Two days ago Nick Luck looked to answer the question of which Europeans might be vulnerable at the Breeders' Cup. It's a good question and I thought he wrote out his analysis well. But there is another side to the coin that was not discussed and that is the statistical record of Europeans that fit specific profiles.
Europeans that are favored in Breeders' Cup races don't seem to have any more systematic vulnerability than any other favorites. Favorites have won 67 of the 194 Breeders' Cup races. That's a 34.54% clip. In races where Europeans have been favored the public choice has gone 14 for 45 or 31.11%. The difference is somewhere between negligible and non-existent. European favorites seem to be just as solid but no more solid than hometown favorites.
There is a bit of disparity if you isolate just the favorites that were odds on. North American odds on choices won at a 45.7% rate while European odds on choices managed only 33.3%. You have to take that with a grain of salt though because there have only been 6 European odds on favorites in the history of the Breeders' Cup. If Goldikova happens to be odds on this year and wins the winning percentage would jump to 42% which is right in line. The failed European odds on favorites were often pretty memorable though. Dancing Brave, Zilzal and Dylan Thomas all failed pretty badly.
Another relatively easy way to categorize Europeans is to judge the fresh against the not so fresh. It may be an overly simplistic measurement but look at every European that came to the Breeders' Cup since 1996 that has had more than 3 races since their last layoff. Their overall record is 2 for 48. A caveat to this statistic is the fact that from 1996 to 2007 they were 0 for 36 but last year Raven's Pass and Muhannak both defied the stat. It makes logical sense that a long season without breaks followed by a trip across the ocean may not be the best formula for success.
A third subset of Europeans that we'll examine statistically are those that have come to North America for their final prep before wheeling back in the Breeders' Cup. 34 horses have tried it from 1996 to 2008 and among those 34 a full 10 of them won their preps and 27 of the 34 hit the board. That's nearly an 80% in the money percentage. But when those same horses came back in the Breeders' Cup they have recorded a shocking 34-0-4-3 record. That's no wins and only 20% in the money.
These horses usually attract a fair bit of public support because they've already proven that they can handle American conditions and often they're impressive in the preps. But of the 34 entrants only Docksider, Ace and Banks Hill actually ran better races (ie... achieved an improved finishing position) in the Breeders' Cup than they did in their final preps. None of those three horses won their preps either, nor did they win Breeders' Cup races.
This stat does not include horses like Red Rocks or Winchester last year. Both of those horses did have European careers followed by a single North American race prior to the Breeders' Cup but both of them also had several month layoffs. The theory behind this "Euro bounce" is that a horse does not immediately feel the effects of a intercontinental journey. The adrenaline is still pumping and the jet lag has not set in at the time of their first start. However the arduous activity of a race seems to heighten the post race fatigue and they just can't replicate their form within the next few weeks. Obviously a lengthy spell on the sidelines mitigates this effect.
We've already seen Barry Irwin pull out Gitano Hernando from Classic consideration because of this type of thing. The official story is that he is too tired from his hard race in the Goodwood to wheel back in the Classic. Maybe he knows about the "Euro bounce".
Showing posts with label BC Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BC Statistics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Defending Champions
I'm really looking forward to the Breeders' Cup this year. It's not really that significant since I get really pumped for it every year but this time around I am especially intrigued by the large number of defending champions we have returning to try and capture Breeders' Cup races once again.
Goldikova, Zenyatta, Ventura, Forever Together, Conduit and Desert Code are all on track to run in the Breeders' Cup again. We actually also have Stardom Bound, Red Rocks, Indian Blessing and maybe Midshipman who have all won Breeders' Cup races but won't be defending champions this fall at Santa Anita.
The Breeders' Cup has never had so many stars returning in a single year. Last year we had four (Curlin, Kip Deville, Ginger Punch, Midnight Lute) and that seemed like a big number but six is right over the top.
I decided to take a look back and see how defending champions in the past have fared. Since it's inauguration the Breeders' Cup has had 40 horses return to defend their titles in the same race the following year. Only 6 of them (15%) managed to be successful the second time around.
A flat $2 win bet on each of these entrants would have cost $80 and returned just $44.40 for a -44.5% loss.
45% of the defending champions did manage to hit the frame but they did so at an average price of 4.50/1.
You don't get very much value out of them typically. These 40 horses won their Breeders' Cup at an average price of 11/1 but they returned to defend their crowns at an average price of 6.20/1.
Four or five of the six defending champions could wind up being favored but the odds say that only one of them is likely to win. Which one would you pick if you had to choose only one?
I think I'd have to go with Goldikova.
Goldikova, Zenyatta, Ventura, Forever Together, Conduit and Desert Code are all on track to run in the Breeders' Cup again. We actually also have Stardom Bound, Red Rocks, Indian Blessing and maybe Midshipman who have all won Breeders' Cup races but won't be defending champions this fall at Santa Anita.
The Breeders' Cup has never had so many stars returning in a single year. Last year we had four (Curlin, Kip Deville, Ginger Punch, Midnight Lute) and that seemed like a big number but six is right over the top.
I decided to take a look back and see how defending champions in the past have fared. Since it's inauguration the Breeders' Cup has had 40 horses return to defend their titles in the same race the following year. Only 6 of them (15%) managed to be successful the second time around.
A flat $2 win bet on each of these entrants would have cost $80 and returned just $44.40 for a -44.5% loss.
45% of the defending champions did manage to hit the frame but they did so at an average price of 4.50/1.
You don't get very much value out of them typically. These 40 horses won their Breeders' Cup at an average price of 11/1 but they returned to defend their crowns at an average price of 6.20/1.
Four or five of the six defending champions could wind up being favored but the odds say that only one of them is likely to win. Which one would you pick if you had to choose only one?
I think I'd have to go with Goldikova.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Mile After Mile
I have long viewed the Woodbine Mile as one of the key prep races for my favorite race, the Breeders' Cup Mile.
Since its inception in 1997, 30 runners have gone from the Woodbine Mile to the Breeders' Cup Mile and have compiled a record of 30-2-4-2. It's not exactly a great record but the winners of the Woodbine Mile have hit the BC superfecta every time they've run in the Breeders' Cup Mile aside from 1999 where Quiet Resolve failed badly.
Once again this year we've got a very strong lineup for the Woodbine Mile with last year's exacta of Rahy's Attorney and Ventura returning to face Bribon, Jungle Wave, Ferneley and many more.
As you're watching the Woodbine Mile you'll be no doubt doing so with one eye on the future. After all a bunch of live Breeders' Cup horses have come out of this race. Here are some statistical factors for the Breeders' Cup Mile that might help you hone your search even further after the results of the Woodbine Mile have been digested.
Fresh horses usually outperform. I'm not looking for horses who are coming into the BC Mile directly off a layoff but I am looking for horses who have had a layoff within the last 3 running lines. Horses who didn't went 66-0-4-5 in the BC. Especially oppose those who have not had a recent layoff and have achieved 3 increasing Beyer Speed Figures. They have gone 14-0-0-1 and many of them were well respected.
Highest Last Beyer Figure is not really a positive. Since 1996 the horse with the highest last Turf BSF in the BC Mile have gone 16-1-1-2. There were three occasions where two horses shared the highest last BSF. It is the poorest record by last highest BSF holders for all the BC races.
Prefer horses who did not run at Del Mar or Saratoga. Since Lure in 1993 only Artie Schiller and Da Hoss in 1996 have managed to win the Mile after having run at Saratoga or Del Mar in the same season. Saratoga and Del Mar runners have gone a combined 2 for 82 in the Mile from 1996 to the present. It would seem that most of the Mile winners are actually on vacation during those summer months.
Since its inception in 1997, 30 runners have gone from the Woodbine Mile to the Breeders' Cup Mile and have compiled a record of 30-2-4-2. It's not exactly a great record but the winners of the Woodbine Mile have hit the BC superfecta every time they've run in the Breeders' Cup Mile aside from 1999 where Quiet Resolve failed badly.
Once again this year we've got a very strong lineup for the Woodbine Mile with last year's exacta of Rahy's Attorney and Ventura returning to face Bribon, Jungle Wave, Ferneley and many more.
As you're watching the Woodbine Mile you'll be no doubt doing so with one eye on the future. After all a bunch of live Breeders' Cup horses have come out of this race. Here are some statistical factors for the Breeders' Cup Mile that might help you hone your search even further after the results of the Woodbine Mile have been digested.
Fresh horses usually outperform. I'm not looking for horses who are coming into the BC Mile directly off a layoff but I am looking for horses who have had a layoff within the last 3 running lines. Horses who didn't went 66-0-4-5 in the BC. Especially oppose those who have not had a recent layoff and have achieved 3 increasing Beyer Speed Figures. They have gone 14-0-0-1 and many of them were well respected.
Highest Last Beyer Figure is not really a positive. Since 1996 the horse with the highest last Turf BSF in the BC Mile have gone 16-1-1-2. There were three occasions where two horses shared the highest last BSF. It is the poorest record by last highest BSF holders for all the BC races.
Prefer horses who did not run at Del Mar or Saratoga. Since Lure in 1993 only Artie Schiller and Da Hoss in 1996 have managed to win the Mile after having run at Saratoga or Del Mar in the same season. Saratoga and Del Mar runners have gone a combined 2 for 82 in the Mile from 1996 to the present. It would seem that most of the Mile winners are actually on vacation during those summer months.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Speed On Weeds
There has been quite a few good posts lately that have been asking the question "Where are all the good horses?" The older horse division appears to be in shambles. Horses like Macho Again, It's a Bird and Einstein are a mere shadow of Skip Away, Formal Gold and Will's Way. The weakness encompasses more than just the G-1 level main track older males.
I had been recently considering the Breeders' Cup grass races and it caught my notice that through the 90's both the Turf and the Mile were won by Americans and Europeans at a roughly equal weight. However in this decade the Mile has been dominated by Americans and the Turf has been dominated by Europeans.
I set about looking for explanations and one thing I noticed is the real drop off in the quality of the G-1 races for older males on the grass that are run at 10f or more. I focused on 7 major North American Turf stakes (Manhattan, Whittingham, Arlington Million, Sword Dancer, Man O'War, United Nations and Turf Classic) and it has become somewhat obvious that the quality in those races is going downhill as evidenced by the Beyer it takes to win them. Here is a year by year breakdown of the average winning Beyer for those 7 races over the last decade.
1999 - 107.17
2000 - 107.14
2001 - 110.57
2002 - 108.86
2003 - 107.86
2004 - 109.00
2005 - 106.86
2006 - 107.29
2007 - 105.00
2008 - 104.43
The overall average for these 7 races in the last decade is 107.42 and all the last 4 years have been lower than that average. If you break it down race by race only 6 races from 21 in the last 3 years have earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 108 or more.
