|
|
HANDICAPPING FEATURE Some Updates and Other Thoughts by Steve Zacks Recent Winners After three weeks at Del Mar and two at Saratoga, there has been a slight deviation in the statistics for those winners that had won either one, or both, of their last two starts. The numbers remain elevated for Saratoga -- even exceeding the previous 40 percent win rate. An example of the angle at its most powerful came at the Spa on August 3 in the last race. A nondescript non-winners of two races lifetime for fillies and mares for a claiming price of $35,000, it wasn't an easy race to handicap by conventional means, perhaps making it a perfect race to use any known viable angle. With only one last-out winner and only one horse who had won two starts back, this provided the perfect opportunity to use the recent winners angle, especially since it came at one of the race meetings where it has its highest impact. GILDED THREAD (Menifee) had won two starts ago at Monmouth over maiden claimers. She finished fifth of eight after forcing the pace with entry-level allowance fillies at Monmouth in her next outing and then moved into the barn of Tommy Bush, who entered her in a more likely spot with conditioned claimers at Saratoga. Her BRIS Race Ratings and Class ratings did not tout her as the probable winner, but did suggest possible improvement with the drop in class (most in-condition horses run faster when facing easier company). Her intervening start was a good enough effort to qualify her on form and considering that she was probably a claiming filly (her win had come with maiden claimers), that race would qualify as an excuse or an experiment. It appeared that Gilded Thread could be competitive in this group. Especially if the trainer switch had any positive impact on her performance. According the Ultimate PPs, Bush wins at a 20 percent clip, with a +$1.55 ROI, with horses moving to his barn. The trainer switch is often a potent angle and the Bush barn was showing the signs of an awakening. These factors combined suggested that she was certainly worth a chance if at or above her morning line odds of 12-1. The last-out winner was the lightly-raced Zen Buddha (Buddha), who was making only her third lifetime start and her first on turf. She had added blinkers for her latest and was now adding Lasix. Trainer Bruce Levine has modest first-time on the lawn stats, but there was one turf winner under the dam (from six starters), indicating the possibility that she would like the turf. Zen Buddha had won her last and owned the nice half-mile breeze that appears in the profile of so many Levine winners (taken from our personal database, which also indicated that Levine was capable of repeating with a maiden winner.) As it happened, Gilded Thread and Zen Buddha went off at 17-1 and 15-1, respectively, and ran one-two, generating a $600 exacta. This is just an example of how to use a favorable statistic in a situation where the outcome might otherwise be unclear. And just in case you are interested, we bet each to win -- and no, we did not have the exacta! But at 17-1, we aren't complaining. The patient player who can wait and can pick his spots can make some scores with this or any other potent angle. When the situation arises with only one or two qualified entrants in a full field, and the price is right, the opportunity for a major score may loom on the horizon. And if you can get 15-1, you do not have to be right all that often. At Del Mar, the new surface appears to be creating problems for some horses and some trainers. It has also had an effect on repeating winners. It would appear that the track surface is tiring and demands that horses be both super fit and able to sustain their energy. While the repeaters and second-back winners are still winning more than a quarter of the races for winners, they have to date failed to match the lofty percentage that they had shown in recent years. Most of these recent winners are returning to the races off 31+-day layoffs, with Poly or Cushion track experience, and many have a strong work tab featuring multiple works -- usually at five-furlongs and frequently longer. Fitness seems to be the key! It most likely will pay dividends to pay careful attention to those trainers who start to change their work habits, to perhaps longer and slower and even more frequent. A relevant BRIS Pace number and a strong Late Pace number could be the key to future winners for the balance of the meeting -- almost as good as having Michael or Joey aboard! Back at the Starting Gate In the 7TH race at Saratoga on August 1, the Bobby Frankel student TIGHT GRIP (Distorted Humor) had a brief gate breakthrough while in the hands of the assistant starter. After being reloaded, he was just able to hold on to get the job done as the 5-2 betting choice. Too bad for us as we had found the second-place finisher at 10-1, who was just unable to get there in time while drifting out. A reader reminded us that Fio Rito broke through the gate and ran off before his Whitney H. (G1) upset in 1981. We have never maintained that a horse