handicapping 101 PART4 "WORKS"
 

many here are very good cappers.steve/andy are at the pro level.should a capper use "works" to make a determination of recent fitness? some trainers have very structured regimen when coming up to a race ..mott is a 7 days apart guy..there are however certin patterns ill look for in diffrent types of races. take a look at race 7 weds at gulf a turf event .what do you see that might be a "tell"..

knowing where the work was done and how it was done is very important,unless you put no wieght on this..

the time and place along with the notation "h" handily "g" gate "b" breezing
denotes the way it was done..now this is no exact science..at major meets the drf does a pretty good job..but at some places the trainer calls in his own works..:eek: ..on some turf courses the "d" dogs is put in basicly running on the outside of the turf course as not to mess it up..
the number next to the work is the horses ranking from those that worked at that dist that day..also abit telling..

in gs there are a bunch of diffrent training centers and farms and courses..
so its tough..calder the course itself/gulf stream on course/ payson park is deep /palm meadows/palmbeach downs..

finding what "works" for you is a good part of the puzzle..


some trainers use exercise riders that can go 160lbs. and unless your at the track you wont know..

having some knowledge of the accuracy and validity of works I personally would put very little if any of my handicapping decisions into viewing recent works

When running at a new track, I like it when a horse has a couple of works on the track. Always prefer the "B", over the "H", but as far as the times go, I don't pay too much attention. KNS is a good example. I guess it helps to know a bit about the trainer.

Point of clarification on Matt's threadstart intro before commenting...

There's a big difference between my role as a 'public handicapper' and Andy's as a professional horseplayer. Andy, like anyone playing full time, puts more work into his analysis and preparation than I can remotely approach. It ain't close. His job is being prepared to wager to earn his living. It requires full time attention. My full time is devoted to preparing the radio show, my food consultancy, the Website and the Stable. I handicap as much and as best as I can, but cannot do the work like Andy does...

As to workouts.. I am most interested in patterns to indicate soundness. When did a horse return to the track after a race? 10 days? 2 weeks? A month? Were there gaps in a layoff horse's works after a break? etc.. Don't like seeing a horse miss 2-3 works somewhere after being started back towards racing...

I love young horses getting works for the distance at which they are debuting... Love fast blowouts for sprinters... Love 7f works...

i think from the works .that pp 5 play the favorite looks good for a first timer..and of course the 4 distorted lady..

two things i like in the 5 is the gate works..and the one on the turf..

better than nothing
 

Use everything you can get your hands on.

You have to make an appraisal of each bit of information.

It helps to know the style of the trainer and the horse.


Before the big races you also want to know the public's opinion of any "headline works". Anything perceived as a big negative or positive should be appraised.

Public Overreactions
People criticized Larry Jones when he gave Hard Spun a perfect work before the 2007 Derby. "Clockers" said he looked terrible late in the 5 furlong work. - I watch the video of his work and he went out for 3 furlongs and then cruised out another furlong or two. He looked impressive and powerful. Considering he needed to get out of the gate in the Derby, it could only help.
People worried about a slow work from Street Sense 5furlongs in about 1:03 or so... -Nobody looks at the fractions where he finishes in 11.5 seconds and "gallops out" another in about 12!
Or Curlins winter work goes in about 1:04 and everyone is depressed...-Not only is the fact that Asmussen works his horses slow ignored, but you come to find out that it was part of a two minute lick! :D :D

The Wolfson longshot at GP Monday was a rare instance of works really tipping you off about fitness. Even then he probably was too cheap without seeing all the FTS and Layoff horses and knowing that he was the speed.

I look at spacing more than anything. Hard to place a ton of emphasis on the actual times recorded, as I don't think they are always correct.

Workouts are important but unless you watch them live and know what to watch for, evaluating a workout as good or otherwise is not overrated, it's impossible.

I look for frequency and timing to determine a sense of readiness. That's about it. First-time starters can be a bit different, but that's not my thing.