In the last 5 years there has been has been 4 occasions where a horse has earned a 110 or more in one of those 7 stakes races. In the 5 years prior, so the first half of the decade in question, a horse earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 110 or more 12 times. That's three times as many in the same period of time.
Of course we still have horses that win those races every year, someone has to, but it appears as though our horses are no longer as effective going long as they once were. Europeans on the other hand are still as strong as ever at the extended distances. Thus it seems to logically follow that we're getting worse in the Breeders' Cup Turf while the Europeans are getting better.
As for the Breeders' Cup Mile the Beyer Figures from key races seem to indicate that the milers aren't any slower or faster. The average Beyer from key mile races is 106.88. The first half of the decade average is 106.90 and the second half average is 106.87. There has been no perceptible change in the speed of out milers over this last decade. I can't make an educated comment on whether or not the Europeans have gotten slower as time has progressed but the American success rate has certainly gotten better.
It is interesting though that at the sprinter level Australian and now American horses have had good success against Europeans in Europe. I wouldn't necessarily become too focused on the fact because one horse can defy the trend but it's probably wise to remember that our classic distance turf division seems to be getting worse each year. Meanwhile our milers can more than hold their own.
I had been recently considering the Breeders' Cup grass races and it caught my notice that through the 90's both the Turf and the Mile were won by Americans and Europeans at a roughly equal weight. However in this decade the Mile has been dominated by Americans and the Turf has been dominated by Europeans.
I set about looking for explanations and one thing I noticed is the real drop off in the quality of the G-1 races for older males on the grass that are run at 10f or more. I focused on 7 major North American Turf stakes (Manhattan, Whittingham, Arlington Million, Sword Dancer, Man O'War, United Nations and Turf Classic) and it has become somewhat obvious that the quality in those races is going downhill as evidenced by the Beyer it takes to win them. Here is a year by year breakdown of the average winning Beyer for those 7 races over the last decade.
1999 - 107.17
2000 - 107.14
2001 - 110.57
2002 - 108.86
2003 - 107.86
2004 - 109.00
2005 - 106.86
2006 - 107.29
2007 - 105.00
2008 - 104.43
The overall average for these 7 races in the last decade is 107.42 and all the last 4 years have been lower than that average. If you break it down race by race only 6 races from 21 in the last 3 years have earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 108 or more.
In the last 5 years there has been has been 4 occasions where a horse has earned a 110 or more in one of those 7 stakes races. In the 5 years prior, so the first half of the decade in question, a horse earned a Beyer Speed Figure of 110 or more 12 times. That's three times as many in the same period of time.
Of course we still have horses that win those races every year, someone has to, but it appears as though our horses are no longer as effective going long as they once were. Europeans on the other hand are still as strong as ever at the extended distances. Thus it seems to logically follow that we're getting worse in the Breeders' Cup Turf while the Europeans are getting better.
As for the Breeders' Cup Mile the Beyer Figures from key races seem to indicate that the milers aren't any slower or faster. The average Beyer from key mile races is 106.88. The first half of the decade average is 106.90 and the second half average is 106.87. There has been no perceptible change in the speed of out milers over this last decade. I can't make an educated comment on whether or not the Europeans have gotten slower as time has progressed but the American success rate has certainly gotten better.
It is interesting though that at the sprinter level Australian and now American horses have had good success against Europeans in Europe. I wouldn't necessarily become too focused on the fact because one horse can defy the trend but it's probably wise to remember that our classic distance turf division seems to be getting worse each year. Meanwhile our milers can more than hold their own.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
What Worked? What Didn't?
As we continue to dissect the Breeders' Cup results I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of the statistical angles. Maybe we'll even find some useful things to keep in mind for next year.
Last prep in California or Europe: 79-11-7-8
It's simplistic but it would have worked like a dream. About half of the entrants (79 of 156) had their last prep in Europe or California and they accounted for 11 of the 14 wins. A flat bet on each of these horses would have made you $45 (+28% ROI)
Won their last race: 74-9-7-6
This angle was very nearly profitable. It would have returned $132.80 on $148 bet. Clearly horses with recent winning form did the best. This is not always the case in Breeders' Cups.
Europeans who had a layoff no more than 2 starts back: 10-3-2-0
Europeans did great, fresh Europeans did even better. 10 Europeans came to the Breeders' Cup fresh and 5 of them hit the exacta and 7 of them were in the superfecta. It's something to keep in mind for all future years. Favorites like Sixties Icon, Dylan Thomas and Montjeu all lacked recent layoffs.
Favorites: 14-3-3-2
It was not the greatest meet for favorites, they won just 21% of the races and you would have lost money betting on them.
All horses 20-1 or more: 49-1-1-2
For all the supposed uncertainty created by synthetic tracks there was a distinct lack of longshots. There were nearly 50 horses who were 20-1 or more and only 4 of them hit the board. Three of those four were actually in Turf races. Two Step Salsa who was third in the Dirt Mile was the only +20-1 shot to hit the board.
Never raced on synthetics: 21-1-2-3
Raven's Pass, Henrythenavigator, Cocoa Beach, Sky Diva, Music Note and Zaftig were the only horses to hit the board on the main track without the benefit of any synthetic experience. A flat bet on all of them would have returned a loss.
Highest Last Beyer figure: 18-2-1-3
This has never been a great angle and it was more of the same this year. The odd thing about this angle is that for some reason keeps working in the Juvenile Fillies. Stardom Bound is the 5th such winner in the last 7 renewals.
Europeans without synthetic experience: 7-1-1-0
Raven's Pass and Henrythenavigator were the exceptions. This will be something to keep an eye on next year because the craze will be to go all for the Europeans. I think most people will remember the fact that the Europeans won a lot of races and swept the Classic exacta. But aside from the Classic exacta the rest of non-synthetic experienced horses ran poorly. Europe was truly dominant on the Turf.
Last prep not in California or Europe: 77-3-7-6
Ventura, Maram and Forever Together were the only winners from 77 starters. A flat bet on all of these entrants would have lost you -$100.40 (-69% ROI)
North Americas who did not have their last workout at Santa Anita: 63-4-3-4
Zenyatta, Forever Together, Maram and Stardom Bound were the only North American Breeders' Cup winners who did not have their last work at Santa Anita. Zenyatta and Stardom Bound both had their last work at Hollywood. Forever Together's came at Keeneland and Maram's at Belmont. None of the European winners had a timed work stateside.
Last prep in California or Europe: 79-11-7-8
It's simplistic but it would have worked like a dream. About half of the entrants (79 of 156) had their last prep in Europe or California and they accounted for 11 of the 14 wins. A flat bet on each of these horses would have made you $45 (+28% ROI)
Won their last race: 74-9-7-6
This angle was very nearly profitable. It would have returned $132.80 on $148 bet. Clearly horses with recent winning form did the best. This is not always the case in Breeders' Cups.
Europeans who had a layoff no more than 2 starts back: 10-3-2-0
Europeans did great, fresh Europeans did even better. 10 Europeans came to the Breeders' Cup fresh and 5 of them hit the exacta and 7 of them were in the superfecta. It's something to keep in mind for all future years. Favorites like Sixties Icon, Dylan Thomas and Montjeu all lacked recent layoffs.
Favorites: 14-3-3-2
It was not the greatest meet for favorites, they won just 21% of the races and you would have lost money betting on them.
All horses 20-1 or more: 49-1-1-2
For all the supposed uncertainty created by synthetic tracks there was a distinct lack of longshots. There were nearly 50 horses who were 20-1 or more and only 4 of them hit the board. Three of those four were actually in Turf races. Two Step Salsa who was third in the Dirt Mile was the only +20-1 shot to hit the board.
Never raced on synthetics: 21-1-2-3
Raven's Pass, Henrythenavigator, Cocoa Beach, Sky Diva, Music Note and Zaftig were the only horses to hit the board on the main track without the benefit of any synthetic experience. A flat bet on all of them would have returned a loss.
Highest Last Beyer figure: 18-2-1-3
This has never been a great angle and it was more of the same this year. The odd thing about this angle is that for some reason keeps working in the Juvenile Fillies. Stardom Bound is the 5th such winner in the last 7 renewals.
Europeans without synthetic experience: 7-1-1-0
Raven's Pass and Henrythenavigator were the exceptions. This will be something to keep an eye on next year because the craze will be to go all for the Europeans. I think most people will remember the fact that the Europeans won a lot of races and swept the Classic exacta. But aside from the Classic exacta the rest of non-synthetic experienced horses ran poorly. Europe was truly dominant on the Turf.
Last prep not in California or Europe: 77-3-7-6
Ventura, Maram and Forever Together were the only winners from 77 starters. A flat bet on all of these entrants would have lost you -$100.40 (-69% ROI)
North Americas who did not have their last workout at Santa Anita: 63-4-3-4
Zenyatta, Forever Together, Maram and Stardom Bound were the only North American Breeders' Cup winners who did not have their last work at Santa Anita. Zenyatta and Stardom Bound both had their last work at Hollywood. Forever Together's came at Keeneland and Maram's at Belmont. None of the European winners had a timed work stateside.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Three Weeks Rest
This is the last major weekend for Breeders' Cup prep races and a sentiment I'm hearing through quotes of trainers and racing secretaries is that three weeks rest is far from ideal for Breeders' Cup preparation. Most prefer four weeks or more and are a bit wary of bringing horses in off a "short rest".
Anytime people raise questions like this I'm always drawn back to the stats. Do they support this notion? What, if anything, do the numbers suggest?
The notion that 3 weeks is suddenly "short rest" is fairly new so I only looked at the results of the last 5 Breeders' Cups. Incidentally it takes us back to the last time Santa Anita hosted the event. From 2003 to the present 145 horses have entered the Breeders' Cup on three weeks rest or less. They compiled a record of 145-8-13-10 in 43 Breeders' Cup races. Many of the winners like Intercontinental, Singletary and Pleasant Home were healthy prices as well.
It'll become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy and in some ways it already has. Even in the last five years we've many of the major prep races moved further away from the Breeders' Cup. Trainers want more time and racetracks want the good horses so they move the races further back to accommodate them. But I think it's notable that as of right now there seems to be no disadvantage to running three weeks prior. All three juvenile race winners in 2007 prepped within three weeks.
The conclusion I'm drawing is that three weeks is no automatic disadvantage. If you like a horse coming out of one of the preps this weekend the rest issue shouldn't dissuade you at all. It certainly won't dissuade me.
