Hangovers?

[derby1592]

If the sheets for all these horses get posted, I think you will find that a high percentage of them run ran their top or better in the Derby. I would estimate about half of them ran their top or better which would almost have to be a higher percentage than those that came into the Derby with 3 or more preps (will be interesting to see all the sheets).

Also, note that many of these were shipping from another continent which has to be somewhat negative and is not the case for most of those with 3 or more preps.

Also, note that US-based horses, Lion Heart, Proud Citizen and Victory Gallop all ran big races and finished second (I think new tops for all but maybe Lion Heart). They did not win but finishing second is not a bad in a 15-20 horse field in the biggest race in North America and this is just over the last 7 derbies (also note that Peace Rules was just nosed out for second in a game effort).

If you look at the obvioius training trend over the last 20 years and you look at how 2-or-fewer prep horses have run in the last 8 or 9 years (appears to about when American trainers really started to use the less may be better approach for Derby preps), it is hard to make a case that 2 preps is bad. In fact, you could even make a case for just the opposite.

Chris

[kev]

I don\'t know if this will help Jerry but here it is. This is from HTR they have large databases of stats like this.
180+ days off   all horses, purse $10,000+ 1yr sample:
dirt sprint: 9,299= 9% won
dirt route: 1,115= 10% won
turf route: 1.691= 12% won

They also did a study of inside and outside speed horses from post position. They used their own method of seeing who they though was the speed of the speed.
For ex: The horse had to be ranked 1st in their ratings and either was on the far outside or on the inside ( rail )
Outside speed sprint: 31%  12,673 tested
Inside speed sprint: 31%  
Inside speed route: 26%     6,311 tested
Outside speed route: 16%
Any post position (speed method) won at 23%......just goes to show ya the outside post is a killer for horses going wide into the turn. They did removed the one turn races in routes.

TGJB,

You crack me up sometimes. :-)

Of course the coin flip is not exactly comparable, but the default logic you should use in gambling/investing is.

When a sample of horses is \"dramatically underperforming its odds\", but the sample is not large enough to be statistically significant, you are STILL \"way better off\" not bucking that trend until you can be certain that you can account for that ROI underperformance.

By erring on the side of caution, you will ocassionally find that the stat was meaningless - as in the case of Dosage. Thus you may miss a few winners. However, you may have found some alternate overlays in those same races that you cashed that you wouldn\'t have cashed otherwise. The net being not particlulary meaningful.

Occasionally you will find that a negative stat \"WAS meaningful\" as more data came in. In those case you would have saved a ton of money by avoiding those horses until there was a statistically significant sample.

The net of all will be WAY better if you are cautious until you can be very certain that conventional wisdom is wrong.

IMHO, this is so basic a level of thought related to investing that I am shocked anyone would even debate it.

The only legitimate counter to it is that you are already close to 100% sure that 1  or 2 preps can\'t possibly be a negative in a particular circumstance. If you believe that, then OK, but I can\'t imagine anyone in the world being close to 100% about that based on the data to date and the sample size - especially considering it seems very logical that it would take an especially skilled trainer to do it.

Now if you want to make an exception for the Frankel\'s of the world, I am probably with you.

As of now though, I would generally downgrade the chances of anyone coming in with 1 or 2 preps until I know for certain one way or the other if it is a problem.

Given 2 horses with the same ability and the same odds I\'ll take the one prepped more traditionally every day of the week. This seems like a complete no-brainer to me given the huge underperformance of the prep short horses relative to their odds as a group.



Post Edited (03-29-05 19:20)

[TGJB]

CH-- I want you to carefully read my posts on this subject explaining both my positions and the underlying logic regarding them, as to both the questions of the lighter raced Derby contestants and the differences between those questions and the coin flip. Then I want you to read them again. After that, do the same with Chris\' post. Then try to formulate a response that actually deals with someone else\'s points and responses to yours. For once.

Tomorrow, Mark Twain.

TGJB,

You don\'t give any weight to the theory that it\'s easier to bring horses back off a layoff on turf (Europe especially) because the paces of turf races tend to be slower and the races less demanding on fitness?