The only time I place significant positive value on works is for a 2nd time starter who has dirt route pedigree and sprinted in his first race. If I see a positive work pattern after the first start consisting of 3 seemingly good works and the horse is entered back 25-35 days or so later at the more appropriate distance, then I get interested.

For me, I'm far more interested the chance to downgrade a likely young favorite due to a lack of work. Go back and look at the work/on-track activity of that "case-study" horse, Jet Setting. That horse was running back 21 days (with no interim work) after a bad-start/good finish return from layoff with a race/work pattern that had red flag all over it. As a young 3 yo, the trainer could have waited another 13 days or so for the same race with an opportunity to gate work. The decision to run back quicker with no works is a strong sign of questionable soundness.

Horses like Jet Setting win a lot of races. But at 4/5, she was either a pass or a bet against.

Jet Setting finished second to a better horse. I don't see her as a good example at all. She finished behind the only horse that could beat her on paper going in.

If she was a bad bet at 4:5 it was because she was facing someone of perhaps equal, or more, talent who's only question mark was the layoff. The horse that won the race had lost the Schylerville at Saratoga by a head bob.

i tend to use them on firsters alot and maintence works leading up to a race..some trainers race them into shape..... the derby show "the works" is pretty useless to me i allready know the horses by the time they get in..

Regardless of how the race played out, I think horses like Jet Setting are terrible plays at odds-on or near it. That is my opinion. This was not a 20k claimer who runs 15x a year. She was not to be bet due to her work and race pattern.

Back too quick, no works despite bad gate behavior, awful recent race/work activity pattern, eschewing works and an identical spot 12 days later for the quick comeback.

There are different roads that get you to the same place. Personally, I'd never use a horse like that at what was sure to be 4/5 - 6/5.

Doesn't mean I'd bet against the horse but if I did and she beat me, I wouldn't feel bad about it for long.

I'm not necessarily disputing the general theory, I just don't think Jet Setting is a great example, as she finished second, in essentially a two horse race, to the only horse that could beat her. I just don't think she substantiates the theory because she finished second. Maybe if she finished fourth.....

I like watching that, actually... although we all know the horses going into the Derby, it shows the condition of the horse a bit and that helps me.

I generally use works in three main situations 1) First Time Starters, 2)Horses of extended layoffs 3) 2nd off layoff runners.

1) For first timers I am generally a big fan of 5F (or greater) works. Also look for eyepoppers (of course). Biggest use for me is identifying gaps that may indicate a negative issue that caused the lapse in training.

2). For horses off an extended layoff, I mainly look for gaps.

3) For second off runners, I like to see a horse that came up short that comes back with some long works. Curious if anyone agrees with this, or just something I have gotten lucky with a few times...

Aside from those, I don't really think I have the knowledge to put them (works) to much use.

I'm glad this topic came up....
 

I have been thinking about posting a question regarding West Coast workout times... I understand that West Coast clockers may classify a Churchill "breeze" as "handily", but it just seems like you see really blazing workout times at SA and HOL as compared to just about anywhere else much more frequently, like 58sec 5fl, lots of 35 sec 3fl and 46 sec 4fl. Is it just me or do you rarely see these kinds of work tabs outside of the West?

I/L

Everything is handily out West, I have no idea why. recently, it is because the track is cooked fast because of them sealing it from the rain, but you didn't see those types of works at Del Mar, 50 was real quick at Del Mar......

Ditto to what has already been said. Like to see a good pattern of works with no breaks for young horses (or any horses for that matter.) The pattern and length of works are more important to me than the actual times. (I want them fast when I have money on them; not at 5AM.)

Also, I like to see when "the screws are tightened" and gaps of 8 to 10 days between works get shortened down to 7 or 6 or even 5 days before a race. I feel the barn is really targeting this particular race and the horse should be taken very seriously.

It seems I see these things more often early in the year and most often on the West coast.

workout importance
 

Cappers that do not employ, or understand workouts are not playing with a full deck. Collectively, they ensure winning players their profit.