Anytime people raise questions like this I'm always drawn back to the stats. Do they support this notion? What, if anything, do the numbers suggest?
The notion that 3 weeks is suddenly "short rest" is fairly new so I only looked at the results of the last 5 Breeders' Cups. Incidentally it takes us back to the last time Santa Anita hosted the event. From 2003 to the present 145 horses have entered the Breeders' Cup on three weeks rest or less. They compiled a record of 145-8-13-10 in 43 Breeders' Cup races. Many of the winners like Intercontinental, Singletary and Pleasant Home were healthy prices as well.
It'll become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy and in some ways it already has. Even in the last five years we've many of the major prep races moved further away from the Breeders' Cup. Trainers want more time and racetracks want the good horses so they move the races further back to accommodate them. But I think it's notable that as of right now there seems to be no disadvantage to running three weeks prior. All three juvenile race winners in 2007 prepped within three weeks.
The conclusion I'm drawing is that three weeks is no automatic disadvantage. If you like a horse coming out of one of the preps this weekend the rest issue shouldn't dissuade you at all. It certainly won't dissuade me.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Beaten Favorites
As I mentioned in the Weekend Review it was quite a formful weekend. Favorites and short priced horses dominated the 16 grade 1 and 2 races this weekend. Favorites won 50% and finished in the money in 75% of the races. All the winning favorites will likely be well covered on Breeders' Cup day. It doesn't take much imagination to stick with the horses who have big reputations and are coming in off a win.
There is usually much better value to be found if you focus on the favorites who lost their last prep races. As I mentioned a few months back, beaten favorites in prep races do splendidly well on their returns to the Breeders' Cup. With just a few refining criteria you could have made 110% ROI since 1996 just from betting these horses to win.
Let's take a look at the 8 losing favorites this past weekend and speculate a bit on their chances.
Regal Ransom - Beaten in 8th in the Norfolk, he was a bit of a false favorite and is unlikely to run in the BC Juvenile.
Stalingrad - Finished second as the favorite in the Kelso. If he goes to the BC Mile he would surely be 20/1 or more but he is not without a chance. He has never won a stakes race so one might question his class but two starts back he ran Red Giant to a neck and obviously that's as good a form reference as you could ask for these days. He has only run a two turn mile once and he won it easily. Interestingly enough it was also his only start in California.
Mauralakana - She still might be the favorite for the BC FM Turf depending on which Europeans come over but at least now the price will be better. She along with Wait A While are definitely America's best hopes in the FM Turf. Anything resembling a decent price on her must be taken.
Ginger Punch - She may be as high as 4 or 5/1 and I think it'll represent very good value. Of course she's up against it when attempting to beat Zenyatta but she has decent form on synthetics and is a very good horse on her day. Her loss in the Beldame isn't really that bad. She has never been ideally suited to wiring a field. The last time she tried it Zenyatta beat her handily. Here she lost it late to Cocoa Beach. If she can sit behind a few horses she's a much better filly. Don't dismiss her.
Lucky Island - He ran a dull 6th in the Vosburgh and will definitely skip the Breeders Cup. We all know he's a better horse than he showed on Saturday. There might be some value down the line with him.
Honest Man - He put in a rather dull effort in the KY Cup Classic. It would be a surprise to see him try synthetics again so soon. The BC Dirt Mile would be his target if any but I don't expect him.
Street Boss - Like Mauralakana he is still likely going to be the favorite for his BC race despite the loss but for those who really want to back him the good news is that he is no longer in danger of being odds on. He really is the best horse in the Sprint so obviously he's got a massive chance.
Spring House - One of the most disappointing performers of the weekend when 4th in the Clement Hirsch. His participation in the BC turf has to be in real doubt but he may offer some value in the BC Marathon. His connections had considered it as an alternate target and perhaps now it'll become his primary target. There are some tough horses like Sixties Icon and Fairbanks pointing to this race but if Spring House likes synthetics he should fit in very well.
Henrythenavigator - Okay so he didn't run in any American stakes races but he was a beaten favorite in a G-1 and he is most likely headed to the Breeders' Cup. Which race he contests is the real question. He was always going to be a price in the Classic because of the quality in that race and because of the questions surrounding him. The reality is that his chances are no worse in the Classic because of the loss. If he chooses the Mile he might not be favored which was an unthinkable prospect a few months ago. The reality is that he's got a fabulous chance in the Mile and is certainly capable of beating any miler in the world.
It's possible that as many as 6 beaten favorites will be running in the Breeders' Cup in a months time. They will definitely be worth keeping an eye on.
There is usually much better value to be found if you focus on the favorites who lost their last prep races. As I mentioned a few months back, beaten favorites in prep races do splendidly well on their returns to the Breeders' Cup. With just a few refining criteria you could have made 110% ROI since 1996 just from betting these horses to win.
Let's take a look at the 8 losing favorites this past weekend and speculate a bit on their chances.
Regal Ransom - Beaten in 8th in the Norfolk, he was a bit of a false favorite and is unlikely to run in the BC Juvenile.
Stalingrad - Finished second as the favorite in the Kelso. If he goes to the BC Mile he would surely be 20/1 or more but he is not without a chance. He has never won a stakes race so one might question his class but two starts back he ran Red Giant to a neck and obviously that's as good a form reference as you could ask for these days. He has only run a two turn mile once and he won it easily. Interestingly enough it was also his only start in California.
Mauralakana - She still might be the favorite for the BC FM Turf depending on which Europeans come over but at least now the price will be better. She along with Wait A While are definitely America's best hopes in the FM Turf. Anything resembling a decent price on her must be taken.
Ginger Punch - She may be as high as 4 or 5/1 and I think it'll represent very good value. Of course she's up against it when attempting to beat Zenyatta but she has decent form on synthetics and is a very good horse on her day. Her loss in the Beldame isn't really that bad. She has never been ideally suited to wiring a field. The last time she tried it Zenyatta beat her handily. Here she lost it late to Cocoa Beach. If she can sit behind a few horses she's a much better filly. Don't dismiss her.
Lucky Island - He ran a dull 6th in the Vosburgh and will definitely skip the Breeders Cup. We all know he's a better horse than he showed on Saturday. There might be some value down the line with him.
Honest Man - He put in a rather dull effort in the KY Cup Classic. It would be a surprise to see him try synthetics again so soon. The BC Dirt Mile would be his target if any but I don't expect him.
Street Boss - Like Mauralakana he is still likely going to be the favorite for his BC race despite the loss but for those who really want to back him the good news is that he is no longer in danger of being odds on. He really is the best horse in the Sprint so obviously he's got a massive chance.
Spring House - One of the most disappointing performers of the weekend when 4th in the Clement Hirsch. His participation in the BC turf has to be in real doubt but he may offer some value in the BC Marathon. His connections had considered it as an alternate target and perhaps now it'll become his primary target. There are some tough horses like Sixties Icon and Fairbanks pointing to this race but if Spring House likes synthetics he should fit in very well.
Henrythenavigator - Okay so he didn't run in any American stakes races but he was a beaten favorite in a G-1 and he is most likely headed to the Breeders' Cup. Which race he contests is the real question. He was always going to be a price in the Classic because of the quality in that race and because of the questions surrounding him. The reality is that his chances are no worse in the Classic because of the loss. If he chooses the Mile he might not be favored which was an unthinkable prospect a few months ago. The reality is that he's got a fabulous chance in the Mile and is certainly capable of beating any miler in the world.
It's possible that as many as 6 beaten favorites will be running in the Breeders' Cup in a months time. They will definitely be worth keeping an eye on.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Afraid Of The Freak
Trainers these days seem pretty conscious of the fact that they shouldn't have their charge run their best race prior to the Breeders' Cup. They want to be sure they save something. Here are some recent comments to that effect made in the DRF by Dutrow.
Big Brown could work as many as five times before the Classic. Meanwhile, Dutrow will sit back and wait for Sept. 27 to watch Curlin run in the Jockey Club Gold Cup at Belmont and others prep in the Goodwood at Santa Anita the same day.
"I hope a couple of them freak on the 27th," Dutrow said. "Coming back [in four weeks] is a little too quick if you freak."
Obviously a comment like this makes one wonder if it is statistically supported. The problem comes in trying to quantify a "freak" performance. I decided to use a new Beyer high in their last race prior to the Breeders' Cup. But the new Beyer high has to be at least 5 points better than their previous best career effort.
So here are the figures for every Breeders' Cup entrant from 1996 to the present who won their last prep race within 4 weeks of the Breeders' Cup achieving a new career high Beyer besting their old mark by at least 5 points.
Sharp Cat - 2ndBanshee Breeze - 2nd
Miss Linda - 6th
Jostle - 9th
Whiskey Wisdom - 4th
Arch - 9th
Albert The Great - 4th
Dust On The Bottle - 11th
Aptitude - 8th
Swept Overboard - 4th
Elusive Jazz - 5th
Val Royal - 1st
Funfair - DNF
Insight - 11th
Collect The Cash - 11th
Riskaverse - 7th
Overall Record: 16-1-2-0
I omitted the juvenile races because dropping horses who ran big new tops would be illogical when the juveniles are all at a time in their careers where they should be improving leaps and bounds in every start. The record is not all that flattering and many of these horses were "hot" on the board. Dutrow may indeed be onto something.
These figures show only the horses who set a new top while winning but if you also isolated those who set new Beyer tops by 5 points or more while losing and then ran back in less than 4 weeks in the Breeders' Cup the results are pretty similar.
Minister's Melody - 5th
Top Secret - 5th
Harlans Holiday - 9th
Lodge Hill - 8th
Ethan Man - 10th
Thor's Echo - 1st
Forefathers - 10th
Overall Record: 7-1-0-0
Thor's Echo was the only horse who ran even remotely well although many of these horses were still longshots in the Breeders' Cup.
Combined the statistics show that "freaks" (as I've chosen to define them) do indeed have a difficult time coming back into the Breeders' Cup on less than 4 weeks rest. They're 23-2-2-0 overall.
Something to keep an eye out for.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Judging Juveniles
This could be our first chance to get a last look at some of the big Breeders' Cup contenders for the juvenile races. I know that's a pretty bizarre reality since almost every entrant in the Futurity and Matron will have one or two lifetime starts. The way modern thoroughbreds are being trained its become harder and harder to get a clear line on the juvenile form. 10 years ago both juvenile colts and fillies averaged at least 1 more start per entrant going into the Breeders' Cup. They average about 3.75 starts and I think those numbers could fall even further.
I'm not personally put off by a limited number of starts. Someone has to win the race so the fact that the entire field is becoming less experienced on average is no slight against one particular horse.