That\'s partly what Beyer and I have been theorizing.

Many Europeans horses win Grade 1 races off a layoff, but they primarily run on turf. However, it is possible that the same training method that CAN get a horse ready for a Grade 1 long turf route off a layoff may not be enough preparation for a dirt route and the trainers haven\'t figured that out yet because they are two different skills and they don\'t have enough experience with what it takes on dirt.

[TGJB]

Having neither direct evidence either way (as I pointed out there are a lot of variables) or having trained horses, I don\'t have an opinion on the ease of getting horses to run off layoffs on turf and dirt. I have dealt with an awful lot of trainers, however, and none of them have raised the issue, including Dickinson, who is a major layoff trainer on both.

TGJB,

I\'m not sure what you are asking.

My understanding of what you are saying is that the proper preparation is dependent on the circumstances etc.... and that sometimes 1 or 2 can be OK or even better. Sometimes, more preps can be better. The idea is to get the horse to win the Derby without killing him.  

I am saying, there is no real evidence that 1 or 2 preps is ever the proper preparation for this kind of race, but there\'s plenty of evidence that it is not.

If you are asking me to examine the figures and past performances of the horses in the sample to see how they did figure wise etc.., I am saying it that is not enough of an indication when they are dramatically underperforming their odds. Lousy horses should win sometimes and the ROI loss would approximate the take if this was a neutral factor.

So given the small sample why not ackowledge the possibility that 1 or 2 preps may not be ideal the vast majority of the time until we know more?

TGJB,

OK I understand your point.

My only evidence (no proof) is that I can easily see the pace differences in the race developments between turf and dirt and logically theorize that long dirt routes are tougher to prep for because they are more demanding.  

I also have some stats on winning Grade 1  dirt races off a layoff and the horses sharply underperform their odds as a group. It is much easier and more neutral on an ROI basis to win lower level stakes.

I\'ve never done any stats on turf in Europe, but it seems rather routine to win Grade 1 races off a long payoff over there.  

Hence a reasonable theory as to what is going on.



Post Edited (03-29-05 19:57)

[Michael D.]

chris,
because of the graded earnings requirement, maybe the two prep horses are the better horses (because they had to win a big race just to get in). maybe horses with two preps are more talented than the average derby horse, and should run better (not a question of preparation)? not sure, just a thought.

[TGJB]

CH-- We are going to post all those sheets (right now we\'re having trouble getting the 92 horses, which should be there but don\'t seem to be), but soon thereafter we\'ll post them all and everyone can have a field day analyzing them. One of the problems we have in discussing things with you is that most people on this site realize that accurate performance figures (and in particular those we make) are the best way of measuring performance (erego their usefulness for betting, as opposed to simply looking at who has won in the past), especially when the randomness of results with 20 horse fields is taken into account. My suggestion is that if you are going to use results, you should be using top 4 or in the money finishes to reduce the randomness. In that and other regards, read Chris\' post, as I said.

TGJB,

OK, I\'ll examine the sheets.

I suspect they won\'t totally satisfy me  because I generally believe that ROI evidence is quite indicative of factors that might not be well understood by the public. Even though I trust your figures, figure handicappers disagree on figures, people interpret results and figures differently etc.... Profits and losses relative to the take don\'t lie or get misunderstood when the sample is large enough.



Post Edited (03-29-05 20:09)

[TGJB]

Okay, here are the sheets on the Derby starters with less than 3 preps. A couple of notes:

1-- Regarding a point CH made-- while those who make figures can disagree over a figure, when you do it over a significant sampling the discrepencies should even out, and there is no reason it should be an issue with something like this-- we\'re talking about 20 horse fields, and assigned figures affect ALL the figures in the race. This is as accurate a measure of performance as can be established, which is why we do it to begin with, and it enables us to examine how each horse performed relative to HIS OWN level of ability, as opposed to that of others in the race, which of course will affect win %, ITM% and ROI.

2-- We couldn\'t get the ones from 92. I also threw in Real Quiet and Aptitude, to show how these \"stats\" can be misleading-- both technically ran 3 times at 3 before the Derby, but both ran in January, AND THEN HAD A LAYOFF. Meaning, for all practical purposes, the January start was an extension of their 2yo campaigns, and they only had two preps AFTER the layoff before the Derby.

