability and even good handicappers are wrong 70% of the time. This race was one of those 7 out of 10. It's no reason for a change of approach, just a recognition of the oxymoron that anomalies are common in racing.
Longshots have won the Derby before. There was Giacomo, Charismatic, Thunder Gulch, War Emblem and even Sea Hero. None of them were without weaknesses but upon reflection there were some positive points to pick out. Not every handicapper feels as if their mind was blown and their world was shaken because they can explain the performance somewhat retroactively.
I don't see any of this being true this year. Mine That Bird truly came out of nowhere and there were virtually no clues about this ability beforehand. He was not the longest shot on the board, Join In The Dance and Atomic Rain both started at longer odds and I could have rationalized a win by either of them but even looking back there is nothing about Mine That Bird to like.
The only positive angle that I came up with on this horse is the somewhat cheeky anti-Dosage angle. I've mentioned it several times in this space that I think Dosage is overrated and useless as a predictive factor. From 1996 to the present there has been just 27 horses that ran in the Derby than did not have a Dosage index of less than 4.00. So virtually 18 of the 20 starters each year can apparently win according to the Dosage theory. A blind cat could randomly toss two horses each year and still usually have the winner. The interesting thing about the anti Dosage angle is that it has actually been extremely profitable to play. 27 horses and 4 winners in the last 14 runnings including Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Charismatic and Real Quiet. That's the three longest priced winners of the last two decades! If you're going for a longshot make sure you check out the anti-dosage angle.
Realistically I don't think this breakout performance will ever by fully explained. We want to find complicated reasons why it may have happened but he simply ran faster than everyone else that day. The morning of the Derby, once I Want Revenge had scratched, I wrote a quick post about how I thought the complexion of the Derby had changed. My conclusion was that when you remove all the fast horses from a race it becomes a weak race and it opens up to everyone. I think that was more or less what happened. Quality Road, I Want Revenge, Win Willy and even horses like Old Fashioned and The Pamplemousse would have made this race faster. Slow horses win less often when in the presence of fast horses.
Aside from Mine That Bird being 6 lengths ahead of everyone else I thought the Derby was pretty formful. There was a tight three horse finish for second place between three contenders that made a lot of sense. Although Mine That Bird was the worst ranked winner on record according to the 20-20 system I don't think the year was a complete loss for the statistical profile. Mine That Bird was simply an anomaly and no statistical system would ever pick up a winner like that. However if you took him out of the equation the 20-20 system would have had the top four finishers among it's top six contenders. So although it was not a great year for stats and profiles I think there is still cause to be optimistic about the project as a whole.
No explanation will ever be fully sufficient in my mind other than recognizing that sometimes things just happen in racing and one horse is faster than all the others on that day. Thankfully we don't have to deal with out of the blue winners like this too often in our high profile races. I see a response from a lot of people that goes something like this "Speed figures are useless" "Experts know nothing" "Throw out the form and just pick who you like". I don't think any of those are intelligent responses. Picking winners is all about probability and even good handicappers are wrong 70% of the time. This race was one of those 7 out of 10. It's no reason for a change of approach, just a recognition of the oxymoron that anomalies are common in racing.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Brand New Complexion
The news that Derby favorite I Want Revenge is out of the race totally changes the race. I thought it significant enough to come back here and reanalyze everything. The biggest change that his absence makes is that this Derby is no longer a terribly fast one. I Want Revenge, Quality Road, Win Willy, Old Fashioned and The Pamplemousse are some of the horses that made this crop look spectacular but none of them will be in the Derby.
My figures now show that this is marginally the slowest Derby on record. Last years average winning Beyer figure earned by derby starters was 95.56, this year it comes out to 95.43 with the removal of I Want Revenge. This crop has fast horses but very few of them are in the Derby in fact the Derby looks like a weak race.
This totally changes the way I look at and even horses like Pioneerof the Nile come back into consideration. I'm going to be spreading deeply across probably 8 selections in some way for multi race wagers. In my previous post I wrote about my Derby six and other than I Want Revenge the rest of those horses (Dunkirk, Papa Clem, Friesan Fire, Hold Me Back, Regal Ransom) still catch my fancy. But given the change in race complexion I'm forced to take some others into consideration. Musket Man is a horse I've been ignoring all week because I thought he was too slow and his breeding is suspect. Now it turns out the race is slow so he's more than fast enough. His breeding is still a concern but he has no other real flaws. West Side Bernie moves up a notch as well. I know he is not a winner and he flattens out at a distance but look at his last 3 Beyers in dirt routes: 101, 92, 94. That makes him more than good enough. He's a Giacomo sort of horse. Good enough to hang around and earn solid numbers but would be heartily scorned if he managed to win a big race like this. He's worth using underneath. I reluctantly have to give some mention to Pioneerof the Nile as well. The removal of fast horses improves the chances of slow horses and he's definitely the most consistent slow horse in the race. He's a winner and while I prefer Dunkirk and Friesan Fire's speed it's easy to conceive one or two horses running poorly in the Derby. If they both happen to run worse than expected Pioneerof the Nile is more than capable.
The official pick is now Papa Clem with Dunkirk a close second and for the purposes of my handicapping both of them will count as selections. I'd also use Musket Man and Friesan Fire as hedges but not as official win selections.
I've updated the 20-20 system to include the most current changes to the Derby field so people can check that out if they like.
I'll also be following the entire card via my Pick 6 spreadsheet. You can see how some of my analysis here translates into actual rankings and selection.
My figures now show that this is marginally the slowest Derby on record. Last years average winning Beyer figure earned by derby starters was 95.56, this year it comes out to 95.43 with the removal of I Want Revenge. This crop has fast horses but very few of them are in the Derby in fact the Derby looks like a weak race.
This totally changes the way I look at and even horses like Pioneerof the Nile come back into consideration. I'm going to be spreading deeply across probably 8 selections in some way for multi race wagers. In my previous post I wrote about my Derby six and other than I Want Revenge the rest of those horses (Dunkirk, Papa Clem, Friesan Fire, Hold Me Back, Regal Ransom) still catch my fancy. But given the change in race complexion I'm forced to take some others into consideration. Musket Man is a horse I've been ignoring all week because I thought he was too slow and his breeding is suspect. Now it turns out the race is slow so he's more than fast enough. His breeding is still a concern but he has no other real flaws. West Side Bernie moves up a notch as well. I know he is not a winner and he flattens out at a distance but look at his last 3 Beyers in dirt routes: 101, 92, 94. That makes him more than good enough. He's a Giacomo sort of horse. Good enough to hang around and earn solid numbers but would be heartily scorned if he managed to win a big race like this. He's worth using underneath. I reluctantly have to give some mention to Pioneerof the Nile as well. The removal of fast horses improves the chances of slow horses and he's definitely the most consistent slow horse in the race. He's a winner and while I prefer Dunkirk and Friesan Fire's speed it's easy to conceive one or two horses running poorly in the Derby. If they both happen to run worse than expected Pioneerof the Nile is more than capable.
The official pick is now Papa Clem with Dunkirk a close second and for the purposes of my handicapping both of them will count as selections. I'd also use Musket Man and Friesan Fire as hedges but not as official win selections.
I've updated the 20-20 system to include the most current changes to the Derby field so people can check that out if they like.
I'll also be following the entire card via my Pick 6 spreadsheet. You can see how some of my analysis here translates into actual rankings and selection.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
20-20 Derby Vision - Part 3
For those who missed Part 1 and Part 2, this series of posts deals outlining the factors included in my Derby 20-20 statistical system. It assigns points to each Derby entrant based on how they fit into statistical criteria. Some say statistics with the Derby are outdated and useless, my contention is that they are merely misunderstood. You can decide for yourself how valuable this information is and how you may want to use it.
It is worth noting that system does not include any jinxes or curses and there are very few arbitrary lines drawn. For instance you will find no factor that specifically requires a certain amount of preps or even a pre-determined layoff length. All the factors have to do with speed, fitness, form, class, experience, suitability and breeding. So lets get back to the actual factors. Remember all stats quoted are from 1996 to the present unless otherwise stated.
#13 The entrant must have at least one prep race at nine furlongs. This factor deals with the entrant’s experience. Could a horse stay 10f without having prepped at 9f? Sure they could, they are merely not as tested and generally less likely. Derby entrants need a good solid 9f prep race. Horses who did not prep at 9f went 17-0-1-0 in the Derby.
Friesan Fire like his stablemate Eight Belles last year is the only contender that failed to satisfy this criteria.
#14 The entrant must have faced a field size of 10 or more as a three year old, or the entrant must have done so at least twice as a two year old. The Derby has large fields and the entrants need to have experience with traffic and such. I prefer that the experience come in stakes races as a 3yo but a horse cannot control who is entered against them. I require two races of 10 or more as a 2yo because most maidens have large fields, yet many of them are won wire to wire so the entrant would not have necessarily gained much experience. Getting bumped and blocked is commonplace in the Derby, those who tried to win the Derby without sufficient experience in large fields went 36-0-4-3.
No one is affected by this factor this year, all have them seem to have sufficient experience in large fields.
#15 Highest Lifetime Beyer must be achieved in a two turn race. This is a pretty straightforward measurement of suitability to the Derby conditions. We don't want sprinters in the Derby, a quality distance horse will be faster in longer races than they were at short distances. 17 horses entered the Derby with this factor going against them and just one of them (Proud Citizen) managed to do himself any credit with a second place finish (19-0-1-0)
All the entrants in this years Derby managed to earn higher two turn figures than one turn figures except of course for the Godolphin pair who were once again exempt from this factor.
#16 The entrants sire or broodmare sire must show a progeny average stakes winning distance of 8.00f or more. Only North American stakes races are included in this measurement of AWD. This is the only aspect of breeding I consider. Dosage is misleading but this factor looks directly at how the sire and broodmare sires best runners have fared in stakes races. If they are predominantly sprinters the average will show less than 8f and a sprinters pedigree is not ideal for winning the Derby. Horses whose sire and broodmare sire have less than 5 stakes runners are not included and therefore those horses are given a pass. The cumulative record of non-qualifiers is 24-0-1-1. Horses like Street Sense and Monarchos were given passes because of insufficient data on their sires at the time.
West Side Bernie unfortunately does not have a pedigree that suggests distance. Neither does Musket Man but he narrowly evades a strike against because there really is insufficient data on Yonaguska. However I think that with the passage of time his sire will prove to be of little influence in the stamina department.
So there you have it, the complete Derby 20-20 system. You can see how these combined factors scored the past 13 Derby's by clicking this link. Hopefully the results are in line with the systems predictions this year because it’s good to keep in mind that although something sounds great and works well in the past it is only useful if it works well going forward. Hopefully over the next 3-5 years we’ll be able to get a picture of how it holds up.
Observations based on the 20-20 system
I consider Speed, Fitness and Form to be the most important of the 7 factors. Those 3 make up 10 of the 16 factors and thus give those areas slightly more weight than Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
Horses running on all weather surfaces once again struggled to measure up to the speed standards and this is perhaps more proof of the fact that Beyer Speed Figures seem lower than their equivalents on dirt. I suspect that horses like Pioneerof the Nile, Chocolate Candy and Hold Me Back are faster than the numbers suggest but even if they are they might not be fast enough to win.
The top horses according to the system are I Want Revenge and Papa Clem. Both are perfect qualifiers. Personally I'm a bit shocked to see Papa Clem rated so highly, he is not a horse that has caught my fancy but many of the perfect qualifiers were at longer odds and did manage to perform admirably.
Nowhere to Hide should have stayed in the barn.
Advice is the worst winner of a major prep race.
There is a large group of horses with no strikes or just one against them. 7 horses in all, it may be useful to have those 7 among your wagers. 1999 was the last time we had so many horses with so few strikes against them. From a statistical profile standpoint this is a very strong Derby.
It is worth noting that system does not include any jinxes or curses and there are very few arbitrary lines drawn. For instance you will find no factor that specifically requires a certain amount of preps or even a pre-determined layoff length. All the factors have to do with speed, fitness, form, class, experience, suitability and breeding. So lets get back to the actual factors. Remember all stats quoted are from 1996 to the present unless otherwise stated.
#13 The entrant must have at least one prep race at nine furlongs. This factor deals with the entrant’s experience. Could a horse stay 10f without having prepped at 9f? Sure they could, they are merely not as tested and generally less likely. Derby entrants need a good solid 9f prep race. Horses who did not prep at 9f went 17-0-1-0 in the Derby.