I expect that most, if not all, of the horses who do well in the Futurity and Matron will head straight to the Breeders' Cup so this will be our last chance to form an impression.
Historically the Matron is a much better race than the Futurity in terms of producing eventual BC winners but since both moved to 7f I think they've become poor last prep races.
In the last 12 years there have been four two year old Breeders' Cup winners who came into the event off a sprint race. However all four of those winners (Stevie Wonderboy, Folklore, Joahnnesburg, Tempera) won their BC races around one turn at Belmont. Horses who tried a juvenile race off a sprint when the BC was at a two turn track went 30-0-3-4.
My conclusion is that if the Matron and Futurity runners go straight to the BC off this weekends races they will not be horses I'll want to use in the win slot. I'd much prefer to see them squeeze in a route race before heading west.
I'm not personally put off by a limited number of starts. Someone has to win the race so the fact that the entire field is becoming less experienced on average is no slight against one particular horse.
I expect that most, if not all, of the horses who do well in the Futurity and Matron will head straight to the Breeders' Cup so this will be our last chance to form an impression.
Historically the Matron is a much better race than the Futurity in terms of producing eventual BC winners but since both moved to 7f I think they've become poor last prep races.
In the last 12 years there have been four two year old Breeders' Cup winners who came into the event off a sprint race. However all four of those winners (Stevie Wonderboy, Folklore, Joahnnesburg, Tempera) won their BC races around one turn at Belmont. Horses who tried a juvenile race off a sprint when the BC was at a two turn track went 30-0-3-4.
My conclusion is that if the Matron and Futurity runners go straight to the BC off this weekends races they will not be horses I'll want to use in the win slot. I'd much prefer to see them squeeze in a route race before heading west.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
A Niche For Specialists
The Breeders' Cup Mile is my favorite race of the year. The field is usually full, the horses generally look even on paper and the public almost always highlights a horse that has little chance.
In general there is a lack of appreciation for how specialized a flat mile on grass really is. Is it really that much different from 1 1/16 miles? Or 7 furlongs?
The stats suggest that it is.
From 1996 to the present horses who have not only won at a mile but have also been at their best over a mile have had a distinct advantage in terms of results. During that stated period horses without a win at 8f on the grass went 37-0-2-0 in the Mile. It seems pretty obvious to key horses who have actually won at the conditions but surprisingly horses like Nobiz Like Showbiz, Middlesex Drive and Geri were all well backed and failed to win. Many of these horses even ran good races because they were in top form but they were done in by specialists. Those figures also include North Americans who failed to win a mile turf race around two turns during years when the BC Mile was contested at those conditions. Woodbine and Belmont's outer Turf course are both one turn miles.
If you use speed figures to determine a horses preference you'll find that those who did not achieve their highest career Beyer Figure or Racing Post Rating in an 8f turf race went 63-1-4-2 in the Breeders' Cup. The last horse to buck the trend was Da Hoss in 1996. His highest career figure was achieved in a 8.5f race.
If you isolated only the horses who had both won at 8f on the Turf and had run their highest career figure at the same distance you would have bet on 84 entrants that compiled a record of 84-11-7-10 and returned $252.80. That means you could have turned a profit of $84.80 or 50.48% just from focusing on the horses who specialized at the given surface and distance.
It's extremely simple but it works year after year. Horses like Peace Rules, Nobiz Like Showbiz, King Cugat, Special Ring, Beat Hollow and Nothing To Lose were all high quality animals and they attract the public money but they weren't mile specialists and they were always up against it when facing true milers.
In general there is a lack of appreciation for how specialized a flat mile on grass really is. Is it really that much different from 1 1/16 miles? Or 7 furlongs?
The stats suggest that it is.
From 1996 to the present horses who have not only won at a mile but have also been at their best over a mile have had a distinct advantage in terms of results. During that stated period horses without a win at 8f on the grass went 37-0-2-0 in the Mile. It seems pretty obvious to key horses who have actually won at the conditions but surprisingly horses like Nobiz Like Showbiz, Middlesex Drive and Geri were all well backed and failed to win. Many of these horses even ran good races because they were in top form but they were done in by specialists. Those figures also include North Americans who failed to win a mile turf race around two turns during years when the BC Mile was contested at those conditions. Woodbine and Belmont's outer Turf course are both one turn miles.
If you use speed figures to determine a horses preference you'll find that those who did not achieve their highest career Beyer Figure or Racing Post Rating in an 8f turf race went 63-1-4-2 in the Breeders' Cup. The last horse to buck the trend was Da Hoss in 1996. His highest career figure was achieved in a 8.5f race.
If you isolated only the horses who had both won at 8f on the Turf and had run their highest career figure at the same distance you would have bet on 84 entrants that compiled a record of 84-11-7-10 and returned $252.80. That means you could have turned a profit of $84.80 or 50.48% just from focusing on the horses who specialized at the given surface and distance.
It's extremely simple but it works year after year. Horses like Peace Rules, Nobiz Like Showbiz, King Cugat, Special Ring, Beat Hollow and Nothing To Lose were all high quality animals and they attract the public money but they weren't mile specialists and they were always up against it when facing true milers.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Breeders' Cup Focus - Follow The Money
Each weekend from now until the Breeders' Cup we are going to see horses who are prepping for the big event. For some, even though we're 9 weeks away, these will be their last prep races. Knowing what to look for in the preps can go a long way towards finding good BC prospects well before they actually line up.
Many gamblers love the Breeders' Cup because there are so many good horses even the 20/1 shots can be G-1 winners. But outside the big event did you know that odds are actually very good indicators of quality? Handicappers spend so much time trying to find value, which is essentially an anomaly where a horses chances are not accurately reflected by its odds. For the most part the public gets it right.
Did you know that over a sample of 10,000 races horses who are 7/1, which is a 12% chance of winning, win about 12%. Same with horses who are 2/1, 5/1, 20/1 or any other price. If you convert the odds to percentage you'll find that horses at those odds preform in line with what their prices predict. It's pretty amazing actually but the public generally gets it right.
How does this help us in the Breeders' Cup prep races? Well if the tote board generally reflects the quality on hand then we can use it to make some observations and assumptions about the horses.
Some of the biggest trap horses horses in the Breeders Cup are those who were 10/1 or more in their last prep race. Prep races generally have 2 or 3 really quality individuals so if your horse was not less than 10/1 you can assume that the public does not believe it to be a horse of quality. Often in order to get to the Breeders' Cup these 10/1+ shots outperform in their prep by winning or running in the frame. Their record in the Breeders' Cup is not very good. From 1996 to the present horses who were 10/1 or more in their last race went 151-4-6-9 in the BC. Adoration, Thor's Echo, Street Sense and Lahudood were the only exceptions. I know most of them were recent winners but in general this angle will keep you away from scores of wiseguy horses. The most negative subset of these horses are those who won their last prep race at 10/1 or more. They went 42-1-2-3, Lahudood was the only exception. Came Home, River Keen, Kelly's Landing, Riskaverse, Wicked Style and Stormello were among the horses you could have avoided.
Excluded in these numbers are horses who came directly from the Arc. That is a championship event in its own right so the odds are skewed upwards.
So if there isn't great value in playing last out longshots where do we find it? Well if the tote board can identify horses who may not belong it can also identify horses of real quality.
Keep an eye on the favorites of each of the major prep races and especially watch the ones who lose. Favorites who win prep races are often favorites again on Breeders' Cup day. Favorites who lose prep races can sometimes be written off but they are still horses of quality.
Using data from 1996 to the present if you had bet on any failed favorite returning to the BC you would have made an astonishing 110.39% ROI. There are three small refining factors with this play and they are that the favorite must be returning at similar surface and distance in the BC. If a classic contender was the favorite in a 8f Turf race last time the form does not necessarily translate. So they must be returning on the same surface and the same distance category (ie sprint or route) Also since this is aimed at finding value the horse cannot be favored in the Breeders' Cup race. And finally I'd require the the favorite still finished second or third in their last prep. You don't want a horse that is woefully out of form.
Horses that fit this criteria are 103-15-12-11 in the BC since 1996 and as I mentioned, betting on them would have netted a tidy 110.39 ROI. Winners like Artie Schiller, Singletary, Volponi, Tempera, Tiznow, Cat Theif and Alphabet Soup all fit the mold. In the 2007 Breeders' Cup there were three horses you would have used: Ginger Punch, Octave and Lawyer Ron. Obviously Lawyer Ron failed to bounce back to form but Ginger Punch paid $11.00 to win and Octave ran a hard closing third behind her.
Many gamblers love the Breeders' Cup because there are so many good horses even the 20/1 shots can be G-1 winners. But outside the big event did you know that odds are actually very good indicators of quality? Handicappers spend so much time trying to find value, which is essentially an anomaly where a horses chances are not accurately reflected by its odds. For the most part the public gets it right.
Did you know that over a sample of 10,000 races horses who are 7/1, which is a 12% chance of winning, win about 12%. Same with horses who are 2/1, 5/1, 20/1 or any other price. If you convert the odds to percentage you'll find that horses at those odds preform in line with what their prices predict. It's pretty amazing actually but the public generally gets it right.
How does this help us in the Breeders' Cup prep races? Well if the tote board generally reflects the quality on hand then we can use it to make some observations and assumptions about the horses.
Some of the biggest trap horses horses in the Breeders Cup are those who were 10/1 or more in their last prep race. Prep races generally have 2 or 3 really quality individuals so if your horse was not less than 10/1 you can assume that the public does not believe it to be a horse of quality. Often in order to get to the Breeders' Cup these 10/1+ shots outperform in their prep by winning or running in the frame. Their record in the Breeders' Cup is not very good. From 1996 to the present horses who were 10/1 or more in their last race went 151-4-6-9 in the BC. Adoration, Thor's Echo, Street Sense and Lahudood were the only exceptions. I know most of them were recent winners but in general this angle will keep you away from scores of wiseguy horses. The most negative subset of these horses are those who won their last prep race at 10/1 or more. They went 42-1-2-3, Lahudood was the only exception. Came Home, River Keen, Kelly's Landing, Riskaverse, Wicked Style and Stormello were among the horses you could have avoided.
Excluded in these numbers are horses who came directly from the Arc. That is a championship event in its own right so the odds are skewed upwards.
So if there isn't great value in playing last out longshots where do we find it? Well if the tote board can identify horses who may not belong it can also identify horses of real quality.
Keep an eye on the favorites of each of the major prep races and especially watch the ones who lose. Favorites who win prep races are often favorites again on Breeders' Cup day. Favorites who lose prep races can sometimes be written off but they are still horses of quality.