cannot win after breaking through the gate. Fit and ready horses properly placed overcome all kinds of troubles to win races on a regular basis. Speaking as a bettor and from that perspective, however, horses that break through the gate before the race simply do not win their fair share (based on our informal study) and the player often has no option to cancel his bet or insufficient time to do so. We have observed other gate incidents since the original piece appeared, but this is the only one we have seen win. There was one event on Haskell Day and that well-backed runner barely got out of a common gallop thereafter. Maybe There is a Better Way Speaking purely as a one who earns his living betting on horses and representing the sentiments of all of the players we know, here is an almost new idea that is not so novel in this modern technological era: one which would make racing much more palatable to so many (probably all) of its supporters and players. Why not follow the National Hockey League's lead and centralize the adjudication of interference calls with a standardized approach? With the advent of simulcasting and the internet, racing is no longer a local sport -- at least from the horseplayer's perspective. When we bet on races across the country, what we all want is consistency in the application of the basic rules. In most, if not all North American racing jurisdictions, a horse is required to maintain a straight course during the running of a race and to not interfere with or take the path away from another. If he does, he is supposed to be placed behind that horse. While there may be variations in the local rules, the intent of it is the underpinning of the sport. The underlying understanding of every horseplayer when he places a bet is that his horse will have a fair shot at winning the race if he is good enough and if the jockey does not make too many tactical errors during the running of the race. It becomes very difficult to make investments when one not only does not know the rules, but when he also does not know how the rules will be interpreted or applied. It is easy to criticize for the sake of being critical; but when there is a better way available that will shore up support from the basic and needed constituency, the industry should consider it! The process can be simple. Using a group of independent, thoroughly trained individuals along with computer and video technology all in-race disputes can be reviewed at a centralized site using video feed. Using a pre-defined set of rules for what is allowed and what is not at various stages during the running of the race along with an announced protocol for deciding interference during the running of the race, decisions could be made on a constant, consistent and standardized fashion across the nation. Those making the decisions need not be aware of the type of race, the owners, the trainers or the jockeys involved. No politics, no prejudice, just constant and consistent decisions based these known rules. Any interference in the Kentucky Derby (G1) or Breeders' Cup would be treated exactly the same as the interference in a $4K claimer at River Downs or Bay Meadows. That is the way it is supposed to be isn't it? Yours and my two dollars is two dollars is two dollars after all. Using computers and modern graphics programming, so we have been told, programs can be devised to measure the impact of a bump on a horse's stride and more. Maybe the horse was tiring, or maybe the horse was hurt when bumped and knocked off stride. Any runner knows what the affect of a bad step can have. Can any human visually determine the actual affects of a bump when a 1,000-pound horse takes a misstep at high speed and caused by contact? We would doubt it! Once a horse has been interfered with who has the right to say that he would or would not have gone on? The running of a race should be a simple thing. If a horse interfered with another, enforce the rules and do so in a uniform and consistent fashion. The rules as they now stand need to be enforced, not interpreted! Or at least change the rules and tell the betting public in advance what the new rules are! In no jurisdiction, to our knowledge, have the authorities publicly stated in print and in advance exactly how these rules would be applied. In most aspects of enforcement, this would take little jurisdiction from the local authorities (they or jockey objections would decide which races are to be reviewed and the locals could assign any penalties they deem fit according to local custom thereafter). This approach would keep a lot of players from mumbling and grumbling and walking away from the game -- which is what many unhappy horseplayers do when they get teed off. We also suspect that one of the corollary benefits would be a reduction in the appeals of suspensions and outcomes by jockeys and owners. When the game is played fairly by all with a known format, and the rules are consistently and widely enforced in a universal manner, all the participants would be more content with the reality.
 Send this article to a friend
|
|