Friesan Fire like his stablemate Eight Belles last year is the only contender that failed to satisfy this criteria.
#14 The entrant must have faced a field size of 10 or more as a three year old, or the entrant must have done so at least twice as a two year old. The Derby has large fields and the entrants need to have experience with traffic and such. I prefer that the experience come in stakes races as a 3yo but a horse cannot control who is entered against them. I require two races of 10 or more as a 2yo because most maidens have large fields, yet many of them are won wire to wire so the entrant would not have necessarily gained much experience. Getting bumped and blocked is commonplace in the Derby, those who tried to win the Derby without sufficient experience in large fields went 36-0-4-3.
No one is affected by this factor this year, all have them seem to have sufficient experience in large fields.
#15 Highest Lifetime Beyer must be achieved in a two turn race. This is a pretty straightforward measurement of suitability to the Derby conditions. We don't want sprinters in the Derby, a quality distance horse will be faster in longer races than they were at short distances. 17 horses entered the Derby with this factor going against them and just one of them (Proud Citizen) managed to do himself any credit with a second place finish (19-0-1-0)
All the entrants in this years Derby managed to earn higher two turn figures than one turn figures except of course for the Godolphin pair who were once again exempt from this factor.
#16 The entrants sire or broodmare sire must show a progeny average stakes winning distance of 8.00f or more. Only North American stakes races are included in this measurement of AWD. This is the only aspect of breeding I consider. Dosage is misleading but this factor looks directly at how the sire and broodmare sires best runners have fared in stakes races. If they are predominantly sprinters the average will show less than 8f and a sprinters pedigree is not ideal for winning the Derby. Horses whose sire and broodmare sire have less than 5 stakes runners are not included and therefore those horses are given a pass. The cumulative record of non-qualifiers is 24-0-1-1. Horses like Street Sense and Monarchos were given passes because of insufficient data on their sires at the time.
West Side Bernie unfortunately does not have a pedigree that suggests distance. Neither does Musket Man but he narrowly evades a strike against because there really is insufficient data on Yonaguska. However I think that with the passage of time his sire will prove to be of little influence in the stamina department.
So there you have it, the complete Derby 20-20 system. You can see how these combined factors scored the past 13 Derby's by clicking this link. Hopefully the results are in line with the systems predictions this year because it’s good to keep in mind that although something sounds great and works well in the past it is only useful if it works well going forward. Hopefully over the next 3-5 years we’ll be able to get a picture of how it holds up.
Observations based on the 20-20 system
I consider Speed, Fitness and Form to be the most important of the 7 factors. Those 3 make up 10 of the 16 factors and thus give those areas slightly more weight than Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
Horses running on all weather surfaces once again struggled to measure up to the speed standards and this is perhaps more proof of the fact that Beyer Speed Figures seem lower than their equivalents on dirt. I suspect that horses like Pioneerof the Nile, Chocolate Candy and Hold Me Back are faster than the numbers suggest but even if they are they might not be fast enough to win.
The top horses according to the system are I Want Revenge and Papa Clem. Both are perfect qualifiers. Personally I'm a bit shocked to see Papa Clem rated so highly, he is not a horse that has caught my fancy but many of the perfect qualifiers were at longer odds and did manage to perform admirably.
Nowhere to Hide should have stayed in the barn.
Advice is the worst winner of a major prep race.
There is a large group of horses with no strikes or just one against them. 7 horses in all, it may be useful to have those 7 among your wagers. 1999 was the last time we had so many horses with so few strikes against them. From a statistical profile standpoint this is a very strong Derby.
20-20 Derby Vision - Part 2
If you missed Part 1 be sure to check it out here: 20-20 Derby Vision - Part 1
Now on with more of the factors that make up the Derby 20-20 system.
#4 The entrants last two prep races must have been run around two turns. Two turn experience is vital for having a horse ready to go 10f in May. Horses with a single prep race around one turn (or less) are 18-1-0-0 in the Derby. Horses like Bellamy Road, Showing Up and Favorite Trick were all non-qualifiers. Big Brown defied this factor last year. He technically had two route preps but one of his route races was run around just one turn. It was the only thing that prevented him from being a perfect qualifier.
Both Regal Ransom and Desert Party have failed to have the required number of two turn preps. Officially Desert Party has never been around two turns and Regal Ransom only did once as a 2yo. The odd configuration of Nad al Sheba prevented that. Part of this factor is about experience and part of it is about fitness. The UAE Derby certainly provides the necessary fitness but a one turn mile like the UAE 2000 Guineas is suspect to me.
#5 The entrants finishing position must be no worse than their position at the 1/8th pole in both final preps. This is the second fitness factor. Derby winners rarely get passed in the stretch. They should be at least able to hold their position through the final 1/8th. The non-qualifiers for this factor were 65-1-3-3 in the Derby. Silver Charm managed to win the Derby after getting passed in the Santa Anita Derby but anyone who saw that race might give him a pass considering that he set blazing fractions and was only nosed out right at the wire.
Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird and Flying Private all failed to hold their position in the stretch in one of their last two races.
#6 The entrant must have run the final 1/8, 1/4 and 3/8th’s faster than or equal to the fields average closing fractions in their last prep. In order to win the Derby you have to finish well. If you’re gasping for breath in the final stages of a 9f race you won’t handle the Derby distance as well. Since virtually the whole field has their last prep at 9f it is easy to compare closing fractions. If a Derby entrant fails to close out any of the final three time frames in less than the average time they’re given a strike. A horse must have run a 9f race to be included and any competitor who was beaten by more than 20 lengths is given a strike against but his fractions are not included in the average calculation. The change to this factor for this year is that dirt races and synthetic races are averaged separately and therefore not compared against each other. Horses that have failed to qualify with this angle are 119-1-7-5 in the Derby.
Here are the averages for the dirt races - 1/8 = :12.6, 1/4 = :25.2, 3/8 = :37.6
Here are the synthetic averages - 1/8 = :12.2, 1/4 = :24.2, 3/8 = :36.3
Pioneerof the Nile, Join The Dance, Flying Private, Advice, Nowhere To Hide, Mr. Hot Stuff and Mine That Bird all failed to qualify and Friesan Fire was given a pass because of the lack of a 9f prep race.
#7 The entrant must have finished in the money in their last prep. This one is an obvious way of judging form. A horse needs to show that they are in fine form and one of the most obvious ways they do that is to finish in the top 3 in their last race. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 56-1-2-1 in the Derby. Giacomo, Invisible Ink, Bluegrass Cat and more recently Denis of Cork all rebounded from out of the money finishes to run well in the Derby.
Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private finished out of the frame so they’re given a strike.
#8 The entrant must either win or finish within three lengths of the winner in their last prep. Seems nearly redundant after viewing factor #7 but there are a few reasons to add this factor. I like the fact that out of form horses are punished for it more than once and this is a far more precise measurement in my opinion. For instance a horse may have run a good race to be a close 4th, conversely some horses are beaten by 10 lengths in their last prep but they managed to be third simply because everyone else who they were facing ran worse. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 91-0-4-2 in the Derby. The best non-qualified performers with this angle were Bluegrass Cat, Invisible Ink, Impeachment, Aptitude, Denis of Cork and Closing Argument.
For this years Derby it means the 20-20 whipping boys Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private all lose another point.
#9 The entrant must have finished in the money in at least two races as a three year old. This value of this factor is two fold. First of all it tries to identify consistency among the entrants, but secondly it also means that a horse with two preps has very little wiggle room. The profile does not have any factor concerning the actual number of prep races. It only makes minimum requirement of what a horse must get from their prep races. In this case it effectively means that any horse with one prep is eliminated and also any horse with two preps who did not run well in both. Of course horses who do poorly over 3 or 4 preps can also be eliminated. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 36-0-1-0 in the Derby. Proud Citizen was the only horse to overcome this factor and run with credit.
That could spell bad news for Mine That Bird and Nowhere To Hide.
#10 The entrants last Beyer Speed Figure cannot be worse than his previous two. This is the last measurement of form. I feel that a horses last three Derby prep races are really the only ones of importance and you don't want the horses worst race to be his most current. I don’t mind slight regression but I want the trend of the speed figures to be up overall. If a horse only had two prep races they can be exempt from this factor. However not all horses with two preps will be exempt. For instance if a horse only has two preps but runs a career high in his last prep race then it’s obvious that his latest figure would not worse than his previous two. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 43-0-1-1 in the Derby. Bluegrass Cat and Imperialism were the only ones to overcome this and run in the frame.
Nowhere To Hide is the only non qualifier with this factor this year. Desert Party and Regal Ransom were given exemptions based on their lack of Beyer Speed Figures. Hold Me Back was also given an exemption. His last prep race did see him earn his lowest figure as a 3yo but he only had two preps. Had he been able to get another prep in he easily could have changed the sequence of his figures. Street Sense was in a similar position a few years back and of course he was also given an exemption from this factor.
#11 The entrant must be a stakes winner. This is the first measurement of class. Not only do we want them running in stakes races, we want them winning them as well. Now they do not have to be Graded Stakes races but I do want my Derby horses to have beaten more than maiden company. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify for this factor is 44-1-2-2. Giacomo of course was just a maiden winner, but the overwhelming majority of these horses ran poorly because most of them simply are not good enough.
Dunkirk may be an exception to the "not good enough" crowd but he still fails with this factor along with Summer Bird, Mr. Hot Stuff, Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private
#12 The entrant must have either won or finished within three lengths of the winner in a Graded Main Track route race as a three year old. A further refinement of factor #11. We do want our Derby entrants to be stakes winner but we also prefer that their class be confirmed by good performances in route races on the Derby trail itself. A horse like Private Vow is case and point of what this factor eliminates. Horses who show some class as 2yo’s but as 3yo’s it is revealed that they no longer belong with the top tier. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify with this factor is 46-0-1-1.
Atomic Rain, Nowhere To Hide and Mine That Bird seem to lack the class to compete in the Derby.
Now on with more of the factors that make up the Derby 20-20 system.
#4 The entrants last two prep races must have been run around two turns. Two turn experience is vital for having a horse ready to go 10f in May. Horses with a single prep race around one turn (or less) are 18-1-0-0 in the Derby. Horses like Bellamy Road, Showing Up and Favorite Trick were all non-qualifiers. Big Brown defied this factor last year. He technically had two route preps but one of his route races was run around just one turn. It was the only thing that prevented him from being a perfect qualifier.
Both Regal Ransom and Desert Party have failed to have the required number of two turn preps. Officially Desert Party has never been around two turns and Regal Ransom only did once as a 2yo. The odd configuration of Nad al Sheba prevented that. Part of this factor is about experience and part of it is about fitness. The UAE Derby certainly provides the necessary fitness but a one turn mile like the UAE 2000 Guineas is suspect to me.
#5 The entrants finishing position must be no worse than their position at the 1/8th pole in both final preps. This is the second fitness factor. Derby winners rarely get passed in the stretch. They should be at least able to hold their position through the final 1/8th. The non-qualifiers for this factor were 65-1-3-3 in the Derby. Silver Charm managed to win the Derby after getting passed in the Santa Anita Derby but anyone who saw that race might give him a pass considering that he set blazing fractions and was only nosed out right at the wire.
Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird and Flying Private all failed to hold their position in the stretch in one of their last two races.
#6 The entrant must have run the final 1/8, 1/4 and 3/8th’s faster than or equal to the fields average closing fractions in their last prep. In order to win the Derby you have to finish well. If you’re gasping for breath in the final stages of a 9f race you won’t handle the Derby distance as well. Since virtually the whole field has their last prep at 9f it is easy to compare closing fractions. If a Derby entrant fails to close out any of the final three time frames in less than the average time they’re given a strike. A horse must have run a 9f race to be included and any competitor who was beaten by more than 20 lengths is given a strike against but his fractions are not included in the average calculation. The change to this factor for this year is that dirt races and synthetic races are averaged separately and therefore not compared against each other. Horses that have failed to qualify with this angle are 119-1-7-5 in the Derby.
Here are the averages for the dirt races - 1/8 = :12.6, 1/4 = :25.2, 3/8 = :37.6
Here are the synthetic averages - 1/8 = :12.2, 1/4 = :24.2, 3/8 = :36.3
Pioneerof the Nile, Join The Dance, Flying Private, Advice, Nowhere To Hide, Mr. Hot Stuff and Mine That Bird all failed to qualify and Friesan Fire was given a pass because of the lack of a 9f prep race.