Using data from 1996 to the present if you had bet on any failed favorite returning to the BC you would have made an astonishing 110.39% ROI. There are three small refining factors with this play and they are that the favorite must be returning at similar surface and distance in the BC. If a classic contender was the favorite in a 8f Turf race last time the form does not necessarily translate. So they must be returning on the same surface and the same distance category (ie sprint or route) Also since this is aimed at finding value the horse cannot be favored in the Breeders' Cup race. And finally I'd require the the favorite still finished second or third in their last prep. You don't want a horse that is woefully out of form.
Horses that fit this criteria are 103-15-12-11 in the BC since 1996 and as I mentioned, betting on them would have netted a tidy 110.39 ROI. Winners like Artie Schiller, Singletary, Volponi, Tempera, Tiznow, Cat Theif and Alphabet Soup all fit the mold. In the 2007 Breeders' Cup there were three horses you would have used: Ginger Punch, Octave and Lawyer Ron. Obviously Lawyer Ron failed to bounce back to form but Ginger Punch paid $11.00 to win and Octave ran a hard closing third behind her.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Midsummer Derby
The Travers is a great race with a wonderful aura of tradition and prestige. Some have called it the second best race for three year olds behind only the Kentucky Derby. Very few horses have managed to sweep both races in the last 20 years. In fact only Thunder Gulch, Sea Hero and Street Sense did. Oddly enough only Thunder Gulch managed to win the 3yo Male Eclipse Award from that trio.
Whenever the 3yo Eclipse Award comes up in discussion the dominant Triple Crown horse is always the first name to emerge but supposedly savvy contrarians will always chime in with the caution that another horse might sweep the Travers and Breeders' Cup and wrest the title away. It is perhaps an overlooked bit of trivia that no horse has actually managed to win the Travers and the Classic in the same year.
Travers winners are often well bet in the Classic. If you exclude Thunder Rumble (40/1) the average odds of a Travers winner in the Classic is 4.20/1. Yet they are 0 for 15 overall. They have managed 5 second place finishes but no other placings. Kentucky Derby winners on the other hand are 10-2-2-0 in the Breeders' Cup with an average starting price of 5.20/1. Although it has been quite a while since a Derby winner was successful. In general Derby winners have had more success in the year end championships and have presented a bit more value.
Another interesting comparison I've noted between the Travers and Kentucky Derby is the records of the respective winners after reaching the pinnacle. Since 1996 Travers winners have gone 18-3-5-0 in the remainder of their starts during the same campaign. Kentucky Derby winners went 31-10-7-5 during the same period. Although the perception, often, is that the Derby produces some wild results because of the field size it is rather justified as a benchmark for quality. Derby winners won just about 30% of their post Derby starts and finished in the money 70% of the time. Travers winners were only half as effective.
Draw from this whatever conclusions you want. For my part I won't be holding my breath for any horse to win the Travers then upstage Big Brown for the 3yo championship. It could theoretically happen but it would be unprecedented.
Whenever the 3yo Eclipse Award comes up in discussion the dominant Triple Crown horse is always the first name to emerge but supposedly savvy contrarians will always chime in with the caution that another horse might sweep the Travers and Breeders' Cup and wrest the title away. It is perhaps an overlooked bit of trivia that no horse has actually managed to win the Travers and the Classic in the same year.
Travers winners are often well bet in the Classic. If you exclude Thunder Rumble (40/1) the average odds of a Travers winner in the Classic is 4.20/1. Yet they are 0 for 15 overall. They have managed 5 second place finishes but no other placings. Kentucky Derby winners on the other hand are 10-2-2-0 in the Breeders' Cup with an average starting price of 5.20/1. Although it has been quite a while since a Derby winner was successful. In general Derby winners have had more success in the year end championships and have presented a bit more value.
Another interesting comparison I've noted between the Travers and Kentucky Derby is the records of the respective winners after reaching the pinnacle. Since 1996 Travers winners have gone 18-3-5-0 in the remainder of their starts during the same campaign. Kentucky Derby winners went 31-10-7-5 during the same period. Although the perception, often, is that the Derby produces some wild results because of the field size it is rather justified as a benchmark for quality. Derby winners won just about 30% of their post Derby starts and finished in the money 70% of the time. Travers winners were only half as effective.
Draw from this whatever conclusions you want. For my part I won't be holding my breath for any horse to win the Travers then upstage Big Brown for the 3yo championship. It could theoretically happen but it would be unprecedented.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
As Simple As......
.....betting the highest Beyer Speed Figure?
After the Breeders Cup hindsight abounds. People love to point out mechanical ways you could have made money, which are obvious only upon reflection. I'm sometimes one of them, but I do like to distinguish good stats from bad ones and if the angle has no verifiable reason why it works or it was just a fluke that happened in a certain year then it makes for interesting reading but little else
Wagering on the horse who achieved the last highest Beyer Speed Figure is actually a common angle that gets tossed around. It happened to do very well in this Breeders Cup. You would have had 3 of the 5 dirt races. The Turf races had 2 winners from 3 races. So a healthy 5 winners from 8 races were there to be had.
Highest Last BSF
Classic - Curlin, Lawyer Ron
Turf - English Channel
Distaff - Indian Vale, Unbridled Belle
Mile - Kip Deville
Sprint - Midnight Lute
FM Turf - Precious Kitten
Juvenile - War Pass
Juvenile Fillies - Phantom Income
10 horses in 8 races that compiled a record of 10-5-0-0. A flat $2 win bet on each would have returned $30.60 or a 153% ROI.
So what's not to like? There is a difference between what is true and the truth. What is true can be the truth but also it can often mislead you and steer you away from the truth. There is no question that it is true that betting the last highest BSF was a good angle this year but what is the truth?
Betting the highest last BSF figure in every BC race since 1996 would have yielded a $48.70 loss (22.14%). The 110 top figure earners went 110-21-14-12 in the Breeders Cup.
In Dirt races alone the record is 72-16-11-10 and you would have incurred a 16.19% loss.
All in all it's not a smart play. This was far and away it's most successful year. The truth is that there are better ways to lose money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm currently on vacation and will be for the next 10 days so forgive me if the entries on this space are sporadic. I'll try to find some interesting tidbits as time allows but it won't always be possible.
After the Breeders Cup hindsight abounds. People love to point out mechanical ways you could have made money, which are obvious only upon reflection. I'm sometimes one of them, but I do like to distinguish good stats from bad ones and if the angle has no verifiable reason why it works or it was just a fluke that happened in a certain year then it makes for interesting reading but little else
Wagering on the horse who achieved the last highest Beyer Speed Figure is actually a common angle that gets tossed around. It happened to do very well in this Breeders Cup. You would have had 3 of the 5 dirt races. The Turf races had 2 winners from 3 races. So a healthy 5 winners from 8 races were there to be had.
Highest Last BSF
Classic - Curlin, Lawyer Ron
Turf - English Channel
Distaff - Indian Vale, Unbridled Belle
Mile - Kip Deville
Sprint - Midnight Lute
FM Turf - Precious Kitten
Juvenile - War Pass
Juvenile Fillies - Phantom Income
10 horses in 8 races that compiled a record of 10-5-0-0. A flat $2 win bet on each would have returned $30.60 or a 153% ROI.
So what's not to like? There is a difference between what is true and the truth. What is true can be the truth but also it can often mislead you and steer you away from the truth. There is no question that it is true that betting the last highest BSF was a good angle this year but what is the truth?
Betting the highest last BSF figure in every BC race since 1996 would have yielded a $48.70 loss (22.14%). The 110 top figure earners went 110-21-14-12 in the Breeders Cup.
In Dirt races alone the record is 72-16-11-10 and you would have incurred a 16.19% loss.
All in all it's not a smart play. This was far and away it's most successful year. The truth is that there are better ways to lose money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm currently on vacation and will be for the next 10 days so forgive me if the entries on this space are sporadic. I'll try to find some interesting tidbits as time allows but it won't always be possible.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Easy Money At The Breeders Cup?
In many places around cyberspace you'll hear about the profitability of betting every horse in the Breeders Cup who goes off at 20/1. It's pretty simple and would net you 24.23%, but it takes a fair bit of capital to bet on an average of 40 horses in every running. And you would have only made money 10 years out of 23. There are ways to use the same concept but streamline it to achieve better results.
In the last 11 years there have been 13 BC winners who were successful at 20/1 or more. By just identifying a few common factors about them you can isolate 8 of them. Consider these few factors.
#1 - Starting price must be less than 10/1 in their last race. This is the converse of the negative angle discussed before.
#2 - Starting price must be less than 10/1 in last G-1 race. If older horses have not run an a G-1 race they get discarded. If juveniles have not run in a G-1 race then you take the most recent race of the highest class level.
#3 - The entrant must have run in the money in their last start. We don't want bombs who are woefully out of form. Our prime play is an in-form but out of vogue horse.
#4 - The entrant must be in the money in their last G-1 start. One of the common denominators is that all these longshots aside from the Juveniles had hit the board in their last G-1 effort. So there was some class there. Just not enough to prevent them from being bombs. Juveniles like in factor #2 default to their last highest class race.
#5 - The entrant cannot be a maiden. No maiden has won in the Breeders Cup. Its no use betting that they'll start now. There are so many better ways to lose your money.
So take those 5 factors and apply them to every horse in the last 10 years who went off at 20/1 or more on BC day. The cumulative record for those horses is 102-8-4-3. The 7.84% winning percentage is nothing to write home about. But consider that the statistical average for 20/1 shots in all races is 4.76%. That means this is a fairly significant isolation of successful longshots. Not to mention that betting on each one would yield a $402.10 profit or 197.11%
Also do not assume that a short field is a bad place to find a longshot. 20/1 (or more) shots actually win Breeders Cup races with less than 10 entrants at a higher percentage than they do in bigger fields. On the opposite side of the coin, favorites win less in those fields with 10 horses or less.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the skinny on longshots, but how about if you like the action and just want to be live in every race? There is actually value to be found by playing the favorites.
There have been 169 favorites go to post in BC history. A flat bet on all of them would cost $338. The total return from those favorites would be $326.80 a loss of just $11.20 or -3.31% with a 36.09% winning percentage.
The aim though is to extract value though right? So how about we toss all odds on favorites and just bet those favorites who are higher than even money. We end up with $262 wagered and $267.20 returned for a $5.20 (1.98%) profit. It really is that simple, and that is just with 34% winners.
If you subscribe to the statistically backed notion that playing favorites in fields with 11 or more horses is a higher probability play than in smaller fields you can make even more money. Again eliminate the odds on favorites and only play the favorites in fields with 11 or more horses and you'll have invested $218 for a return of $231.10. That's a 6% return on investment.
