Handicapping Feature

HANDICAPPING FEATURE

FEBRUARY 25, 2009

Which is the Key -- Yesterday or Tomorrow?

by Steve Zacks

Much, perhaps too much, has already been written about the performance of

THIS ONES FOR PHIL (Untuttable) in the restricted Sunshine Millions Dash for

California- and Florida-bred sophomores at Gulfstream in late January. This

raises the issue of one's approach to the entire process of prospecting for

winners on any racing card. Either you are looking at what horses have done in

the past and using that as the basis of your approach, or you are regarding the

past in the context of what it tells you about how a particular horse or horses

"project" to run today.

They call them "past performances" for a reason! They tell you what a horse

has done in the past. They tell you if he has been forwardly placed early and

done his better running in the latter stages or vice versa. To the extent that

the variant maker has precisely assessed all the factors that go into the

construction of an accurate daily variant, the Speed and Pace figures may truly

represent, in a series of numbers, just how fast a horse ran on a particular

day. By adding paths and trips into the mix, performance ratings try to

represent everything about a runner's race into one or two figures.

Following ANY LIMIT's (Limit Out) victory in the Hurricane Bertie S. (G3) at

Gulfstream on February 15, Hall of Famer Alan Jerkens explained it simply by

saying that she "ran a better race today than she did last time." He went on to

add that if she continued to train well and was sound, she would try a tougher

test at seven furlongs in a few weeks. A horse's form cycles; she will either

run better or worse today than she did either last time out, or the last time

she was in a similar situation as relates to class, distance, surface, surface

condition and time since the last race.

A significant theme underlying my recent piece on evaluating trainer stats

was the idea that trainers try to accomplish things with many of their charges;

when they return to a previously successful pattern of preparation, one can

frequently anticipate a change in the level of performance! That change

sometimes shows up in the statistics, when a horse gets lucky enough to be

well-spotted and things break his way during the running of the race and gets

home on top. The piece made the point that very often horses actually do improve

as anticipated, but for a myriad of reasons do not win and are thus not

reflected in the published statistics.

The trainer-based approach is usually forward-looking. It focuses not only on

trainers who are currently winning races, but also on an anticipated change in

performance today, often basing that on knowledge of the trainer's modus

operandi. Performance changes are basically unquantifiable and therefore tend to

have wager value if an upside thrust is needed to win a race. In This Ones for

Phil's case, there were numerous reasons to forget the past and to project or

anticipate a significant change in performance today.

The horse had moved into a new barn, with a new trainer and a completely

different approach to readying horses for racing. The work tab was different. I

see Dick Dutrow as a terrific horseman, perhaps even one of the best of his

generation. If he skirts the rules in a game that basically condones rule

infringements, then so be it. But year in and year out he repeats many of the

same patterns and wins races utilizing the same tried and true methods of

generations of top horsemen in the past. His horses generally look good on the

track, they get time off when needed, and he runs them where they can win, up or

down in class.

Dutrow has a long and proven record of improving horses in their first start

under his tutelage. This Ones for Phil was returning from a significant layoff

and the time off for a newly turned three-year-old frequently produces a change

in performance for the better. Off a layoff, the horse was going turf to dirt

and route to sprint. Those who focus on trainers and trainer switches look for

these runners all the time! Very often when they need to improve they do, and

very often the odds are most generous.

A trainer switch with a layoff and a hold or rise in class is an extremely

productive angle for numerous trainers and often produces significantly improved

performances. The reasons are quite simple. One usually claims a horse with the

hope or expectation of improvement. If an owner switches trainers, either he/she

or the new trainer want results within the first few starts. Very often you will

see a new trainer run a horse in a softer spot. When you know that a trainer is

in control of where the horse will run, then the class rise has more meaning

that it does with trainers who often dream.

As a former trainer, I know that when I brought a new horse into the barn,

the blacksmith, vet and dentist were all called in to run various tests and/or

for consultations. Blood was taken, teeth were examined and floated if

necessary, shoes and hoof angles were discussed and altered, sometimes x-rays,

ultra-sounds or scopes were carried out. If the test results were ok, a horse

would often run back quickly; in other situations time was taken. If the horse

went up in class after the jail period, it was often a positive sign. I cannot

say that I did not often dream back then, but horses frequently did run better

than they had before, even if they did not win.

Betting on horses is not simple. Even if you identify a horse that runs an

improved race today, you have to be correct in your assessment of how he fits in

today's race. I personally have gone through many periods where horses do run

better as expected and at long odds...but do NOT win. Anticipating an improved

performance is only one part of the jigsaw puzzle. When all the pieces fit

together, the payoffs are usually rewarding.

"Yesterday" is a nice Beatles song, but we make money by predicting the

future!