#7 The entrant must have finished in the money in their last prep. This one is an obvious way of judging form. A horse needs to show that they are in fine form and one of the most obvious ways they do that is to finish in the top 3 in their last race. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 56-1-2-1 in the Derby. Giacomo, Invisible Ink, Bluegrass Cat and more recently Denis of Cork all rebounded from out of the money finishes to run well in the Derby.
Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private finished out of the frame so they’re given a strike.
#8 The entrant must either win or finish within three lengths of the winner in their last prep. Seems nearly redundant after viewing factor #7 but there are a few reasons to add this factor. I like the fact that out of form horses are punished for it more than once and this is a far more precise measurement in my opinion. For instance a horse may have run a good race to be a close 4th, conversely some horses are beaten by 10 lengths in their last prep but they managed to be third simply because everyone else who they were facing ran worse. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 91-0-4-2 in the Derby. The best non-qualified performers with this angle were Bluegrass Cat, Invisible Ink, Impeachment, Aptitude, Denis of Cork and Closing Argument.
For this years Derby it means the 20-20 whipping boys Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private all lose another point.
#9 The entrant must have finished in the money in at least two races as a three year old. This value of this factor is two fold. First of all it tries to identify consistency among the entrants, but secondly it also means that a horse with two preps has very little wiggle room. The profile does not have any factor concerning the actual number of prep races. It only makes minimum requirement of what a horse must get from their prep races. In this case it effectively means that any horse with one prep is eliminated and also any horse with two preps who did not run well in both. Of course horses who do poorly over 3 or 4 preps can also be eliminated. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 36-0-1-0 in the Derby. Proud Citizen was the only horse to overcome this factor and run with credit.
That could spell bad news for Mine That Bird and Nowhere To Hide.
#10 The entrants last Beyer Speed Figure cannot be worse than his previous two. This is the last measurement of form. I feel that a horses last three Derby prep races are really the only ones of importance and you don't want the horses worst race to be his most current. I don’t mind slight regression but I want the trend of the speed figures to be up overall. If a horse only had two prep races they can be exempt from this factor. However not all horses with two preps will be exempt. For instance if a horse only has two preps but runs a career high in his last prep race then it’s obvious that his latest figure would not worse than his previous two. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 43-0-1-1 in the Derby. Bluegrass Cat and Imperialism were the only ones to overcome this and run in the frame.
Nowhere To Hide is the only non qualifier with this factor this year. Desert Party and Regal Ransom were given exemptions based on their lack of Beyer Speed Figures. Hold Me Back was also given an exemption. His last prep race did see him earn his lowest figure as a 3yo but he only had two preps. Had he been able to get another prep in he easily could have changed the sequence of his figures. Street Sense was in a similar position a few years back and of course he was also given an exemption from this factor.
#11 The entrant must be a stakes winner. This is the first measurement of class. Not only do we want them running in stakes races, we want them winning them as well. Now they do not have to be Graded Stakes races but I do want my Derby horses to have beaten more than maiden company. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify for this factor is 44-1-2-2. Giacomo of course was just a maiden winner, but the overwhelming majority of these horses ran poorly because most of them simply are not good enough.
Dunkirk may be an exception to the "not good enough" crowd but he still fails with this factor along with Summer Bird, Mr. Hot Stuff, Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private
#12 The entrant must have either won or finished within three lengths of the winner in a Graded Main Track route race as a three year old. A further refinement of factor #11. We do want our Derby entrants to be stakes winner but we also prefer that their class be confirmed by good performances in route races on the Derby trail itself. A horse like Private Vow is case and point of what this factor eliminates. Horses who show some class as 2yo’s but as 3yo’s it is revealed that they no longer belong with the top tier. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify with this factor is 46-0-1-1.
Atomic Rain, Nowhere To Hide and Mine That Bird seem to lack the class to compete in the Derby.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
20-20 Derby Vision - Part 1
This is one of my favorite features of this blog. I spend more time on the Derby and Breeders' Cup 20-20 systems than any other project I have and yet I only ever talk about them for maybe two weeks of the year combined.
The whole intention and vision of the Derby 20-20 system is to identify key statistical factors and trends and compile them into a profile that could be used for more accurate and profitable wagering on the Derby. Like with the Breeders' Cup I do not advocate simply wagering blindly on a system like this. Common sense must always be applied. This is just a tool to help shape your view of the viability of each contender.
Not all statistics are valuable and certainly no statistic has any real value if used on its own. One can point to individual statistics but how do you use that information in this Derby? And how do you know that this is the one stat that has more value than all the others? Essentially, what makes the two prep guideline more weighty than the layoff angle? The best way to use individual statistics is pooling them into a group and creating a profile that takes all factors into account but diminishes the significance of all factors as a single entity.
The Derby 20-20 profile has 16 statistical factors that I believe are keys to Derby success. The system has been only slightly tweaked from what was posted last year. Factor #6 is the only one that has been altered slightly in the way it's calculated. I'll explain why later on. The factors are sorted by type and the system is pretty “narrow” meaning that it is quite difficult for a horse to be a “perfect qualifier”. There has only been 18 in the last 13 years. There were no perfect qualifiers last year.
The system does not include any jinxes or curses and there are very few arbitrary lines drawn. For instance you will find no factor that specifically requires a certain amount of preps or even a pre-determined layoff length. All the factors have to do with speed, fitness, form, class, experience, suitability and breeding. There is no law that says a horse cannot be good enough with less than 5 starts. What matters is what a horse has experienced in those starts not the number of starts.
The game really is changing, but at the same time some things don't change. Prep schedules may change but then things like minimum speed requirements don't. Unlike other Derby systems the focus is not on eliminating horses who can’t win the Derby. The focus is in trying to quantify the relative chances of each entrant. Each entrant is given a 20-20 score and graded based on that score. You can see the results this system would have produced over the last 13 runnings as well as tentative gradings for this years running by going to this link: Derby 20-20. All factors are grouped into 7 different sections that correspond to the 7 different essentials keys to winning the Derby – Speed, Fitness, Form, Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
10 of the last 13 Derby winners had a perfect profile score and I think you'll notice that there does seem to be a real correlation between a high score and a good finish in the Derby. Even many of the horses who hit the frame on Derby day had strong profile scores. A flat bet equal to their profile score on each runner in the Derby would have netted you a 38.06% ROI over the last 13 years. Although seven of those years would have been losers. Had you bet on every horse in the Derby in equal amounts you would have lost -21.56% and had just 3 winning years. Simply taking the 18 perfect scorers and betting on them over the last 13 years you have seen you make 548.89% with just one losing year.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system.
Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance Friesan Fire did not have a prep at 9f so his closing fractions can't be compared with the rest of the field. You can't assume he closed fast enough but you also can't really fault him. You'll also notice that Desert Party and Regal Ransom got a pass on the factors that had to do with Beyer Speed figures because they haven't earned any that would be applicable.
Remember all stats quoted are from 1996 to the present unless otherwise stated.
#1 The entrant must earn a Beyer Speed Figure around two turns as a three year old that is equal to or superior to the average two turn prep winning figure. In other words I take the winning Beyer figures from all the two turn stakes prep races represented in the Derby and average them. Every Derby winner in the last 13 years qualified with this factor, even Giacomo. Horses who did not qualify with this factor were a cumulative 98-0-3-1 in the Derby.
This years average is a slower than expected 97. The defection of Quality Road definitely makes this race slower. Still it means that Chocolate Candy, Pioneerof the Nile, Advice, Mr. Hot Stuff, Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private are not fast enough.
#2 Last two Beyer figures achieved must total the average two turn prep winning figures times two minus five. Seems a bit mathematical but essentially this is an effort to weed out one time big figure horses. It demands consistent speed over the entrants last two races. So the average prep winning figure is multiplied by two. But we also recognize that these horses are improving and it is not necessary that a horse be "fast enough" to win the Derby 2 starts before the Derby itself. So we minus 5 Beyer points from the total to allow for this improvement. 5 is not an arbitrarily selected number. 5 is the average Beyer improvement shown by Derby winners during their prep races. Horses who did not qualify with this factor were a cumulative 129-1-5-5 in the Derby. Giacomo was the lone Derby winner who did not qualify.
So it means for this year that the entrants last two Beyer figures have to equal 189. This is another strike against all the horses affected by factor #1 but General Quarters, Musket Man, Summer Bird, Nowhere To Hide and West Side Bernie also get a strike against them.
#3 The entrant must have been first or second at the 1/8th pole in one of their final two prep races. This is a non figure based measurement of speed. Plodders rarely win the Derby. Although the race is 10f it is often really just a race to the 1/8th pole. Most of the horses who are in front at the 1/8th pole are in front at the wire. We want a horse to have enough tactical speed to get them into a contending position when it matters. Horses who did not satisfy this criteria were a cumulative 65-0-3-4 in the Derby. Even Giacomo managed to show enough tactical speed in a prep race to qualify.
That is bad news for Hold Me Back, West Side Bernie, Advice, Mr. Hot Stuff, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private none of them appear to have the tactical speed to be in contention when it gets serious. It is often said that late runners win hearts but not races.
For those keeping score you will have noticed that only I Want Revenge, Papa Clem, Dunkirk, Friesan Fire and Win Willy have passed all three speed tests. The Godolphin pair have not yet had a strike against them but factors that use Beyer Speed Figures were never going to give us a good line on them.
The whole intention and vision of the Derby 20-20 system is to identify key statistical factors and trends and compile them into a profile that could be used for more accurate and profitable wagering on the Derby. Like with the Breeders' Cup I do not advocate simply wagering blindly on a system like this. Common sense must always be applied. This is just a tool to help shape your view of the viability of each contender.
Not all statistics are valuable and certainly no statistic has any real value if used on its own. One can point to individual statistics but how do you use that information in this Derby? And how do you know that this is the one stat that has more value than all the others? Essentially, what makes the two prep guideline more weighty than the layoff angle? The best way to use individual statistics is pooling them into a group and creating a profile that takes all factors into account but diminishes the significance of all factors as a single entity.
The Derby 20-20 profile has 16 statistical factors that I believe are keys to Derby success. The system has been only slightly tweaked from what was posted last year. Factor #6 is the only one that has been altered slightly in the way it's calculated. I'll explain why later on. The factors are sorted by type and the system is pretty “narrow” meaning that it is quite difficult for a horse to be a “perfect qualifier”. There has only been 18 in the last 13 years. There were no perfect qualifiers last year.
The system does not include any jinxes or curses and there are very few arbitrary lines drawn. For instance you will find no factor that specifically requires a certain amount of preps or even a pre-determined layoff length. All the factors have to do with speed, fitness, form, class, experience, suitability and breeding. There is no law that says a horse cannot be good enough with less than 5 starts. What matters is what a horse has experienced in those starts not the number of starts.
The game really is changing, but at the same time some things don't change. Prep schedules may change but then things like minimum speed requirements don't. Unlike other Derby systems the focus is not on eliminating horses who can’t win the Derby. The focus is in trying to quantify the relative chances of each entrant. Each entrant is given a 20-20 score and graded based on that score. You can see the results this system would have produced over the last 13 runnings as well as tentative gradings for this years running by going to this link: Derby 20-20. All factors are grouped into 7 different sections that correspond to the 7 different essentials keys to winning the Derby – Speed, Fitness, Form, Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
10 of the last 13 Derby winners had a perfect profile score and I think you'll notice that there does seem to be a real correlation between a high score and a good finish in the Derby. Even many of the horses who hit the frame on Derby day had strong profile scores. A flat bet equal to their profile score on each runner in the Derby would have netted you a 38.06% ROI over the last 13 years. Although seven of those years would have been losers. Had you bet on every horse in the Derby in equal amounts you would have lost -21.56% and had just 3 winning years. Simply taking the 18 perfect scorers and betting on them over the last 13 years you have seen you make 548.89% with just one losing year.
The system can be used in many ways, helping you to shape your view of the race, pick winners and even have the right horses for the exotics. It's not intended to be bet blindly, hopefully by applying some judgment you can beat the results of this system.
Just a tip to help you read the spreadsheet: Every category with a green cell earns the entrant +1, every red cell is worth -1. The cells that are left blank are worth 0.
Certain cells are blank if that stat is not applicable to that entrant. For instance Friesan Fire did not have a prep at 9f so his closing fractions can't be compared with the rest of the field. You can't assume he closed fast enough but you also can't really fault him. You'll also notice that Desert Party and Regal Ransom got a pass on the factors that had to do with Beyer Speed figures because they haven't earned any that would be applicable.
Remember all stats quoted are from 1996 to the present unless otherwise stated.