Normally I wouldn't advocate playing just favorites, but surely the best place you could find to do so is the Breeders Cup. Value lies with having the winner. A 2/1 winning favorite always pays more than a logical 7/1 loser.
It sounds much more virtuous to preach about the pitfalls of betting favorites, but really winning at the Breeders Cup comes down to backing the winner. If he happens to be the public choice don't sweat it, you have a better chance of making money than on any other day of the year.
In the last 11 years there have been 13 BC winners who were successful at 20/1 or more. By just identifying a few common factors about them you can isolate 8 of them. Consider these few factors.
#1 - Starting price must be less than 10/1 in their last race. This is the converse of the negative angle discussed before.
#2 - Starting price must be less than 10/1 in last G-1 race. If older horses have not run an a G-1 race they get discarded. If juveniles have not run in a G-1 race then you take the most recent race of the highest class level.
#3 - The entrant must have run in the money in their last start. We don't want bombs who are woefully out of form. Our prime play is an in-form but out of vogue horse.
#4 - The entrant must be in the money in their last G-1 start. One of the common denominators is that all these longshots aside from the Juveniles had hit the board in their last G-1 effort. So there was some class there. Just not enough to prevent them from being bombs. Juveniles like in factor #2 default to their last highest class race.
#5 - The entrant cannot be a maiden. No maiden has won in the Breeders Cup. Its no use betting that they'll start now. There are so many better ways to lose your money.
So take those 5 factors and apply them to every horse in the last 10 years who went off at 20/1 or more on BC day. The cumulative record for those horses is 102-8-4-3. The 7.84% winning percentage is nothing to write home about. But consider that the statistical average for 20/1 shots in all races is 4.76%. That means this is a fairly significant isolation of successful longshots. Not to mention that betting on each one would yield a $402.10 profit or 197.11%
Also do not assume that a short field is a bad place to find a longshot. 20/1 (or more) shots actually win Breeders Cup races with less than 10 entrants at a higher percentage than they do in bigger fields. On the opposite side of the coin, favorites win less in those fields with 10 horses or less.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the skinny on longshots, but how about if you like the action and just want to be live in every race? There is actually value to be found by playing the favorites.
There have been 169 favorites go to post in BC history. A flat bet on all of them would cost $338. The total return from those favorites would be $326.80 a loss of just $11.20 or -3.31% with a 36.09% winning percentage.
The aim though is to extract value though right? So how about we toss all odds on favorites and just bet those favorites who are higher than even money. We end up with $262 wagered and $267.20 returned for a $5.20 (1.98%) profit. It really is that simple, and that is just with 34% winners.
If you subscribe to the statistically backed notion that playing favorites in fields with 11 or more horses is a higher probability play than in smaller fields you can make even more money. Again eliminate the odds on favorites and only play the favorites in fields with 11 or more horses and you'll have invested $218 for a return of $231.10. That's a 6% return on investment.
Normally I wouldn't advocate playing just favorites, but surely the best place you could find to do so is the Breeders Cup. Value lies with having the winner. A 2/1 winning favorite always pays more than a logical 7/1 loser.
It sounds much more virtuous to preach about the pitfalls of betting favorites, but really winning at the Breeders Cup comes down to backing the winner. If he happens to be the public choice don't sweat it, you have a better chance of making money than on any other day of the year.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Give It A Rest
We continue our statistical look at the Breeders Cup and will tackle the issue of layoffs. Remember that statistics are not meant to replace sound discretionary judgement. They are just a tool to help you narrow things down and maybe think about a race or horse more completely.
Many people want to try and answer the question of whether it is good for a horse to come into the Breeders Cup directly off a layoff. There are conflicting theories about when it's good and when its bad. Many people who rely on statistics discount any horse coming off a layoff unless its in the Sprint where so many fresh horses have won it's hard to ignore.
Personally I think the recent trend is in favor of the layoff. Horses are getting more time between starts and they're routinely having more success of the layoff. I decided to look at this issue from the opposite side of the coin.
If horses are generally campaigned with longer spaces between races is there any value to be derived from looking at horses who have had a steady amount of work?
I took to look at every horse who came into the Breeders Cup without a recent layoff. I define "recent" as having a layoff some time within their last 3 starts before the Breeders Cup. So any horse who does not have a line (indicating a layoff) in the last 4 running lines in their past performances was isolated. The theory is that horses run better fresh and a recent layoff contributes to freshness whereas a horse without a recent break may become over the top fitness wise.
As always the data included is from 1996 to the present. Personally because of the way training methods have evolved in this area I don't think data from 1995 and prior are even significant. I also excluded Juveniles from this study. Juveniles don't need rests like older horses do, they need experience and a good foundation to go two turns.
258 horses came into the 6 open age Breeders Cup events without a recent layoff and they combined for a record of 258-9-16-23. 7 of those 9 winners came in the Classic and Distaff. I personally see this as an under performance as the very same horses managed to win 99 races from 258 in their last preps. I realize you can't compare the numbers straight across because preps are weaker races but I think the point is that this group of 258 horses was not comprised of all longshots. In fact just the opposite, many of them were well bet.
I think the statistic becomes even weightier is you look at Turf races only. Horses without a recent prep went 117-1-8-8. Intercontinental was the only horse to overcome this angle. Many big names including well backed Europeans like Montjeu, Sulamani, Hurricane Run and Falbrav all fell victim to this factor.
It has not escaped my notice that likely odds on favorite in this years running, Dylan Thomas, has not had a layoff at all this season. I guess the factor will be getting an acid test in a few weeks time because on paper Dylan is a towering presence.
Many people want to try and answer the question of whether it is good for a horse to come into the Breeders Cup directly off a layoff. There are conflicting theories about when it's good and when its bad. Many people who rely on statistics discount any horse coming off a layoff unless its in the Sprint where so many fresh horses have won it's hard to ignore.
Personally I think the recent trend is in favor of the layoff. Horses are getting more time between starts and they're routinely having more success of the layoff. I decided to look at this issue from the opposite side of the coin.
If horses are generally campaigned with longer spaces between races is there any value to be derived from looking at horses who have had a steady amount of work?
I took to look at every horse who came into the Breeders Cup without a recent layoff. I define "recent" as having a layoff some time within their last 3 starts before the Breeders Cup. So any horse who does not have a line (indicating a layoff) in the last 4 running lines in their past performances was isolated. The theory is that horses run better fresh and a recent layoff contributes to freshness whereas a horse without a recent break may become over the top fitness wise.
As always the data included is from 1996 to the present. Personally because of the way training methods have evolved in this area I don't think data from 1995 and prior are even significant. I also excluded Juveniles from this study. Juveniles don't need rests like older horses do, they need experience and a good foundation to go two turns.
258 horses came into the 6 open age Breeders Cup events without a recent layoff and they combined for a record of 258-9-16-23. 7 of those 9 winners came in the Classic and Distaff. I personally see this as an under performance as the very same horses managed to win 99 races from 258 in their last preps. I realize you can't compare the numbers straight across because preps are weaker races but I think the point is that this group of 258 horses was not comprised of all longshots. In fact just the opposite, many of them were well bet.
I think the statistic becomes even weightier is you look at Turf races only. Horses without a recent prep went 117-1-8-8. Intercontinental was the only horse to overcome this angle. Many big names including well backed Europeans like Montjeu, Sulamani, Hurricane Run and Falbrav all fell victim to this factor.
It has not escaped my notice that likely odds on favorite in this years running, Dylan Thomas, has not had a layoff at all this season. I guess the factor will be getting an acid test in a few weeks time because on paper Dylan is a towering presence.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Todd Squad - BC Clues
As we approach the Breeders Cup every gambler will have to make the same decision. What do you do with Todd Pletcher? He had an amazing 17 runners in last years Breeders Cup and most likely he'll have more than 10 again this year.
Many people seem to want to make Todd the brunt of jokes when it comes to his BC record. 2 for 41 is not exactly spectacular performance but I think there is value to be derived from looking inside the numbers.
His official BC record is 41-2-5-6. I think there are two main reasons why he only has two wins. The first is that he, like Bobby Frankel, are most effective when they are allowed to pick the timetable. They get the horse in shape then campaign them in spots that fit the best. With the Breeders Cup you have to work off the schedule the organizers set. You can't give your horse an extra week to be in top form. You have to run when they're hosting the race. Some trainers struggle a bit when having to point for specific spots. Although I think the biggest reason his record has looked bad is that his horses have not really been that good.
You may say "hold on a minute, Pletcher has the most expensive stock in the nation" and that is true. The value of his stable is impressive but the Breeders Cup is a championship day and Todd Pletcher has had many more expensive horses that were just average than true champions.
Many of the poor finishes by his runners were not a matter of under performance at all, it was simply all they were capable of at that level. Pletcher has had 4 favorites in BC races and all of them hit the frame aside from Fleet Indian who was injured in running. An approximate gauge I use to isolate longshots is what their price was in their last prep race. Horses who were greater than 10/1 in their last prep usually had to outperform just to make the BC. The odds of them stepping up again and winning it are slim. Pletcher's horses who were 10/1 or more in their last start went 8-0-0-0 in the BC. Clearly he is tossing in some horses who don't have a great shot but perhaps the owner really wants to run.
Another thing that savvy bettors may have noted about Todd Pletcher is that he is surprisingly good at getting top efforts from horses who were a disappointment in their last race. He's had 41 BC starters and the vast majority of them came into the race off improving Beyer Speed Figures. 32 of the 41 received a higher BSF in their last prep than they did in their second last prep. However those horses went 32-0-3-5. Surprisingly horses who did not improve their figures went 9-2-2-1. Both Ashado and Speightstown, his two winners, did not run a great last prep.
In contrast those who won their last prep for Pletcher and improved their BSF while doing so went 11-0-0-3 in the BC.
Among his juveniles it might also be a good idea to look for horses who did not achieve their career high BSF in their last race prior to the BC. Those who came into the BC off a career high went 5-0-1-0 while those who didn't went 6-0-1-3. He has not had a juvenile race winner yet but clearly the best performing subset are those who did not have their highest career Beyer just before the BC.
Todd clearly has the ability to get his horses to bounce back after a poor effort. You may say he's better at that than he is at sustaining a horse who is on a hot streak.
Many people seem to want to make Todd the brunt of jokes when it comes to his BC record. 2 for 41 is not exactly spectacular performance but I think there is value to be derived from looking inside the numbers.
His official BC record is 41-2-5-6. I think there are two main reasons why he only has two wins. The first is that he, like Bobby Frankel, are most effective when they are allowed to pick the timetable. They get the horse in shape then campaign them in spots that fit the best. With the Breeders Cup you have to work off the schedule the organizers set. You can't give your horse an extra week to be in top form. You have to run when they're hosting the race. Some trainers struggle a bit when having to point for specific spots. Although I think the biggest reason his record has looked bad is that his horses have not really been that good.