Yesterday, in the Fairgrounds finale REVENGE IS SWEET had to be respected and will not be a maiden much longer, but the Mike McCarty roan ( Kings Silver Son, $4.60 ) off the OUTSTANDING 1/7/08 work, figured long gone, even after sixty days on the bench. That view, was considerably enhanced with stablemate Deveroux winning the previous race.

Workouts are a must handicapping tool. If you have not read top shelf capper, Bruno De Julio's book on am activity, you should. Billy Mott, as well as most successful trainers, work their horses as they deem necessary. BBB

i wonder what trainers don't work their horses when deemed necessary tho....

Only the one's who's workouts, apparently, point out live 6:5 shots.

If you ever want to hit on a DWL horse, don't pay attention to works whatsoever. Can anyone in the world tell when one of his horses is going to be fit and/or come close to repeating a past performance?

BTW My point is that if handicappers actually take the time to correctly analyze a horses am activity, clues will be revealed that can indicate an improved afternoon performance. The work pattern of King's Silver Son was very ordinary, as are most of his trainers stock, until the startling move on January 7th. In that work he exploded and blew away a very fast stablemate who broke his maiden at Belmont in one o nine and a tick. That stablemate DEVEREUX, who is bred top and bottom to sprint won the previous race for nonwinners very easily. 'KING who is bred long on long had never shown any lick in the morning and his work was very telltale. I realize workouts are not one of your areas of expertise, but they are for many successful cappers.

Cakes

for the last five years or so everthing Wayne works runs off in the morning. His training style is now obsolete and the quality of his stock has dropped precipitously.

BBB
 

I don't have the pps, but I think it is a fair guess that at 6:5 the horse had quite a bit to recommend outside of his supposed good work.

IMO, unless one sees the works, or speaks to someone who does who really knows what they are doing, then judging one out of the paper as either " good " or " bad " is a dicey proposition. I respect those that talk about spacing of works.....but not specifically those that think they can tell from the paper what may or may not have been a good work.

Workouts are an interesting part of the game and I think Hooves was doing us all a favor in starting the thread.

I think certain works stick out more than others. Here was a situation where a work made it pretty clear of the trainer's intent:

Saturday's 6th race at Aqueduct was for NY bred MSW going a mile and 70. #4 CASH FOR GOLD had two starts, the first of which was useless, he did nothing and was beaten handily. In his second, over a muddy track, he made a slight early moev and then tired abruptly to finish ninth beaten 16 lengths. That race was on 12/29. He had one work between that start and Saturday's start, 21 days later. The workout was a half-mile in :47 and 4/5ths handily (his only workout that was rated handily) and was a bullet. He was also adding blinkers and switiching jocks form Alan Garcia to 5 lb. bug Aldo Arboleda. Clearly, trainer Jeremiah Englehart was looking for speed from this guy and he got it as he opened up off the far turn and was hard-pressed to hold on late.

That, to me, is a situation where a workout made a trainer's intent pretty clear and gave one plenty of reasons to think Cash for Gold was headed right to the early lead, a great place to be going a route on the inner track.

NT

BrisNET was providing FREE clockers reports for Churchill maybe Kentucky. I found them to be very helpful when looking for value. The reports would mention if they were working in company, who the company was and if the rider up was bad.

I like to look for patterns.

imho... generally the published workout info is a small part of the story...there is no substitute for actually seeing the work...I think gate works tend to get overrated...I've done reasonably well betting mdns especially first time starters based upon their works that I have actually seen...splits, out times, in company, is much more valuable than final workout time..

BTW You are accurate that KING'S SILVER SON had some pp's that indicated he would not be a maiden long. In his five races, he debuted in August with a "quick move" second best. Then a "taken up" second best before drawing the twelve hole in his two turn debut, when again second, while favored over the talented Court Vision. He next drew the nine hole, was caught wide thruout yet led late and was nipped and bumped at the wire. In his last he drew the eleven hole and was beat a length to a $700K Zito weanling while checking in fourth. Most of these were over par and he only had to negotite the short stretch and the sixty days off.

Clearly he was the horse to beat. But my point was that his work Jan 7th implied that he would not only win; but that he likely will win right back.