#1 The entrant must earn a Beyer Speed Figure around two turns as a three year old that is equal to or superior to the average two turn prep winning figure. In other words I take the winning Beyer figures from all the two turn stakes prep races represented in the Derby and average them. Every Derby winner in the last 13 years qualified with this factor, even Giacomo. Horses who did not qualify with this factor were a cumulative 98-0-3-1 in the Derby.
This years average is a slower than expected 97. The defection of Quality Road definitely makes this race slower. Still it means that Chocolate Candy, Pioneerof the Nile, Advice, Mr. Hot Stuff, Join The Dance, Atomic Rain, Mine That Bird, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private are not fast enough.
#2 Last two Beyer figures achieved must total the average two turn prep winning figures times two minus five. Seems a bit mathematical but essentially this is an effort to weed out one time big figure horses. It demands consistent speed over the entrants last two races. So the average prep winning figure is multiplied by two. But we also recognize that these horses are improving and it is not necessary that a horse be "fast enough" to win the Derby 2 starts before the Derby itself. So we minus 5 Beyer points from the total to allow for this improvement. 5 is not an arbitrarily selected number. 5 is the average Beyer improvement shown by Derby winners during their prep races. Horses who did not qualify with this factor were a cumulative 129-1-5-5 in the Derby. Giacomo was the lone Derby winner who did not qualify.
So it means for this year that the entrants last two Beyer figures have to equal 189. This is another strike against all the horses affected by factor #1 but General Quarters, Musket Man, Summer Bird, Nowhere To Hide and West Side Bernie also get a strike against them.
#3 The entrant must have been first or second at the 1/8th pole in one of their final two prep races. This is a non figure based measurement of speed. Plodders rarely win the Derby. Although the race is 10f it is often really just a race to the 1/8th pole. Most of the horses who are in front at the 1/8th pole are in front at the wire. We want a horse to have enough tactical speed to get them into a contending position when it matters. Horses who did not satisfy this criteria were a cumulative 65-0-3-4 in the Derby. Even Giacomo managed to show enough tactical speed in a prep race to qualify.
That is bad news for Hold Me Back, West Side Bernie, Advice, Mr. Hot Stuff, Nowhere To Hide and Flying Private none of them appear to have the tactical speed to be in contention when it gets serious. It is often said that late runners win hearts but not races.
For those keeping score you will have noticed that only I Want Revenge, Papa Clem, Dunkirk, Friesan Fire and Win Willy have passed all three speed tests. The Godolphin pair have not yet had a strike against them but factors that use Beyer Speed Figures were never going to give us a good line on them.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
20-20 Review
It was not a vintage year for the Breeders' Cup 20-20 system. In fact one might say it was the worst year ever.
For those of you wondering what on earth I'm talking about feel free to get up to speed by consulting my archives. In a nutshell the 20-20 system is a statistical profile system built to help guide your Breeders' Cup wagering.
For the first time ever a flat bet on all perfect qualifiers would have lost you money. Not a lot of money mind you but a losing year all the same. There were 16 perfect qualifiers in 8 races. They combined for a record of 16-4-0-5 in the Breeders' Cup. A $2 win bet on each would have cost $32 and returned $29.60.
Betting the entire fields based on the 20-20 profile scores would have lost you 38% but that is still better than the 50% you would have lost by betting every horse equally. The 20-20 still outperforms random chance but it still wasn't good enough to turn a profit this year.
Handle was down on a race by race basis and I certainly felt it with my own wagers. Nothing paid as much as it seemed like it should. More handle causes a greater disparity in the pools and subsequently better prices on some entrants.
There was a worry prior to the Breeders' Cup that synthetics would render systems like this irrelevant. If you look at the breakdown on the 20-20 spreadsheet you'll see that it was indeed the synthetics that caused this negative performance. The Turf races were actually nicely profitable. Perhaps a little tinkering will have to be done in order to adjust for this new challenge.
All of the synthetic race winners had a win over the turf or synthetics already. Had that been added as a factor for the main track races 3 perfect qualifiers would have been excluded (Curlin, Fairbanks and Sky Diva) and the system would have had a profitable year.
By all accounts it was not a great year but it was also not such a poor year that it should necessitate wholesale changes to the system or scrapping the project altogether. 6 of the 8 winners were either perfect qualifiers or had just one strike against. Midnight Lute was really the only outlier and even when I look at his Past Performances now I still don't see a horse I'd want 2/1 on. He was a bad bet considering all the questions surrounding him. My thought is that he was simply a special horse who accomplished something that went against statistical probability.
For those of you wondering what on earth I'm talking about feel free to get up to speed by consulting my archives. In a nutshell the 20-20 system is a statistical profile system built to help guide your Breeders' Cup wagering.
For the first time ever a flat bet on all perfect qualifiers would have lost you money. Not a lot of money mind you but a losing year all the same. There were 16 perfect qualifiers in 8 races. They combined for a record of 16-4-0-5 in the Breeders' Cup. A $2 win bet on each would have cost $32 and returned $29.60.
Betting the entire fields based on the 20-20 profile scores would have lost you 38% but that is still better than the 50% you would have lost by betting every horse equally. The 20-20 still outperforms random chance but it still wasn't good enough to turn a profit this year.
Handle was down on a race by race basis and I certainly felt it with my own wagers. Nothing paid as much as it seemed like it should. More handle causes a greater disparity in the pools and subsequently better prices on some entrants.
There was a worry prior to the Breeders' Cup that synthetics would render systems like this irrelevant. If you look at the breakdown on the 20-20 spreadsheet you'll see that it was indeed the synthetics that caused this negative performance. The Turf races were actually nicely profitable. Perhaps a little tinkering will have to be done in order to adjust for this new challenge.
All of the synthetic race winners had a win over the turf or synthetics already. Had that been added as a factor for the main track races 3 perfect qualifiers would have been excluded (Curlin, Fairbanks and Sky Diva) and the system would have had a profitable year.
By all accounts it was not a great year but it was also not such a poor year that it should necessitate wholesale changes to the system or scrapping the project altogether. 6 of the 8 winners were either perfect qualifiers or had just one strike against. Midnight Lute was really the only outlier and even when I look at his Past Performances now I still don't see a horse I'd want 2/1 on. He was a bad bet considering all the questions surrounding him. My thought is that he was simply a special horse who accomplished something that went against statistical probability.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Profile Of A Winner - Part 4
Here is an actual race profile for you to sample.
Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies
#1 - The entrant must have received the average winning Beyer Speed Figure for dirt routes races. This factor is geared towards identifying the fillies who are fast enough to beat the field. Beyer pars from past runnings are not used because the fillies lined up do not need to win any past renewals, they simply have to beat the horses they’re facing today. So every BSF achieved in a winning performance in a dirt route by a member of the field is added together and averaged.
11 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing was the only winner who was deemed “not fast enough”. The Average BSF in her running was 84 and her career high was 82. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 39-1-1-2.
#2 - The entrant must have been within one length of the lead at the 1/8 pole in one of their last two races. This factor is geared towards identifying speed but not as defined by the numbers. Tactical speed is as important as speed figures. Synthetics may call this factor into question with supposed biases towards late closers but we’ll see.
All 12 of the last winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 25-0-1-2.
#3 - The entrants career average Beyer Speed Figure must be equal to or greater than the fields average Beyer Speed Figure achieved in all stakes races. The factor may sound complicated but it’s actually straightforward. Take every stakes performance, win or lose, by each horse in the race and combine it into an average. Then compare that figure to each entrants career BSF average. It’s another way of measuring speed and weeding out horses who may have just earned one big figure.
10 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing and Cash Run did not achieve a career average BSF that was better than the stakes average. Caressing had an average of 80.50 in a race that required 82.40. Cash Run was no where near with an average of 71, well below the required mark of 83.10. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 67-2-5-5.
#4 - The entrant must have received the average winning Beyer Speed Figure for dirt routes races in their last prep race. This factor is similar to factor #1 but it demands that the entrant not only prove to be fast enough in their career but also in their last race. Therefore the focus is more on form rather than speed. Most Juvenile filly winners enter the race off a new career high.
10 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing and Cash Run did not run fast enough in their final prep race to qualify. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 67-2-5-6.
#5 - The entrant must have finished in the money in their last start. This factor aims to isolate those with good current form. A sharp race last time out is often the best indicator of current form.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 21-0-1-1.
#6 - The entrant must have won at least one of their last three starts. Winning races is a big part of judging current form. You don’t want to be betting on the nose of a horse that has already clearly established a pattern of losing races.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 16-0-0-0.
#7 - The entrant must have run in the money in all their starts at 8 furlongs or more, unless the Juvenile Fillies is being run at Belmont. In that case those who did not run in an 8f race must be in the money in all sprints. Experience at the distance is no good if it was a bad experience. We want our qualifiers to run well when stretching out. The reason Belmont gets an exception is because it's a one turn race and historically the winners there in both juvenile races have needed less preparation around two turns.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 28-0-1-1.
#8 – The entrant cannot have finished in the money in a dirt prep race where the top three finishers are separated by less than one length. This applies only to the horses last prep race. Blanket finishes were often signal weak races. We want all the stars aligned form wise. Horses who ran in tight blanket finishes on dirt in their last prep are 2 for 42 in the Breeders Cup. With the way pace often sets up in synthetic races this factor would not apply, just as it doesn’t apply for Turf races.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 12-0-1-2.
#9 - The entrant must have won at least one race in their career. The Breeders Cup is not the place to be breaking your maiden. Although very few maidens enter the Breeders Cup I want to keep this factor in order to make sure that as little support for maidens is given as possible.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 3-0-0-0.
#10 - The entrant must have started lower than 10/1 in their last race. Quality is often reflected on the tote board. Horses that are long odds in the preps usually have to run above themselves to convince their connections that they belong in the Breeders Cup. However regression after a career top is quite common. This is an attempt to identify horses that are susceptible to regression. Or to identify the horses that simply have no chance at all.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 23-0-0-1.
#11 - The entrant must have made at least one start at 8 furlongs or more, unless the Juvenile Fillies is being run at Belmont. Basically we want to see solid route experience from fillies that are trying to win a championship race around two turns. We do not demand route experience for Breeders Cup’s at Belmont because the race is run around a single turn and I think it’s a totally different dynamic. The last 4 winners of BC races for Juveniles at Belmont were won by horses that had never contested a route race.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 13-0-2-1.
#12 – The entrant must have raced at two tracks minimum, unless all their career races have come at the BC host track. We seem to get the “Calder Flash” sensations every year and generally they under perform. Running at several tracks is not only good experience but often means they’re facing a different pool of competition which is a more accurate gauge of their true prowess.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 14-0-0-2.
#13 - The entrant must have won a race at 6 furlongs or more.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 18-0-0-0.
Qualifiers and Results
1996 – Storm Song 1st $5.20
Love That Jazz 2nd
Sharp Cat 9th
Dunbar Hill 11th
1997 – Countess Diana 1st $6.00
1998 – Silverbulletday 1st $3.60
Emanating 5th
1999 – Chilukki 2nd
Surfside 3rd
Darling My Darling 5th
2000 – Notable Career 5th
Thunder Bertie 7th
2001 – Tempera 1st $25.80
Bella Bellucci 3rd
You 4th
Take Charge Lady 6th
2002 – Storm Flag Flying 1st $3.60
Composure 2nd
Santa Catarina 3rd
Buffythecentrefold 7th
2003 – Halfbridled 1st $6.60
Victory USA 3rd
Class Above 7th
Society Selection 10th
2004 – Sweet Catomine 1st $6.60
2005 – Folklore 1st $6.70
Sensation 5th
Adieu 7th
2006 – Dreaming Of Anna 1st $7.20
2007 – Indian Blessing 1st $5.40
Grace Anatomy 7th
There have been 31 “perfect” qualifiers from the last 12 runnings for an average of 2.5 per year. During those 12 runnings, 139 entrants started in the Juvenile Fillies. So the profile qualifiers have an impact value of 3.79. Meaning that they win the Juvenile Fillies almost 4 times more often than their statistical probability.
A flat $2 win bet on each qualifier would have cost $62 and the total returned from those wagers would be $76.70. A tidy $14.70 profit or 23.71% return on investment. A win bet on each entrant based on their 20-20 score would have cost $1,095 with $1,136.05 returned. That’s a $41.05 profit or 3.75%. Not bad for a race that has mostly been won by favorites recently.