You may say "hold on a minute, Pletcher has the most expensive stock in the nation" and that is true. The value of his stable is impressive but the Breeders Cup is a championship day and Todd Pletcher has had many more expensive horses that were just average than true champions.
Many of the poor finishes by his runners were not a matter of under performance at all, it was simply all they were capable of at that level. Pletcher has had 4 favorites in BC races and all of them hit the frame aside from Fleet Indian who was injured in running. An approximate gauge I use to isolate longshots is what their price was in their last prep race. Horses who were greater than 10/1 in their last prep usually had to outperform just to make the BC. The odds of them stepping up again and winning it are slim. Pletcher's horses who were 10/1 or more in their last start went 8-0-0-0 in the BC. Clearly he is tossing in some horses who don't have a great shot but perhaps the owner really wants to run.
Another thing that savvy bettors may have noted about Todd Pletcher is that he is surprisingly good at getting top efforts from horses who were a disappointment in their last race. He's had 41 BC starters and the vast majority of them came into the race off improving Beyer Speed Figures. 32 of the 41 received a higher BSF in their last prep than they did in their second last prep. However those horses went 32-0-3-5. Surprisingly horses who did not improve their figures went 9-2-2-1. Both Ashado and Speightstown, his two winners, did not run a great last prep.
In contrast those who won their last prep for Pletcher and improved their BSF while doing so went 11-0-0-3 in the BC.
Among his juveniles it might also be a good idea to look for horses who did not achieve their career high BSF in their last race prior to the BC. Those who came into the BC off a career high went 5-0-1-0 while those who didn't went 6-0-1-3. He has not had a juvenile race winner yet but clearly the best performing subset are those who did not have their highest career Beyer just before the BC.
Todd clearly has the ability to get his horses to bounce back after a poor effort. You may say he's better at that than he is at sustaining a horse who is on a hot streak.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Looking For Classic Clues
All of the normally recognized prep races for the Classic have now been contested and journalists, blogger and fans have all begun to try and sort out all the information and make some determinations about who is the best.
I'd like to offer a bit of a statistical look at the Classic in hopes that it may steer you in the right direction.
The first I'm always going to demand is that the horse run in the money last time out. Classic entrants who ran worse than 3rd in their final prep went 0 for 26 in the Classic over the last 11 years.
One could even go further than that and demand that a Classic entrant finish within at least 3 lengths of the winner in their final prep. Horses who failed to do that went 41-0-2-4.
After determining whether or not the horse had a sharp race I look at whether or not they're fast enough to win the race based on their Beyer Speed Figures. Some use a hard and fast guideline like 110 but I prefer to use an average derived from the horses who are actually running in the classic. I take the winning BSF from each horse for every graded stakes run at 8.5f or more and average it.
If the competition in the race is faster the BSF necessary to win the race should also be faster. The same is true if slower horses populate the field. 1997 looked like the fastest field on paper and it turned out to be the second fastest Classic on record (as measured by Beyer Speed Figures). Only Ghostzapper managed to beat Skip Away's 120 figure. Also 2005 looked like the slowest Classic on paper and low and behold it would up being the slowest Classic speed figure wise.
It is tough to say what the average figure for this years field will be because we don't know exactly who is entered but my estimate is that the figure will be 108 or 109. Don't use horses for failed to achieve those figures. Only Cat Thief managed to defy this guideline.
I would also demand that my Classic selection run the Avg BSF for the field in one of his last 3 races. You don't want a horse who has regressed badly in form. You want one who was recently at his best.
I would also be wary of any horses coming into the Classic off of a 10f prep. It's not a factor that necessarily rules horses out but since 1996, 63 horses have come into the Classic of a 10f race and they compiled a record of 63-2-7-8. The real negative is that the last winner to do so was Awesome Again in 1998. Since Awesome Again they have gone 0 for 48. It could be that trainers aren't putting enough foundation into their horses these days and that two efforts at 10f within a short span of time taxes them unduly.
I would also shy away from any horse who is more than 3 races into a form cycle. It may be a negative sign of the times but the reality is that trainers are getting great results from fresh horses and those who have been campaigned hard are often empty handed in the BC. The statistics for this factor in the Classic are not all that strong. 55-4-5-7 is the record of horses who came into the Classic without having a layoff within the last 3 starts, but I think this is a trend that is going to gain momentum as more and more trainers opt for freshness.
Don't spend your time looking for bombs who were more than 10/1 in their last race. the Classic is a tough race, you don't want your money riding on a horse who outperformed just to get in the gate.
Also don't ignore the elite meet factor. 8 of the last 11 Classics were won by horses who ran at either Saratoga or Del Mar. They are the premier dirt meets and more often than not the premier horses run there.
I'd like to offer a bit of a statistical look at the Classic in hopes that it may steer you in the right direction.
The first I'm always going to demand is that the horse run in the money last time out. Classic entrants who ran worse than 3rd in their final prep went 0 for 26 in the Classic over the last 11 years.
One could even go further than that and demand that a Classic entrant finish within at least 3 lengths of the winner in their final prep. Horses who failed to do that went 41-0-2-4.
After determining whether or not the horse had a sharp race I look at whether or not they're fast enough to win the race based on their Beyer Speed Figures. Some use a hard and fast guideline like 110 but I prefer to use an average derived from the horses who are actually running in the classic. I take the winning BSF from each horse for every graded stakes run at 8.5f or more and average it.
If the competition in the race is faster the BSF necessary to win the race should also be faster. The same is true if slower horses populate the field. 1997 looked like the fastest field on paper and it turned out to be the second fastest Classic on record (as measured by Beyer Speed Figures). Only Ghostzapper managed to beat Skip Away's 120 figure. Also 2005 looked like the slowest Classic on paper and low and behold it would up being the slowest Classic speed figure wise.
It is tough to say what the average figure for this years field will be because we don't know exactly who is entered but my estimate is that the figure will be 108 or 109. Don't use horses for failed to achieve those figures. Only Cat Thief managed to defy this guideline.
I would also demand that my Classic selection run the Avg BSF for the field in one of his last 3 races. You don't want a horse who has regressed badly in form. You want one who was recently at his best.
I would also be wary of any horses coming into the Classic off of a 10f prep. It's not a factor that necessarily rules horses out but since 1996, 63 horses have come into the Classic of a 10f race and they compiled a record of 63-2-7-8. The real negative is that the last winner to do so was Awesome Again in 1998. Since Awesome Again they have gone 0 for 48. It could be that trainers aren't putting enough foundation into their horses these days and that two efforts at 10f within a short span of time taxes them unduly.
I would also shy away from any horse who is more than 3 races into a form cycle. It may be a negative sign of the times but the reality is that trainers are getting great results from fresh horses and those who have been campaigned hard are often empty handed in the BC. The statistics for this factor in the Classic are not all that strong. 55-4-5-7 is the record of horses who came into the Classic without having a layoff within the last 3 starts, but I think this is a trend that is going to gain momentum as more and more trainers opt for freshness.
Don't spend your time looking for bombs who were more than 10/1 in their last race. the Classic is a tough race, you don't want your money riding on a horse who outperformed just to get in the gate.
Also don't ignore the elite meet factor. 8 of the last 11 Classics were won by horses who ran at either Saratoga or Del Mar. They are the premier dirt meets and more often than not the premier horses run there.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Easy Preps
"Any time you can avoid a super-stressful race leading to the Breeders' Cup, I think that's a positive."
Todd Pletcher
Do we really believe this statement? What do the statistics have to say about this comment?
Alan Mann of Left At The Gate fame has now been employed by the Breeders Cup to conduct a blog on their site. He looked at this very same issue in an entry called The Classic Two Step which is well worth the read. I do wish, though, that instead of simply raising questions and settling on an opinion that an actual look at the results was done.
With this kind of thing it's fine for us all to have opinions but I think statistics can help us shape, validate or reform our opinions.
In order to try and gather some data on this issue I decided to isolate all the BC starters from the past 11 years (from 1996 to the present) who won their last prep race by 2 lengths or more. I know that winning margin is not directly proportionate to the ease of victory but there is a real correlation. It's not perfect but I feel that it's the most accurate way of measuring. Also why is does this data only include 1996 to the present? The main reason is because I only have complete data from 1996 to the present but also because the shift towards this type of thinking is a relatively new phenomenon. Even the BC run in 1996 contained a lot of horses who were campaigned much harder than is common today. Average layoffs are longer and the desire to have easy last preps is much greater.
A look back over the last 85 BC races contested and the 1,018 starters who contested them revealed 194 horses who won their last prep by 2 lengths or more. Their cumulative record in the ensuing BC races was 194-26-19-13. That is 19% of the starters accounted for 30% of the victories. The Impact Value of 1.57 is fairly strong and seems to give credence to Todd Pletcher's contention.
For those not familiar with Impact Value what it essentially says is that statistically speaking these horses win 1.57 times more than they should be expected to if one assumes that every starter has the same random chance of victory.
When compiling the numbers it really stood out to me that the Juvenile races had both the greatest number of qualifiers for this angle and the greatest amount of success. If one isolates juveniles only you get a total record of 74-13-3-5, that's from 22 races and 258 starters. The Impact Value is extremely strong at 2.06.
Conversely the performance of the open aged horses goes down. They are just 13 for 120 (120-13-16-8 to be exact) but they still managed a positive Impact Value of 1.31.
The statistics do seem to bear out the contention that horses who had easy prep races (or at least did not have too much trouble dispatching the competition) perform better in the Breeders Cup than those who did not.
But here is where the rubber meets the road. How do we capitalize off this factor? Of the 194 horses who won their last prep by 2 lengths or more 44 of them were favorites, and unfortunately for the bargain hunters the favorites won at a 36% clip and a flat bet on all 194 horses would have yielded a -$175.10 loss or a crippling -45.12% ROI. The public certainly loves to bet these horses. Of the 26 winners included in this data only 5 paid more than $10 to win.
I'm not sure that a mechanical method of betting these horses is useful at all. As always it's best to use your judgement, but I would not suggest dropping horses simply because their last prep seemed too easy. I think the two most important factors are still being sharp in their final race and being good enough at their best to compete with the competition.
Todd Pletcher
Do we really believe this statement? What do the statistics have to say about this comment?
Alan Mann of Left At The Gate fame has now been employed by the Breeders Cup to conduct a blog on their site. He looked at this very same issue in an entry called The Classic Two Step which is well worth the read. I do wish, though, that instead of simply raising questions and settling on an opinion that an actual look at the results was done.