You may recall a pick four we posted on the other forum where I called a 48 half by a maiden at Churchill a "monster" work, a statement you disagreed with. After explaining why the work was stakelike, you relented and with good reason. The horse Silver Lord won right back, then took a $100K stake paying a big number. I do not have the link to that discussion but recall the date as Nov 18th and you will enjoy the nebulous prattle contributed by a few members from this forum.

Good for you Nick. Sharp cappers always check the works when there is an equipment change while most recite the useless statistic of how the trainer does adding blinkers. As you know most jurisdictions require gate clearance of some type.

Et. al. Generally agree. Workouts are a handicapping frontier that puts a whole lot more art than science into the equation. BBB

BBB
 

One of the things that makes this game so great is that everyone has different theories and ideas. Some are good....and some are bad. If I think something is " bad ", but it works for you, then who's to say I'm right. However, I think there is a basic fallacy to placing too much emphasis on the actual supposed workout, and that is something I touched on and Payson Dave, who speaks from hands on experience, illucidated further. Without seeing the work for yourself, or being close to someone trustworthy who has, you really don't know what the work really means.

Let me give an example......in many top barns especially, good horses have workmates, so you will often see a top horse with a similar workout to some unknown horse in the paper. That does not mean the unknown is anything close to the good horse, in fact it's very possible the absolute opposite is true, and the horse may be merely being used as a target for the good horse....someone to keep him or her occupied.

My point in the specific example you gave is that while you seem to claim this workout helped point out this horse, maybe even for the future, at 6:5 it is hard to believe the workout was particularly meaningful.....and being that he was a 6:5 maiden breaker for a top barn it hardly seems it is even meaningful for future performance. The Zito horse he lost to is Aquarian, I assume, and considering I believe that horse has a bright future, it isn't hard to assume by extension that this horse may be able to run some himself. Simply said, the hard data that this horse obviously displayed had to considerably outweigh the vague information the workout may have offered. Right or wrong, I think it has to be better to stick to what we know than what we think.

Enjoy reading this thread... I allways try to see, what the trainer wanted to get out of the works. How many works & distance on a first time starter, a long work to get ready for a sprint. Thanks for everyones input, gave me a few more things to look for.

The only thing you can tell from paper works are how often they are being asked to work. After that things can get decieving

One of the biggest problems with works is that they can be so inaccurate and there is no way to check or dispute them. Unlike other information given in the pps which is usually pretty accurate, a work is not seen or recorded therefore the clockers version is the one taken without question. Speaking from personal experience, they make lots of errors in most jurisdictions, though many times because the system of clocking horses is so outdated. When the track opens in the morning there are usually so many horses working at the same time from different positions on the track that much is missed. There are simply only so many horses that a few guys can watch at a time. The fact that they are even close most of the time is amazing and there is an art to being a good clocker. An perfect example that Payson Dave can probably expand upon is turf training at the Oklahoma turf course in Saratoga. There are sometimes 30 horses working withing minutes of each other from different poles. Since the there is a short window of time when the turf is open and they allow free access to the turf it is an impossible task to catch them all. Also remember they have to put the correct names to each horse along with the actual clocking. The newest trend which you will see expanding in the next few years is trainers, especially the bigger ones, utilizing training centers where many of the times are self clocked and turned in. The accuracy of these are very much in doubt.

imho the clockers at Saratoga, both at the main track and the Oklahoma training track are very good...most of the time they know before the work who it is that is working and how far they will be going...the trainer or someone from the barn usually provides the info to the clockers in advance...on a rare occasion in the midst of a flurry of activity a work may get missed, but very rarely... I think that the much bigger issue here is that the final time is not at all the most important piece of information regarding a work...how did the horse finish...did the rider keep on riding past the wire for another 8th or 4qtr....if in company who led at the wire and by how much...did the horse get out on the turn...the old saying that "time only matters when you are in jail" is especially true as regards workouts.
For me anyway, by actually watching the morning works, I feel that I have some additional info that most of the betting public does not have...to me that is a major advantage.