Other statistical trends worth noting:
The Juvenile Fillies has been won 18 times by horses who won their last prep race over its entire history. Conversely it has been won by horses who lost their last prep race 6 times. No edge can be found by automatically playing either the winners or losers.
Fillies entering this race with the Highest last Beyer Speed Figure have won 6 of the last 12 runnings. Much more than any other Breeders Cup race.
10 of the last 12 winners of the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies contested a race at either Saratoga or Del Mar. The trend is similarly strong with the Juvenile suggesting that the best 2yo’s in the nation do indeed run at those boutique meets.
For a look at how all the profiles have worked since 1996 you can view this spreadsheet.
Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies
#1 - The entrant must have received the average winning Beyer Speed Figure for dirt routes races. This factor is geared towards identifying the fillies who are fast enough to beat the field. Beyer pars from past runnings are not used because the fillies lined up do not need to win any past renewals, they simply have to beat the horses they’re facing today. So every BSF achieved in a winning performance in a dirt route by a member of the field is added together and averaged.
11 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing was the only winner who was deemed “not fast enough”. The Average BSF in her running was 84 and her career high was 82. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 39-1-1-2.
#2 - The entrant must have been within one length of the lead at the 1/8 pole in one of their last two races. This factor is geared towards identifying speed but not as defined by the numbers. Tactical speed is as important as speed figures. Synthetics may call this factor into question with supposed biases towards late closers but we’ll see.
All 12 of the last winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 25-0-1-2.
#3 - The entrants career average Beyer Speed Figure must be equal to or greater than the fields average Beyer Speed Figure achieved in all stakes races. The factor may sound complicated but it’s actually straightforward. Take every stakes performance, win or lose, by each horse in the race and combine it into an average. Then compare that figure to each entrants career BSF average. It’s another way of measuring speed and weeding out horses who may have just earned one big figure.
10 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing and Cash Run did not achieve a career average BSF that was better than the stakes average. Caressing had an average of 80.50 in a race that required 82.40. Cash Run was no where near with an average of 71, well below the required mark of 83.10. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 67-2-5-5.
#4 - The entrant must have received the average winning Beyer Speed Figure for dirt routes races in their last prep race. This factor is similar to factor #1 but it demands that the entrant not only prove to be fast enough in their career but also in their last race. Therefore the focus is more on form rather than speed. Most Juvenile filly winners enter the race off a new career high.
10 of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. Caressing and Cash Run did not run fast enough in their final prep race to qualify. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 67-2-5-6.
#5 - The entrant must have finished in the money in their last start. This factor aims to isolate those with good current form. A sharp race last time out is often the best indicator of current form.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 21-0-1-1.
#6 - The entrant must have won at least one of their last three starts. Winning races is a big part of judging current form. You don’t want to be betting on the nose of a horse that has already clearly established a pattern of losing races.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 16-0-0-0.
#7 - The entrant must have run in the money in all their starts at 8 furlongs or more, unless the Juvenile Fillies is being run at Belmont. In that case those who did not run in an 8f race must be in the money in all sprints. Experience at the distance is no good if it was a bad experience. We want our qualifiers to run well when stretching out. The reason Belmont gets an exception is because it's a one turn race and historically the winners there in both juvenile races have needed less preparation around two turns.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 28-0-1-1.
#8 – The entrant cannot have finished in the money in a dirt prep race where the top three finishers are separated by less than one length. This applies only to the horses last prep race. Blanket finishes were often signal weak races. We want all the stars aligned form wise. Horses who ran in tight blanket finishes on dirt in their last prep are 2 for 42 in the Breeders Cup. With the way pace often sets up in synthetic races this factor would not apply, just as it doesn’t apply for Turf races.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 12-0-1-2.
#9 - The entrant must have won at least one race in their career. The Breeders Cup is not the place to be breaking your maiden. Although very few maidens enter the Breeders Cup I want to keep this factor in order to make sure that as little support for maidens is given as possible.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 3-0-0-0.
#10 - The entrant must have started lower than 10/1 in their last race. Quality is often reflected on the tote board. Horses that are long odds in the preps usually have to run above themselves to convince their connections that they belong in the Breeders Cup. However regression after a career top is quite common. This is an attempt to identify horses that are susceptible to regression. Or to identify the horses that simply have no chance at all.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 23-0-0-1.
#11 - The entrant must have made at least one start at 8 furlongs or more, unless the Juvenile Fillies is being run at Belmont. Basically we want to see solid route experience from fillies that are trying to win a championship race around two turns. We do not demand route experience for Breeders Cup’s at Belmont because the race is run around a single turn and I think it’s a totally different dynamic. The last 4 winners of BC races for Juveniles at Belmont were won by horses that had never contested a route race.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 13-0-2-1.
#12 – The entrant must have raced at two tracks minimum, unless all their career races have come at the BC host track. We seem to get the “Calder Flash” sensations every year and generally they under perform. Running at several tracks is not only good experience but often means they’re facing a different pool of competition which is a more accurate gauge of their true prowess.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 14-0-0-2.
#13 - The entrant must have won a race at 6 furlongs or more.
All of the last 12 winners qualified with this factor. The cumulative record in the Juvenile Fillies of horses eliminated by this factor is 18-0-0-0.
Qualifiers and Results
1996 – Storm Song 1st $5.20
Love That Jazz 2nd
Sharp Cat 9th
Dunbar Hill 11th
1997 – Countess Diana 1st $6.00
1998 – Silverbulletday 1st $3.60
Emanating 5th
1999 – Chilukki 2nd
Surfside 3rd
Darling My Darling 5th
2000 – Notable Career 5th
Thunder Bertie 7th
2001 – Tempera 1st $25.80
Bella Bellucci 3rd
You 4th
Take Charge Lady 6th
2002 – Storm Flag Flying 1st $3.60
Composure 2nd
Santa Catarina 3rd
Buffythecentrefold 7th
2003 – Halfbridled 1st $6.60
Victory USA 3rd
Class Above 7th
Society Selection 10th
2004 – Sweet Catomine 1st $6.60
2005 – Folklore 1st $6.70
Sensation 5th
Adieu 7th
2006 – Dreaming Of Anna 1st $7.20
2007 – Indian Blessing 1st $5.40
Grace Anatomy 7th
There have been 31 “perfect” qualifiers from the last 12 runnings for an average of 2.5 per year. During those 12 runnings, 139 entrants started in the Juvenile Fillies. So the profile qualifiers have an impact value of 3.79. Meaning that they win the Juvenile Fillies almost 4 times more often than their statistical probability.
A flat $2 win bet on each qualifier would have cost $62 and the total returned from those wagers would be $76.70. A tidy $14.70 profit or 23.71% return on investment. A win bet on each entrant based on their 20-20 score would have cost $1,095 with $1,136.05 returned. That’s a $41.05 profit or 3.75%. Not bad for a race that has mostly been won by favorites recently.
Other statistical trends worth noting:
The Juvenile Fillies has been won 18 times by horses who won their last prep race over its entire history. Conversely it has been won by horses who lost their last prep race 6 times. No edge can be found by automatically playing either the winners or losers.
Fillies entering this race with the Highest last Beyer Speed Figure have won 6 of the last 12 runnings. Much more than any other Breeders Cup race.
10 of the last 12 winners of the Breeders Cup Juvenile Fillies contested a race at either Saratoga or Del Mar. The trend is similarly strong with the Juvenile suggesting that the best 2yo’s in the nation do indeed run at those boutique meets.
For a look at how all the profiles have worked since 1996 you can view this spreadsheet.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Profile Of A Winner - Part 3
Why do the Profiles work?
Profiling horses for specific races is not always effective and the main reason is because in any given race nearly all of the horses are entered with different goals. Some are coming back from a layoff. Some are at the end of their form cycle. Some are being raised in class, others dropped in class. A specific race may have been the target of a particular horse while another might be using it as a prep. With so many different types of intentions from the connections it is impossible to build a successful profile. However the Breeders Cup doesn’t have those same variables. All horses that enter it are pointed specifically for it. No one uses it as a prep and it is almost never an after thought. Everyone comes up to the race in the manner that they feel gives them the best chance for success. Consequently we are able to identify and isolate those patterns and combine them into a profile.
None of the factors included are jinx or myth. There is no quantifiable reason why a certain horse would not be able to win a Breeders Cup race simply because he won a certain “jinxed” prep race, or because his name starts with a certain letter. Every single factor must be aimed at identifying six key ingredients to winning: Speed, Fitness, Current Form, Class, Experience and Suitability to the conditions.
The factors for each Breeders Cup race are unique to that race. As you might expect one requires different qualifications from a possible Breeders Cup Turf winner than one would a Juvenile winner. However some of the factors do overlap. For instance every race Profile demands that the qualifier finish in the money (win, place or show) in their last start before the Breeders Cup. 161 of the 177 (or 91%) Breeders Cup race winners met that criteria. The only exemption from that factor is runners exiting the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe. Given its championship status it is treated different from other races. It is not a prep race but rather a target and sharp races can be readily obscured because of the depth and quality. This is not to say that a horse who was out of the money in their last race cannot win. Miesque’s Approval just did in the 2007 Mile, but rather the stat draws attention to the trend so you can make a more informed decision about who is likely to win. If you know that 91% of the races are won by a horse who did run in the money in their last than you may decide to stay with the trend or go against it, but most likely you would only go against it for a very good reason.
Most handicappers will tell you that value is the only way to have long-term success. But the Profile of a Winner does not seek to identify value. It seeks to identify the winner. Having the winner in every race is actually your best chance for success. The difficult part is finding the winner in each race. Most people consider a 30% win rate to be good, at that percentage one still needs to aid of value to be profitable. However this system, without the aid of personal judgment, identifies winners at more than twice that percentage. The starting price has nothing to do with the winners’ profiles because you don’t need to look for value when you are successful that often.
Profiling horses for specific races is not always effective and the main reason is because in any given race nearly all of the horses are entered with different goals. Some are coming back from a layoff. Some are at the end of their form cycle. Some are being raised in class, others dropped in class. A specific race may have been the target of a particular horse while another might be using it as a prep. With so many different types of intentions from the connections it is impossible to build a successful profile. However the Breeders Cup doesn’t have those same variables. All horses that enter it are pointed specifically for it. No one uses it as a prep and it is almost never an after thought. Everyone comes up to the race in the manner that they feel gives them the best chance for success. Consequently we are able to identify and isolate those patterns and combine them into a profile.
None of the factors included are jinx or myth. There is no quantifiable reason why a certain horse would not be able to win a Breeders Cup race simply because he won a certain “jinxed” prep race, or because his name starts with a certain letter. Every single factor must be aimed at identifying six key ingredients to winning: Speed, Fitness, Current Form, Class, Experience and Suitability to the conditions.
The factors for each Breeders Cup race are unique to that race. As you might expect one requires different qualifications from a possible Breeders Cup Turf winner than one would a Juvenile winner. However some of the factors do overlap. For instance every race Profile demands that the qualifier finish in the money (win, place or show) in their last start before the Breeders Cup. 161 of the 177 (or 91%) Breeders Cup race winners met that criteria. The only exemption from that factor is runners exiting the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe. Given its championship status it is treated different from other races. It is not a prep race but rather a target and sharp races can be readily obscured because of the depth and quality. This is not to say that a horse who was out of the money in their last race cannot win. Miesque’s Approval just did in the 2007 Mile, but rather the stat draws attention to the trend so you can make a more informed decision about who is likely to win. If you know that 91% of the races are won by a horse who did run in the money in their last than you may decide to stay with the trend or go against it, but most likely you would only go against it for a very good reason.
Most handicappers will tell you that value is the only way to have long-term success. But the Profile of a Winner does not seek to identify value. It seeks to identify the winner. Having the winner in every race is actually your best chance for success. The difficult part is finding the winner in each race. Most people consider a 30% win rate to be good, at that percentage one still needs to aid of value to be profitable. However this system, without the aid of personal judgment, identifies winners at more than twice that percentage. The starting price has nothing to do with the winners’ profiles because you don’t need to look for value when you are successful that often.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Profile Of A Winner - Part 2
Do the Profiles Work?
The simple answer is yes, they do work. There would not be much point in reading any further if they didn’t. The systems focus is not on eliminating horses that can’t win. The focus is in trying to quantify the relative chances of each entrant. Every Breeders’ Cup starter is screened through the Profile and given a score based on how well they fit the Profile. I’ve entitled that the 20-20 score. I named it 20-20 because at the time I was working on the Derby Profile which had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. Perfect vision more or less describes the intent of the project, it does not select winners, it gives you an unclouded look at the field so you can select winners. Each entrant is given a 20-20 score and graded based on that score.