I also threw in Aptitude for another reason. I have mentioned here on several occasions (as has Chris) that Frankel\'s horses did some amazing things starting in the summer of 2001, which we later heard was when he began using Allday. Take a look at how much this SOB moved up.

Also, we may not have some Dubai starts  (Worldly Manner?) for the earlier years-- Equibase has gotten better as time has gone on.

3-- I\'ll be very curious to hear not only the comments on the individual horses, but any carefully done breakdowns (Chris?). You can use Kevin\'s stats or whatever we did for last year\'s Derby seminar (should still be on this site), but keep in mind those stats include these horses.

http://www.thorograph.com/hold/k9304.pdf

[kev]

I\'ll run threw them later, but just take the time and look at LEMON DROP KID coming into the bel. I had him that day, the pattern on him looked grrrreat. That\'s what people needs to be looking for in a fine looking pattern that will pay something, get the off race ( not to bad ) right after the little move.

Chris,

I would think that as a general rule we should expect spring 3YOs aimed specifically for the Derby to run lifetime peaks fairly often. Certainly that should be the case for some of the major contenders (some of the weaker horses could just get outrun or blown out by a fast pace and not run up to par etc..)

IMHO, simply running well, slightly better than previous efforts, or improving more than other horses would not really be indicative that one method of preparation is better or as good as another.

Suppose \"for example\" all the one/two prep horses showed an average improvement of 3 lengths and the ones with more preps improved by only 1 length.

Does that prove anything?

Suppose the better prepped horses were 4 lengths faster coming into the race on average because they had more racing experience.

How would that 3 length average improvement relative to 1 length improvement translate into 1 or 2 preps being a good idea?

It wouldn\'t. It would tend to indicate it was a terrible idea.

Even though many of them would peak, they would still often fall short of winning - possibly due to lack of preparation.

Suppose many of them never improved further after that?

Does that mean they were never that good to begin with or does it mean rushing a young 3YO to the 10F Derby without proper preparation knocks the horse out.

You really can\'t be sure.

I am just highlighting possible problems in the interpretation of these figures. The figures are somewhat subjective and the interpretation is even more so.

That\'s why even though I think examining the figures of the horses can be a useful supplement to ROI and other stats, you can\'t escape the fact that so far as a group these horses are wildly underperforming their odds on an ROI basis.

That means people are looking at their figures, the quality of their competition and everything else and concluding these horses have an \"x%\" chance of winning. Then they are not living up to those expectations even though many moved forward.

Granted the sample is still very small, but the ROI is a disaster (especially including all the horses from decades before for which we don\'t have data).

I can\'t escape the logic of \"assuming\" there is a problem here until they are winning close to their fair share of the races and/or the ROI stats prove otherwise.

There simply is not enough contrary evidence in the figures to counter the ROI and probability evidence we have seen so far. At least not with certainty.  

I guess others can do as they please.

For me, \"all else being equal\" I would rather have the traditionally prepped horse over the non-traditionally prepped horse.



Post Edited (03-30-05 08:54)

I\'ll add one other thing.

IMO, the figures and patterns for the imports should be given much less weight in the discussion for several reasons.

1. It is hard to be as sure about the quality of the figures earned in overseas preps as it is for figures in the US.

2. Even if we assume the foreign figures are of equal quality, we can\'t be sure that many of the horses didn\'t improve when they got to the US for the Derby because of changes in drug usage and not because of changes in form.

3. Foreign imports of all ages, sex, and surface preference etc.. have generally shown a tendency to run big races first off the plane and then fall apart in their next start. I have never seen a satisfactory explanation, but the pattern has been written about and discussed by handicappers. I know several excellent handicappers that have been wagering profitably on that pattern for many years (against them in their second start after a huge first start).

The fact that some of the foreign based 3YOs improved sharply for the Derby and then didn\'t move forward further or went backwards simply can\'t be construed as evidence of anything related to proper Derby preparation or ability. This sub group falls into a larger category of foreign imports that has exhibited a similar pattern.