With this kind of thing it's fine for us all to have opinions but I think statistics can help us shape, validate or reform our opinions.
In order to try and gather some data on this issue I decided to isolate all the BC starters from the past 11 years (from 1996 to the present) who won their last prep race by 2 lengths or more. I know that winning margin is not directly proportionate to the ease of victory but there is a real correlation. It's not perfect but I feel that it's the most accurate way of measuring. Also why is does this data only include 1996 to the present? The main reason is because I only have complete data from 1996 to the present but also because the shift towards this type of thinking is a relatively new phenomenon. Even the BC run in 1996 contained a lot of horses who were campaigned much harder than is common today. Average layoffs are longer and the desire to have easy last preps is much greater.
A look back over the last 85 BC races contested and the 1,018 starters who contested them revealed 194 horses who won their last prep by 2 lengths or more. Their cumulative record in the ensuing BC races was 194-26-19-13. That is 19% of the starters accounted for 30% of the victories. The Impact Value of 1.57 is fairly strong and seems to give credence to Todd Pletcher's contention.
For those not familiar with Impact Value what it essentially says is that statistically speaking these horses win 1.57 times more than they should be expected to if one assumes that every starter has the same random chance of victory.
When compiling the numbers it really stood out to me that the Juvenile races had both the greatest number of qualifiers for this angle and the greatest amount of success. If one isolates juveniles only you get a total record of 74-13-3-5, that's from 22 races and 258 starters. The Impact Value is extremely strong at 2.06.
Conversely the performance of the open aged horses goes down. They are just 13 for 120 (120-13-16-8 to be exact) but they still managed a positive Impact Value of 1.31.
The statistics do seem to bear out the contention that horses who had easy prep races (or at least did not have too much trouble dispatching the competition) perform better in the Breeders Cup than those who did not.
But here is where the rubber meets the road. How do we capitalize off this factor? Of the 194 horses who won their last prep by 2 lengths or more 44 of them were favorites, and unfortunately for the bargain hunters the favorites won at a 36% clip and a flat bet on all 194 horses would have yielded a -$175.10 loss or a crippling -45.12% ROI. The public certainly loves to bet these horses. Of the 26 winners included in this data only 5 paid more than $10 to win.
I'm not sure that a mechanical method of betting these horses is useful at all. As always it's best to use your judgement, but I would not suggest dropping horses simply because their last prep seemed too easy. I think the two most important factors are still being sharp in their final race and being good enough at their best to compete with the competition.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Last Time Longshots
I love statistics and although I recognize that they can be misleading I think they can also be used to great effect when handicapping races. Especially championship events like the Triple Crown and Breeders Cup races. I believe statistics to be more relevant for those races because of the one constant: Trainer intent. You would think that trainers simply enter horses in races in order to win but in reality trainers often have many varying unstated goals for their charges. Sometimes they just want them to gain experience or fitness and maybe try them on a new surface to wake them up. Many handicappers put money down on horses who were not entered with winning in mind. But on championship days that all changes. The Breeders Cup is the culmination of the season. Trainers are there to win and predictable patterns often emerge.
Over the next few weeks I'll try to highlight some relevant Breeders Cup statistics that will hopefully help you to identify some winners and avoid some losers. Nothing is ironclad in this sport but personally I like to be on the side of the trend. I think there is more money to be found following the rules rather than banking on exceptions.
All stats quoted include only data from 1996-2006 unless otherwise stated.
One statistic I mentioned briefly last year prior to the Breeders Cup is the negative angle of horse running in the Breeders Cup after being cold on the board in their last start. Or more specifically be wary of any horse who was 10/1 or more in their final BC prep. Of course true to form Street Sense and Thor's Echo both came out and made a mockery of the numbers but I still think the premise holds true.
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 who are susceptible to regression. Or to identify the horses that simply have no chance at all.
The one exception to this angle is horses who came out of the Arc de Triomphe. The reason that race gets an exception is because its a championship race in its own right. The quality and size of the field is such that very good horses are routinely overlooked in the betting. The odds are not really an accurate reflection of the horses quality.
The numbers against horses who were 10/1 or more in their last start are fairly solid. They have a cumulative record of 137-3-6-9. Street Sense, Thor's Echo and Adoration were the only horses who defied the angle. Even with those bombers win prices you would still have lost $131 (-47.81%) by betting on these horses. The bottom line is that you're better off missing those winners and staying clear of all those losers. Pretty much all of those horses will be 10/1 or more again in the Breeders Cup itself but don't fall into the trap of thinking of them as value. The numbers say they're very poor value.
Be especially bearish on horses who win their last prep at 10/1 or more. They are 37-0-2-3 in the Breeders Cup since 1996. Horses like River Keen, Kelly's Landing, Came Home and Stormello were all prime examples of this negative play.
Over the next few weeks I'll try to highlight some relevant Breeders Cup statistics that will hopefully help you to identify some winners and avoid some losers. Nothing is ironclad in this sport but personally I like to be on the side of the trend. I think there is more money to be found following the rules rather than banking on exceptions.
All stats quoted include only data from 1996-2006 unless otherwise stated.
One statistic I mentioned briefly last year prior to the Breeders Cup is the negative angle of horse running in the Breeders Cup after being cold on the board in their last start. Or more specifically be wary of any horse who was 10/1 or more in their final BC prep. Of course true to form Street Sense and Thor's Echo both came out and made a mockery of the numbers but I still think the premise holds true.
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 who are susceptible to regression. Or to identify the horses that simply have no chance at all.
The one exception to this angle is horses who came out of the Arc de Triomphe. The reason that race gets an exception is because its a championship race in its own right. The quality and size of the field is such that very good horses are routinely overlooked in the betting. The odds are not really an accurate reflection of the horses quality.
The numbers against horses who were 10/1 or more in their last start are fairly solid. They have a cumulative record of 137-3-6-9. Street Sense, Thor's Echo and Adoration were the only horses who defied the angle. Even with those bombers win prices you would still have lost $131 (-47.81%) by betting on these horses. The bottom line is that you're better off missing those winners and staying clear of all those losers. Pretty much all of those horses will be 10/1 or more again in the Breeders Cup itself but don't fall into the trap of thinking of them as value. The numbers say they're very poor value.
Be especially bearish on horses who win their last prep at 10/1 or more. They are 37-0-2-3 in the Breeders Cup since 1996. Horses like River Keen, Kelly's Landing, Came Home and Stormello were all prime examples of this negative play.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Woodbine And The Mile
The Woodbine Mile has gone through several names changes in it's short history and this year it's to be known as the Woodbine Mile presented by Bell but it's still the same great race.
I have a personal affection for this race, the 2006 renewal was the first and only that I was not able to see live. Unfortunately my chances of seeing the 2007 version are slim but its a race I simply love both to watch and to handicap.
The field for this years race looks spectacular, really the only credible horse missing is Crossing The Line. This will undoubtedly be the toughest race for milers outside of the Breeders Cup and given the fact that the Americans have swept the last 3 runnings of the BC Mile it is worth paying close attention to the results this week. Here is the prospective field at the moment.
Art Master
Becrux
Dead Red
Estevan
Galantas
Host
Kip Deville
Le Cinquieme Essai
Remarkable News
Shakespeare
Storm Caller
Handicapping this race will be a joy and we'll be sure to take a close look at it on Friday. In the meantime we'll take a look at the Woodbine Mile's impact on the Breeders Cup.
Since its inception in 1997, 26 runners have gone from the Woodbine Mile to the Breeders Cup and have compiled a record of 26-1-3-2. It's not exactly a great record but the winners of the Woodbine Mile have hit the BC superfecta every time they've run in the BC aside from 1999 where Quiet Resolve failed badly.
As you're watching the Woodbine Mile trying to find a good play for the BC keep in mind some of the statistical factors for the Mile.
Fresh horses usually outperform. We're not looking for horses who are coming into the BC Mile directly off a layoff but we are looking for horses who have had a layoff within the last 3 running lines. Horses who didn't went 52-0-4-4 in the BC. Especially oppose those who have not had a recent layoff and have achieved 3 increasing Beyer Speed Figures. They have gone 10-0-0-1 and many of them were well respected.
Highest Last Beyer Figure is not really a positive. Since 1996 the horse with the highest last Turf BSF in the BC Mile have gone 13-0-1-1. There were two occasions where two horses shared the highest last BSF. It is the poorest record by last highest BSF holders for all the BC races.
Prefer horses who did not run at Del Mar. They have gone 0 for 34 since 1996, and Saratoga has not done much better. It would seem that the majority of Mile winners are actually on vacation during those months.
I have a personal affection for this race, the 2006 renewal was the first and only that I was not able to see live. Unfortunately my chances of seeing the 2007 version are slim but its a race I simply love both to watch and to handicap.
The field for this years race looks spectacular, really the only credible horse missing is Crossing The Line. This will undoubtedly be the toughest race for milers outside of the Breeders Cup and given the fact that the Americans have swept the last 3 runnings of the BC Mile it is worth paying close attention to the results this week. Here is the prospective field at the moment.
Art Master
Becrux
Dead Red
Estevan
Galantas
Host
Kip Deville
Le Cinquieme Essai
Remarkable News
Shakespeare
Storm Caller
Handicapping this race will be a joy and we'll be sure to take a close look at it on Friday. In the meantime we'll take a look at the Woodbine Mile's impact on the Breeders Cup.
Since its inception in 1997, 26 runners have gone from the Woodbine Mile to the Breeders Cup and have compiled a record of 26-1-3-2. It's not exactly a great record but the winners of the Woodbine Mile have hit the BC superfecta every time they've run in the BC aside from 1999 where Quiet Resolve failed badly.
As you're watching the Woodbine Mile trying to find a good play for the BC keep in mind some of the statistical factors for the Mile.
Fresh horses usually outperform. We're not looking for horses who are coming into the BC Mile directly off a layoff but we are looking for horses who have had a layoff within the last 3 running lines. Horses who didn't went 52-0-4-4 in the BC. Especially oppose those who have not had a recent layoff and have achieved 3 increasing Beyer Speed Figures. They have gone 10-0-0-1 and many of them were well respected.
Highest Last Beyer Figure is not really a positive. Since 1996 the horse with the highest last Turf BSF in the BC Mile have gone 13-0-1-1. There were two occasions where two horses shared the highest last BSF. It is the poorest record by last highest BSF holders for all the BC races.
Prefer horses who did not run at Del Mar. They have gone 0 for 34 since 1996, and Saratoga has not done much better. It would seem that the majority of Mile winners are actually on vacation during those months.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)