For the purposes of the project I have compiled the 20-20 scores of each Breeders' Cup entrant and proposed that a win wager equal to their profile score be placed on each horse. So in essence you’re betting every horse (unless they have a negative profile score) but in different amounts based on their statistical chance of victory.
I realize that no one in their right mind would wager like that, but the purpose of the exercise is to show you the value of the system even when no discretion is applied. If one can make money by blindly following the system then you ought to make even more by exercising some sound judgment when you’re actually at the windows.
Betting on every horse at the levels determined by the profile would have returned a 32.18% profit. Meanwhile betting the same amount on every single horse would have yielded a –5.88% loss. So clearly there is value in what the profile produces. Another great thing about it is that it’s not dependent on single boxcar winners for profitability. The equity curve is actually quite smooth with only 3 losing years out of 12.
Another way to use the system might be to only look at the horses that had a perfect profile score for their race. Over the last 12 years there were 222 horses with a perfect score in 91 races. So on average you’ll get 2-3 horses in each race that are “perfect”. These 222 had a cumulative Breeders' Cup record of 222-72-24-26. So 1 in 3 was a winner and a horse with a perfect profile score won 72 of the 91 races. That’s 79%! Betting on all of these horses would have yielded a 149.28% profit with no losing years.
You can view a breakdown of the 20-20 scores for each Breeders' Cup entrant since 1996 by visiting this link.
The simple answer is yes, they do work. There would not be much point in reading any further if they didn’t. The systems focus is not on eliminating horses that can’t win. The focus is in trying to quantify the relative chances of each entrant. Every Breeders’ Cup starter is screened through the Profile and given a score based on how well they fit the Profile. I’ve entitled that the 20-20 score. I named it 20-20 because at the time I was working on the Derby Profile which had 20 statistical factors and 20-20 is a description of perfect vision. Perfect vision more or less describes the intent of the project, it does not select winners, it gives you an unclouded look at the field so you can select winners. Each entrant is given a 20-20 score and graded based on that score.
For the purposes of the project I have compiled the 20-20 scores of each Breeders' Cup entrant and proposed that a win wager equal to their profile score be placed on each horse. So in essence you’re betting every horse (unless they have a negative profile score) but in different amounts based on their statistical chance of victory.
I realize that no one in their right mind would wager like that, but the purpose of the exercise is to show you the value of the system even when no discretion is applied. If one can make money by blindly following the system then you ought to make even more by exercising some sound judgment when you’re actually at the windows.
Betting on every horse at the levels determined by the profile would have returned a 32.18% profit. Meanwhile betting the same amount on every single horse would have yielded a –5.88% loss. So clearly there is value in what the profile produces. Another great thing about it is that it’s not dependent on single boxcar winners for profitability. The equity curve is actually quite smooth with only 3 losing years out of 12.
Another way to use the system might be to only look at the horses that had a perfect profile score for their race. Over the last 12 years there were 222 horses with a perfect score in 91 races. So on average you’ll get 2-3 horses in each race that are “perfect”. These 222 had a cumulative Breeders' Cup record of 222-72-24-26. So 1 in 3 was a winner and a horse with a perfect profile score won 72 of the 91 races. That’s 79%! Betting on all of these horses would have yielded a 149.28% profit with no losing years.
You can view a breakdown of the 20-20 scores for each Breeders' Cup entrant since 1996 by visiting this link.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Profile Of A Winner - Part 1
Profile of a Winner
A statistical guide to beating the Breeders' Cup
The Breeders’ Cup is the best day, now weekend, of racing in North America. There is no doubt about it. Championship races with full fields, champions, contenders and pretenders all facing each other with an eye on the crown. For the bettor it offers unparalleled opportunity. One could be either prince or pauper by days end. The pools are massive and thus the opportunities boundless. Some players chase the big score with the Pick 6. Others plug away with straight win, place or show wagers. No matter the type of wager you prefer your chances of making money on Breeders' Cup day are enhanced because of the size of the pools. So why do so many of us come home with less than we had? The simply answer is because it is very difficult to pick between so many good horses.
Even while the Breeders' Cup offers the most exciting match-ups around they also offer the most complex handicapping puzzles. In any given race you may have 14 horses, all fully capable of winning and many of them having never faced each other. Many of us do our best to wade through the innumerable possibilities and factors. Often times we side with the horses we know the best from our local circuit, or we come to cheer on our favorite stars. Sometimes we score big sometimes we get nothing. Often times we emerge with excellent stories of close calls and the ones that got away. Many times because of our inability to overcome pre-conceived notions and emotional mood swings throughout the day. That seems to be the nature of the game. Is there a way to bet the Breeders' Cup that wouldn’t be as subject to your emotional ups and downs? Is there a way to streamline the handicapping process and guide your judgment? Do the diverse group of Breeders' Cup winners really have anything in common?
The answer to all of those questions is yes and this project is dedicated to identifying and isolating the factors that Breeders' Cup race winners have in common. Your own judgment is always necessary. Handicapping is a science and science should never be blindly applied. The point of this project is to show how a careful review of the statistical trends can be useful in shaping your judgment and hopefully leading you to greater profitability.
Over the next week the profiles will be explained in more detail so if this is the kind of thing that interests you stayed tuned to this space.
A statistical guide to beating the Breeders' Cup
The Breeders’ Cup is the best day, now weekend, of racing in North America. There is no doubt about it. Championship races with full fields, champions, contenders and pretenders all facing each other with an eye on the crown. For the bettor it offers unparalleled opportunity. One could be either prince or pauper by days end. The pools are massive and thus the opportunities boundless. Some players chase the big score with the Pick 6. Others plug away with straight win, place or show wagers. No matter the type of wager you prefer your chances of making money on Breeders' Cup day are enhanced because of the size of the pools. So why do so many of us come home with less than we had? The simply answer is because it is very difficult to pick between so many good horses.
Even while the Breeders' Cup offers the most exciting match-ups around they also offer the most complex handicapping puzzles. In any given race you may have 14 horses, all fully capable of winning and many of them having never faced each other. Many of us do our best to wade through the innumerable possibilities and factors. Often times we side with the horses we know the best from our local circuit, or we come to cheer on our favorite stars. Sometimes we score big sometimes we get nothing. Often times we emerge with excellent stories of close calls and the ones that got away. Many times because of our inability to overcome pre-conceived notions and emotional mood swings throughout the day. That seems to be the nature of the game. Is there a way to bet the Breeders' Cup that wouldn’t be as subject to your emotional ups and downs? Is there a way to streamline the handicapping process and guide your judgment? Do the diverse group of Breeders' Cup winners really have anything in common?
The answer to all of those questions is yes and this project is dedicated to identifying and isolating the factors that Breeders' Cup race winners have in common. Your own judgment is always necessary. Handicapping is a science and science should never be blindly applied. The point of this project is to show how a careful review of the statistical trends can be useful in shaping your judgment and hopefully leading you to greater profitability.
Over the next week the profiles will be explained in more detail so if this is the kind of thing that interests you stayed tuned to this space.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Kentucky Derby Review
So much is put into the Derby. Months of lists, charts, anticipation and analysis. It's kind of sad that it's all over in a matter of two minutes. A lot transpires on Derby day and in many cases it causes us to forget the path we took to get there. In this post I'm going to try and bring up a few interesting points of review, perhaps draw some conclusions and also evaluate my own performance with the Derby Top 10, final analysis and use of statistics with the 20-20 system.
What we learned
Big Brown is definitely the superior animal some suspected he was. When a horse really is that good he tends to be able to overcome the unconventional. Convention is for mortals.
The Derby was an easy race for Big Brown after all.
The record of rookie trainers in the Derby gets better and better.
Statistics based on arbitrary lines took yet another hit demonstrating how limited they actually are. The actual number of starts does not and has never mattered. What matters is the experience a horse gets from the starts he or she has.
The Californian's weren't that great after all. Despite the great Cushion to dirt results we saw from Zenyatta, Tiago, Gayego and Sierra Sunset it did to change the fact that the horses simply weren't as good as the bet of those running in the Derby.
Despite the fact that no horse who had their last prep on an artificial surface hit the frame I don't think it's been exposed as a bad way to go. There is a difference between what is true and the truth. What is true is that 6 of the 9 horses who had their last prep on a surface other than dirt finished in the bottom half of the field. Including 5 of the last 6. But the truth is that just one year prior the exacta was filled with horses who had their last prep on Polytrack. The truth is that it's horse specific. Running on an all weather surface doesn't make your good horse bad, but what it does do is make it harder to see a horses real merit on dirt.
Other than Big Brown, Eight Belles and perhaps Tale of Ekati we didn't learn how good any of these horses really are. We learned how good some of them aren't but the Derby rarely reflects the actual upper level of a horse's ability.
All along we've been saying that the crop is slow and the derby did little to change that perception. Big Brown is definitely an exception but the rest of the colts are not very fast as this stage.
Once again we see that tactical speed has an enormous advantage in the Derby. Big Brown and Eight Belles both had the speed to put themselves right where they needed to be while Denis of Cork and Colonel John needed a pace setup and luck with weaving through the field. We mention this every year
Derby Top 10 accountability
You can read the entire Derby Top 10 here (Derby Top 10). The final list was definitely better than the first list. Big Brown was ranked second and Eight Belles was ranked fourth. Denis of Cork nor Tale Of Ekati were included. At one time or another Tale of Ekati and Denis of Cork were ranked as high as third and second respectively but poor results saw them dropped altogether.
My first Top 10 of 2008 had Tale of Ekati ranked third but none of the top three finishers were included. Only five of the those Top 10 even ran in the Derby. For the most accurate listing I should have stopped on April 1st. At that time I had Denis of Cork in second, Big Brown in fifth and Eight Belles in tenth. That was the only week that all three of them were listed in my Top 10.
Overall I'd say my Derby Top 10 performance was poor. I'm a skeptic by nature so I'm not quick to jump on horses like Big Brown and I'm also quick to give up on horses that I perceive as failures. Denis of Cork and Tale of Ekati were both highly thought of at one point in the spring and both were eliminated after single poor performances.
Derby 20-20 Roundup
The top ranked horse didn't win so was the 20-20 a failure? My estimation is no it was not and here a few reasons why.
There were no perfect qualifiers so right off the top one had to assume that the Derby was not going to be as easy as betting on the top ranked qualifier. The 548.89% ROI gleaned from betting only the perfect qualifiers stayed in tact. (By the way you can view the updated results of the 20-20 system here)
Big Brown was the second ranked contender and Eight Belles was co-third ranked. An exacta box on the top 5 contenders according to the 20-20 system paid off for the second year in a row, and had you followed that system since 1996 you would have made a 60.51% profit.
Much of the media are going to hold up Big Brown as yet another "rule breaker". Proof that statistics don't work and yet I don't see that at all. All the supposed "rules" he broke had to do with experience yet the 20-20 system claimed that his experience was sufficient. What he lacked was fitness. He failed to have two preps around two turns and his closing fractions in the Florida Derby were just a bit too slow.
What Big Brown did show is that good horses in weak fields can overcome these aspects. I think his lack of preps at two turns was still a negative but for a horse that good compared to his competition it doesn't matter.
Going forward I see few if any changes needed to the 20-20 system. I think it performed quite well. I may work on refining the average closing fraction calculations. Big Brown apparently didn't close his last race fast enough but that was based on an average that included preps on All Weather surfaces which were significantly faster because of the pace scenarios. Perhaps fractions earned on All Weather surfaces will have to be calculated separately.
I'm also interested in incorporating Thoro-Graph Sheet Figures as another speed calculation. I have back data and it looks very good but the problem is that they don't provide any of these figures for free and I'm not sold on paying their prices for a hobby system.
In the end I still very much believe that statistics are a useful tool in determining the Derby outcome.
Personal Derby Handicapping
After all the analysis and statistics did I actually come up with the right horse? No, unfortunately I went for Colonel John and Eight Belles on top. But overall I did think that I was on the right track. I did not use Big Brown in the straight win pool but I did use him in the exotics over my keys and other contenders. I went against Big Brown for the win but I still respected him greatly. I also liked Denis of Cork among a few others to hit the frame and my overall projection of the pace turned out to be correct. I feel like I was on the right track but just missed because I wanted to get fancy and drop the favorite. My overall handicapping performance was good but not great.
What we learned
Big Brown is definitely the superior animal some suspected he was. When a horse really is that good he tends to be able to overcome the unconventional. Convention is for mortals.
The Derby was an easy race for Big Brown after all.
The record of rookie trainers in the Derby gets better and better.
Statistics based on arbitrary lines took yet another hit demonstrating how limited they actually are. The actual number of starts does not and has never mattered. What matters is the experience a horse gets from the starts he or she has.
The Californian's weren't that great after all. Despite the great Cushion to dirt results we saw from Zenyatta, Tiago, Gayego and Sierra Sunset it did to change the fact that the horses simply weren't as good as the bet of those running in the Derby.
Despite the fact that no horse who had their last prep on an artificial surface hit the frame I don't think it's been exposed as a bad way to go. There is a difference between what is true and the truth. What is true is that 6 of the 9 horses who had their last prep on a surface other than dirt finished in the bottom half of the field. Including 5 of the last 6. But the truth is that just one year prior the exacta was filled with horses who had their last prep on Polytrack. The truth is that it's horse specific. Running on an all weather surface doesn't make your good horse bad, but what it does do is make it harder to see a horses real merit on dirt.
Other than Big Brown, Eight Belles and perhaps Tale of Ekati we didn't learn how good any of these horses really are. We learned how good some of them aren't but the Derby rarely reflects the actual upper level of a horse's ability.
All along we've been saying that the crop is slow and the derby did little to change that perception. Big Brown is definitely an exception but the rest of the colts are not very fast as this stage.
Once again we see that tactical speed has an enormous advantage in the Derby. Big Brown and Eight Belles both had the speed to put themselves right where they needed to be while Denis of Cork and Colonel John needed a pace setup and luck with weaving through the field. We mention this every year
Derby Top 10 accountability
You can read the entire Derby Top 10 here (Derby Top 10). The final list was definitely better than the first list. Big Brown was ranked second and Eight Belles was ranked fourth. Denis of Cork nor Tale Of Ekati were included. At one time or another Tale of Ekati and Denis of Cork were ranked as high as third and second respectively but poor results saw them dropped altogether.
My first Top 10 of 2008 had Tale of Ekati ranked third but none of the top three finishers were included. Only five of the those Top 10 even ran in the Derby. For the most accurate listing I should have stopped on April 1st. At that time I had Denis of Cork in second, Big Brown in fifth and Eight Belles in tenth. That was the only week that all three of them were listed in my Top 10.
Overall I'd say my Derby Top 10 performance was poor. I'm a skeptic by nature so I'm not quick to jump on horses like Big Brown and I'm also quick to give up on horses that I perceive as failures. Denis of Cork and Tale of Ekati were both highly thought of at one point in the spring and both were eliminated after single poor performances.
Derby 20-20 Roundup
The top ranked horse didn't win so was the 20-20 a failure? My estimation is no it was not and here a few reasons why.
There were no perfect qualifiers so right off the top one had to assume that the Derby was not going to be as easy as betting on the top ranked qualifier. The 548.89% ROI gleaned from betting only the perfect qualifiers stayed in tact. (By the way you can view the updated results of the 20-20 system here)
Big Brown was the second ranked contender and Eight Belles was co-third ranked. An exacta box on the top 5 contenders according to the 20-20 system paid off for the second year in a row, and had you followed that system since 1996 you would have made a 60.51% profit.
Much of the media are going to hold up Big Brown as yet another "rule breaker". Proof that statistics don't work and yet I don't see that at all. All the supposed "rules" he broke had to do with experience yet the 20-20 system claimed that his experience was sufficient. What he lacked was fitness. He failed to have two preps around two turns and his closing fractions in the Florida Derby were just a bit too slow.
What Big Brown did show is that good horses in weak fields can overcome these aspects. I think his lack of preps at two turns was still a negative but for a horse that good compared to his competition it doesn't matter.
Going forward I see few if any changes needed to the 20-20 system. I think it performed quite well. I may work on refining the average closing fraction calculations. Big Brown apparently didn't close his last race fast enough but that was based on an average that included preps on All Weather surfaces which were significantly faster because of the pace scenarios. Perhaps fractions earned on All Weather surfaces will have to be calculated separately.
I'm also interested in incorporating Thoro-Graph Sheet Figures as another speed calculation. I have back data and it looks very good but the problem is that they don't provide any of these figures for free and I'm not sold on paying their prices for a hobby system.
In the end I still very much believe that statistics are a useful tool in determining the Derby outcome.
Personal Derby Handicapping
After all the analysis and statistics did I actually come up with the right horse? No, unfortunately I went for Colonel John and Eight Belles on top. But overall I did think that I was on the right track. I did not use Big Brown in the straight win pool but I did use him in the exotics over my keys and other contenders. I went against Big Brown for the win but I still respected him greatly. I also liked Denis of Cork among a few others to hit the frame and my overall projection of the pace turned out to be correct. I feel like I was on the right track but just missed because I wanted to get fancy and drop the favorite. My overall handicapping performance was good but not great.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
20-20 Derby Vision 2008 - Part 3
#13 The entrant must have at least one prep race at nine furlongs. This factor the entrant’s experience. Could a horse stay 10f without having prepped at 9f? Sure they could, they are merely not as tested and generally less likely. Derby entrants need a good solid 9f prep race. Horses who did not prep at 9f went 16-0-0-0 in the Derby.
That is a strike against the highly regarded Eight Belles. All other entrants had 9f prep races this year.
#14 The entrant must have faced a field size of 10 or more as a three year old, or the entrant must have done so at least twice as a two year old. The Derby has large fields and the entrants need to have experience with traffic and such. I prefer that the experience come in stakes races as a 3yo but a horse cannot control who is entered against them. I require two races of 10 or more as a 2yo because most maidens have large fields, yet many of them are won wire to wire so the entrant would not have necessarily gained much experience. Getting bumped and blocked is commonplace in the Derby, those who tried to win the Derby without sufficient experience in large fields went 34-0-3-3 and this is no doubt what played against Curlin last year despite his good effort and decent third place finish.
This factor is against Eight Belles and Tale of Ekati.
#15 Highest Lifetime Beyer must be achieved in a two turn race. This is a pretty straightforward measurement of suitability to the Derby conditions. We don't want sprinters in the Derby, a quality distance horse will be faster in longer races than they were at short distances. 17 horses entered the Derby with this factor going against them and just one of them (Proud Citizen) managed to do himself any credit with a second place finish (17-0-1-0)
Bob Black Jack and Tale of Ekati are well respected in many quarters but this suggests that they’re actually better horses at a mile or less.
#16 The entrants sire or broodmare sire must show a progeny average winning distance of 8.00f or more. Only North American stakes races are included in the measurement of AWD. This is the only aspect of breeding I consider. Dosage is misleading but this factor looks directly at how the sire and broodmare sires best runners have fared in stakes races. If they are predominantly sprinters the average will show less than 8f and a sprinters pedigree is not ideal for winning the Derby. Horses whose sire and broodmare sire have less than 5 stakes runners are not included and therefore those horses are given a pass. The cumulative record of non-qualifiers is 19-0-1-0. Horses like Street Sense and Monarchos were given passes because of insufficient data on their sires at the time.
Recapturetheglory, Gayego, Z Fortune, Visionaire and Denis of Cork all have breeding that does not suggest proficiency at 10f. Smooth Air, Big Truck and Tale of Ekati were given passes.
So there you have it, the complete Derby 20-20 system. You can see how these combined factors scored the past 12 Derby's by clicking this link or visiting the sidebar where it is listed under the Derby Top 10. Hopefully this year the results are more in line with the systems predictions because it’s good to keep in mind that although something sounds great and works well in the past it is only useful if it works well going forward. Hopefully over the next 3-5 years we’ll be able to get a picture of how it holds up.
This is how this years running is looking.
Horse – Points
Colonel John – 14
Big Brown – 12
Cowboy Cal – 11
Eight Belles – 11
Recapturetheglory – 11
Adriano – 10
Bob Black Jack – 10
Gayego – 10
Monba – 10
Z Fortune – 10
Court Vision – 8
Pyro – 8
Smooth Air – 7
Big Truck – 5
Visionaire – 5
Cool Coal Man – 4
Denis of Cork – 4
Z Humor – 4
Tale Of Ekati – 3
Anak Nakal – 0
Observations based on the 20-20 system
I consider Speed, Fitness and Form to be the most important of the 7 factors. Those 3 make up 10 of the 16 factors and thus give those areas slightly more weight than Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
Horses running on all weather surfaces once again struggled to measure up to the speed standards and this is perhaps more proof of the fact that Beyer speed figures seem lower than their equivalents on dirt. I suspect that horses like Colonel John and Bob Black Jack are faster than the numbers suggest.
The top horse according to the system is Colonel John. He is not a perfect qualifier though as he failed to measure up to Factor #2. Personally I still think he is the most solid and if All Weather Beyer figures are indeed lower than they should be then Colonel John would be qualify for Factor #2 and be a perfect qualifier.
Big Brown is second on the list but is slightly suspect considering that the two factors he failed on (#4, #6) both had to do with fitness. If the statistics ring true Big Brown will have a hard time in the final furlong.
The 20-20 system is suggesting that the biggest hurdle standing in the way of Eight Belles is experience.
Anak Nakal is the worst horse in the Derby.
Tale of Ekati is the worst winner of a major prep race.
There are no perfect qualifiers this year, which may suggest that the field is wide open because no one is perfectly suited for victory. The last time that happened was 2005, the year of Giacomo.
That is a strike against the highly regarded Eight Belles. All other entrants had 9f prep races this year.
#14 The entrant must have faced a field size of 10 or more as a three year old, or the entrant must have done so at least twice as a two year old. The Derby has large fields and the entrants need to have experience with traffic and such. I prefer that the experience come in stakes races as a 3yo but a horse cannot control who is entered against them. I require two races of 10 or more as a 2yo because most maidens have large fields, yet many of them are won wire to wire so the entrant would not have necessarily gained much experience. Getting bumped and blocked is commonplace in the Derby, those who tried to win the Derby without sufficient experience in large fields went 34-0-3-3 and this is no doubt what played against Curlin last year despite his good effort and decent third place finish.
This factor is against Eight Belles and Tale of Ekati.
#15 Highest Lifetime Beyer must be achieved in a two turn race. This is a pretty straightforward measurement of suitability to the Derby conditions. We don't want sprinters in the Derby, a quality distance horse will be faster in longer races than they were at short distances. 17 horses entered the Derby with this factor going against them and just one of them (Proud Citizen) managed to do himself any credit with a second place finish (17-0-1-0)
Bob Black Jack and Tale of Ekati are well respected in many quarters but this suggests that they’re actually better horses at a mile or less.
#16 The entrants sire or broodmare sire must show a progeny average winning distance of 8.00f or more. Only North American stakes races are included in the measurement of AWD. This is the only aspect of breeding I consider. Dosage is misleading but this factor looks directly at how the sire and broodmare sires best runners have fared in stakes races. If they are predominantly sprinters the average will show less than 8f and a sprinters pedigree is not ideal for winning the Derby. Horses whose sire and broodmare sire have less than 5 stakes runners are not included and therefore those horses are given a pass. The cumulative record of non-qualifiers is 19-0-1-0. Horses like Street Sense and Monarchos were given passes because of insufficient data on their sires at the time.
Recapturetheglory, Gayego, Z Fortune, Visionaire and Denis of Cork all have breeding that does not suggest proficiency at 10f. Smooth Air, Big Truck and Tale of Ekati were given passes.
So there you have it, the complete Derby 20-20 system. You can see how these combined factors scored the past 12 Derby's by clicking this link or visiting the sidebar where it is listed under the Derby Top 10. Hopefully this year the results are more in line with the systems predictions because it’s good to keep in mind that although something sounds great and works well in the past it is only useful if it works well going forward. Hopefully over the next 3-5 years we’ll be able to get a picture of how it holds up.
This is how this years running is looking.
Horse – Points
Colonel John – 14
Big Brown – 12
Cowboy Cal – 11
Eight Belles – 11
Recapturetheglory – 11
Adriano – 10
Bob Black Jack – 10
Gayego – 10
Monba – 10
Z Fortune – 10
Court Vision – 8
Pyro – 8
Smooth Air – 7
Big Truck – 5
Visionaire – 5
Cool Coal Man – 4
Denis of Cork – 4
Z Humor – 4
Tale Of Ekati – 3
Anak Nakal – 0
Observations based on the 20-20 system
I consider Speed, Fitness and Form to be the most important of the 7 factors. Those 3 make up 10 of the 16 factors and thus give those areas slightly more weight than Class, Experience, Suitability and Breeding.
Horses running on all weather surfaces once again struggled to measure up to the speed standards and this is perhaps more proof of the fact that Beyer speed figures seem lower than their equivalents on dirt. I suspect that horses like Colonel John and Bob Black Jack are faster than the numbers suggest.
The top horse according to the system is Colonel John. He is not a perfect qualifier though as he failed to measure up to Factor #2. Personally I still think he is the most solid and if All Weather Beyer figures are indeed lower than they should be then Colonel John would be qualify for Factor #2 and be a perfect qualifier.
Big Brown is second on the list but is slightly suspect considering that the two factors he failed on (#4, #6) both had to do with fitness. If the statistics ring true Big Brown will have a hard time in the final furlong.
The 20-20 system is suggesting that the biggest hurdle standing in the way of Eight Belles is experience.
Anak Nakal is the worst horse in the Derby.
Tale of Ekati is the worst winner of a major prep race.
There are no perfect qualifiers this year, which may suggest that the field is wide open because no one is perfectly suited for victory. The last time that happened was 2005, the year of Giacomo.
20-20 Derby Vision 2008 - Part 2
If you missed Part 1 be sure to check it out here: 20-20 Derby Vision 2008 - Part 1
#4 The entrants last two prep races must have been run around two turns. Two turn experience is vital for having a horse ready to go 10f in May. Horses with a single prep race around one turn (or less) are 17-0-0-0 in the Derby. Horses like Bellamy Road, Showing Up and Favorite Trick were all non-qualifiers.
This year Big Brown is the only horse that does not qualify
#5 The entrants finishing position must be no worse than their position at the 1/8th pole in both final preps. This is the second fitness factor. Derby winners rarely get passed in the stretch. They should be at least able to hold their position through the final 1/8th. The non-qualifiers for this factor were 60-1-3-3 in the Derby inclduing a full 10 horses in last years race. Only three of them finished in the top half of the field. Silver Charm managed to win the Derby after getting passed in the Santa Anita Derby but anyone who saw that race might give him a pass considering that he set blazing fractions and was only nosed out right at the wire.
Cowboy Cal, Recapturetheglory, Bob Black Jack, Gayego and Cool Coal Man all failed to hold their position in the stretch in one of their last two races.
#6 The entrant must have run the final 1/8, ¼ and 3/8th’s faster than or equal to the fields average closing fractions in their last prep. In order to win the Derby you have to finish well. If you’re gasping for breath in the final stages of a 9f race you won’t handle the Derby distance as well. Since virtually the whole field has their last prep at 9f it is easy to compare closing fractions. If a Derby entrant fails to close out any of the final three time frames in less than the average time they’re given a strike. A horse must have run a 9f race to be included and any competitor who was beaten by more than 20 lengths is given a strike against but his fractions are not included in the average calculation.
This year the averages for the last three furlongs look like this. 1/8 = 0:12.8, 1/4 = 0:25.1, 3/8 = 0:37.5.
Big Brown, Adriano, Gayego, Z Fortune, Court Vision, Smooth Air, Cool Coal Man, Denis Of Cork, Tale Of Ekati and Anak Nakal all failed to qualify and Eight Belles was given a pass because of the lack of a 9f prep race.
#7 The entrant must have finished in the money in their last prep. This one is an obvious way of judging form. A horse needs to show that they are in fine form and one of the most obvious ways they do that is to finish in the top 3 in their last race. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 50-1-2-0 in the Derby. Giacomo, Invisible Ink and Bluegrass Cat all rebounded from 4th place finishes to run well in the Derby.
Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire, Cool Coal Man, Anak Nakal and Denis of Cork finished out of ther frame and so they’re given a strike.
#8 The entrant must either win or finish within three lengths of the winner in their last prep. Seems nearly redundant after viewing factor #7 but there are a few reasons to add this factor. I like the fact that out of form horses are punished for it more than once and this is a far more precise measurement in my opinion. For instance a horse may have run a good race to be a close 4th, conversely some horses are beaten by 10 lengths in their last prep but they managed to be third simply because everyone else who they were facing ran worse. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 83-0-4-1 in the Derby. The best non-qualified performers with this angle were Bluegrass Cat, Invisible Ink, Impeachment, Aptitude and Closing Arguement.
For this years Derby it means Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire, Cool Coal Man, Smooth Air, Z Humor, Anak Nakal and Denis of Cork all get minused another point.
#9 The entrant must have finished in the money in at least two races as a three year old. This value of this factor is two fold. First of all it tries to identify consistency among the entrants, but secondly it also means that a horse with two preps has very little wiggle room. The profile does not have any factor concerning the actual number of prep races. It only makes minimum requirement of what a horse must get from their prep races. In this case it effectively means that any horse with one prep is eliminated and also any horse with two preps who did not run well in both. Of course horses who do poorly over 3 or 4 preps can also be eliminated. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 32-0-1-0 in the Derby. Proud Citizen was the only horse to overcome this factor and run with credit.
That could spell bad news for Monba, Z Humor, Tale of Ekati and Anak Nakal.
#10 The entrants last Beyer Speed Figure cannot be worse than his previous two. This is the last measurement of form. I feel that a horses last three Derby prep races are really the only ones of importanceand you don't want the horses worst race to be his most current. I don’t mind slight regression but I want the trend of the speed figures to be up overall. If a horse only had two prep races they can be exempt from this factor. However not all horses with two preps will be exempt. For instance if a horse only has two preps but runs a career high in his last prep race then it’s obivous that his latest figure would not worse than his previous two. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 39-0-1-1 in the Derby. Bluegrass Cat and Imperialism were the only ones to overcome this and run in the frame.
Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire and Cool Coal Man all failed to qualify with this factor but be aware that all of these horses had been running well on dirt before having their last prep on Polytrack in the Bluegrass. That can have a significantly negative effect on Beyer figures.
#11 The entrant must be a stakes winner. This is the first measurement of class. Not only do we want them running in stakes races, we want them winning them as well. Now they do not have to be Graded Stakes races but I do want my Derby horses to have beaten more than maiden company. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify for this factor is 44-1-2-2. Giacomo of course was just a maiden winner, but the overwhelming majority of these horses ran poorly because most of them simply are not good enough.
All of the entrants this year qualified for this factor.
#12 The entrant must have either won or finished within three lengths of the winner in a Graded Main Track route race as a three year old. A further refinement of factor #11. We do want our Derby entrants to be stakes winner but we also prefer that their class be confirmed by good performances in route races on the Derby trail itself. A horse like Private Vow is case and point of what this factor eliminates. Horses who show some class as 2yo’s but as 3yo’s it is revealed that they no longer belong with the top tier. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualifiy with this factor is 43-0-1-1.
Smooth Air, Z Humor and Anak Nakal seem to lack the class to compete in the Derby.
#4 The entrants last two prep races must have been run around two turns. Two turn experience is vital for having a horse ready to go 10f in May. Horses with a single prep race around one turn (or less) are 17-0-0-0 in the Derby. Horses like Bellamy Road, Showing Up and Favorite Trick were all non-qualifiers.
This year Big Brown is the only horse that does not qualify
#5 The entrants finishing position must be no worse than their position at the 1/8th pole in both final preps. This is the second fitness factor. Derby winners rarely get passed in the stretch. They should be at least able to hold their position through the final 1/8th. The non-qualifiers for this factor were 60-1-3-3 in the Derby inclduing a full 10 horses in last years race. Only three of them finished in the top half of the field. Silver Charm managed to win the Derby after getting passed in the Santa Anita Derby but anyone who saw that race might give him a pass considering that he set blazing fractions and was only nosed out right at the wire.
Cowboy Cal, Recapturetheglory, Bob Black Jack, Gayego and Cool Coal Man all failed to hold their position in the stretch in one of their last two races.
#6 The entrant must have run the final 1/8, ¼ and 3/8th’s faster than or equal to the fields average closing fractions in their last prep. In order to win the Derby you have to finish well. If you’re gasping for breath in the final stages of a 9f race you won’t handle the Derby distance as well. Since virtually the whole field has their last prep at 9f it is easy to compare closing fractions. If a Derby entrant fails to close out any of the final three time frames in less than the average time they’re given a strike. A horse must have run a 9f race to be included and any competitor who was beaten by more than 20 lengths is given a strike against but his fractions are not included in the average calculation.
This year the averages for the last three furlongs look like this. 1/8 = 0:12.8, 1/4 = 0:25.1, 3/8 = 0:37.5.
Big Brown, Adriano, Gayego, Z Fortune, Court Vision, Smooth Air, Cool Coal Man, Denis Of Cork, Tale Of Ekati and Anak Nakal all failed to qualify and Eight Belles was given a pass because of the lack of a 9f prep race.
#7 The entrant must have finished in the money in their last prep. This one is an obvious way of judging form. A horse needs to show that they are in fine form and one of the most obvious ways they do that is to finish in the top 3 in their last race. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 50-1-2-0 in the Derby. Giacomo, Invisible Ink and Bluegrass Cat all rebounded from 4th place finishes to run well in the Derby.
Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire, Cool Coal Man, Anak Nakal and Denis of Cork finished out of ther frame and so they’re given a strike.
#8 The entrant must either win or finish within three lengths of the winner in their last prep. Seems nearly redundant after viewing factor #7 but there are a few reasons to add this factor. I like the fact that out of form horses are punished for it more than once and this is a far more precise measurement in my opinion. For instance a horse may have run a good race to be a close 4th, conversely some horses are beaten by 10 lengths in their last prep but they managed to be third simply because everyone else who they were facing ran worse. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 83-0-4-1 in the Derby. The best non-qualified performers with this angle were Bluegrass Cat, Invisible Ink, Impeachment, Aptitude and Closing Arguement.
For this years Derby it means Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire, Cool Coal Man, Smooth Air, Z Humor, Anak Nakal and Denis of Cork all get minused another point.
#9 The entrant must have finished in the money in at least two races as a three year old. This value of this factor is two fold. First of all it tries to identify consistency among the entrants, but secondly it also means that a horse with two preps has very little wiggle room. The profile does not have any factor concerning the actual number of prep races. It only makes minimum requirement of what a horse must get from their prep races. In this case it effectively means that any horse with one prep is eliminated and also any horse with two preps who did not run well in both. Of course horses who do poorly over 3 or 4 preps can also be eliminated. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 32-0-1-0 in the Derby. Proud Citizen was the only horse to overcome this factor and run with credit.
That could spell bad news for Monba, Z Humor, Tale of Ekati and Anak Nakal.
#10 The entrants last Beyer Speed Figure cannot be worse than his previous two. This is the last measurement of form. I feel that a horses last three Derby prep races are really the only ones of importanceand you don't want the horses worst race to be his most current. I don’t mind slight regression but I want the trend of the speed figures to be up overall. If a horse only had two prep races they can be exempt from this factor. However not all horses with two preps will be exempt. For instance if a horse only has two preps but runs a career high in his last prep race then it’s obivous that his latest figure would not worse than his previous two. The horses who failed to qualify for this factor were a cumulative 39-0-1-1 in the Derby. Bluegrass Cat and Imperialism were the only ones to overcome this and run in the frame.
Pyro, Big Truck, Visionaire and Cool Coal Man all failed to qualify with this factor but be aware that all of these horses had been running well on dirt before having their last prep on Polytrack in the Bluegrass. That can have a significantly negative effect on Beyer figures.
#11 The entrant must be a stakes winner. This is the first measurement of class. Not only do we want them running in stakes races, we want them winning them as well. Now they do not have to be Graded Stakes races but I do want my Derby horses to have beaten more than maiden company. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualify for this factor is 44-1-2-2. Giacomo of course was just a maiden winner, but the overwhelming majority of these horses ran poorly because most of them simply are not good enough.
All of the entrants this year qualified for this factor.
#12 The entrant must have either won or finished within three lengths of the winner in a Graded Main Track route race as a three year old. A further refinement of factor #11. We do want our Derby entrants to be stakes winner but we also prefer that their class be confirmed by good performances in route races on the Derby trail itself. A horse like Private Vow is case and point of what this factor eliminates. Horses who show some class as 2yo’s but as 3yo’s it is revealed that they no longer belong with the top tier. The cumulative record of horses who failed to qualifiy with this factor is 43-0-1-1.
Smooth Air, Z Humor and Anak Nakal seem to lack the class to compete in the Derby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)