Bounce theory, Steve?

[sumitas]

0-2-x

[golfer]

OK, now I am more confused than ever, which, in my opinion, is quite an accomplishment. Jerry Brown has a study on TG website listing all 3 year olds since 2000 who have run negative numbers, and what happened in the subsequent race, also broken down to when that race was 30 days or less later. 48 horses have run negative at age three, NONE of them went forward in their next race, only 9 paired up, the rest regressed. 31 horses ran back in less than 30 days after their negative number, NONE went forward, only 5 paired up, the rest regressed. That's 16% pairing, and 84% regressing.

So I will ask again (and I'm not trying to be argumentative), why is it that you believe that running back quickly negates the bounce? If this is the case, I've been looking at this incorrectly for the last two years, and better to fix this now, then 2 years from now (when I'm living in Steve's basement, because he feels "sorry" for me).
By the way, I encourage everyone to check out the study, the full sheets for all these horses are available for perusing, very interesting.

[TheSpyder]

Golfer,

Where are these studies...directions for the TG novice.

By the way, whether it helps or adds to the confusion, Steve's comments on ATRAB broke it down to 2 weeks versus 3-4 weeks. May have only been his opinion, not sure.

Thanks,
Spyder

[golfer]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Golfer,

Where are these studies...directions for the TG novice.

By the way, whether it helps or adds to the confusion, Steve's comments on ATRAB broke it down to 2 weeks versus 3-4 weeks. May have only been his opinion, not sure.

Thanks,
Spyder

Spyder, go to thorograph.com, click on ROTW section to see this for free. If you are not registered, you will need to sign up (this is also free, with no strings attached).

[Kasept]

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

[Scav]

golfer/byk,

The interesting part of that study is that I wonder how many of those 3 year olds that went negative, went negative as a two year old also, not many. I can't remember many negative 2 year old numbers, especially one as low as neg 2. What I think happens is he moves backward, by 2 points, setting up the 0-2=x theory, and that my friend really puts JB in a bad spot, because the all of the racing world will be talking about it, and if he 'X's like he is suppose to in that given spot, JB becomes even richer, if he doesn't 'X' and wins the TC, that theory loses crediability.

I am guessing SS runs about a neg1/2 to zero range, which wins this race

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Scav

golfer/byk,

The interesting part of that study is that I wonder how many of those 3 year olds that went negative, went negative as a two year old also, not many. I can't remember many negative 2 year old numbers, especially one as low as neg 2. What I think happens is he moves backward, by 2 points, setting up the 0-2=x theory, and that my friend really puts JB in a bad spot, because the all of the racing world will be talking about it, and if he 'X's like he is suppose to in that given spot, JB becomes even richer, if he doesn't 'X' and wins the TC, that theory loses crediability.

I am guessing SS runs about a neg1/2 to zero range, which wins this race

Stevie Wonderboy ran neg 1, Lost in the Fog and Smarty Jones both ran zero's. Street Sense's negative 2 was the fastest 2 year old number.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

that's why I'll wait until the Belmont to bet against SS. (if he runs)

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Kasept

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by golfer

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

I'll answer for him. Yes.

Younger the horse the more likely that he will bounce. I think you really have to look at the situation and who is doing the entering. If a horse has been running between the 3-5 range and then alll of a sudden jumps to a 0, and then comes back in 14-20 days into a stakes race where others were pointing, and progressing well and you predict them to run a 2, I would bet the horse that I am predicting to run the two, and not the horse that just ran a zero.

The only two rules that I really live by when it comes to TG is the 3year old year to 4 year old year. If you think the horse has some talent, and is coming off the layoff, they improve immensely when they get that 60-90 day layoff in the winter from 3-4 years old. ESPECIALLY horses that looked rushed to the races or ones that have a stretch out pedigree's. Unbridled's horses were unbelievable when going from 3-4 and 4-5, they just got better with age. If a newly turned 4 year old matchs his top first out, he is an AUTOMATIC play for me next out unless it is a long layoff. AUTOMATIC. If they don't I then look at it more, but the 3 year old to 4 year old angle is EXTREMELY strong, and for good reason.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

the chicken bones say 2o-xneg = at 2 a chicken nugget..at 3 a crispy chicken...of you add in the blood of rooster is all makes sence...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Scav

I'll answer for him. Yes.

Younger the horse the more likely that he will bounce. I think you really have to look at the situation and who is doing the entering. If a horse has been running between the 3-5 range and then alll of a sudden jumps to a 0, and then comes back in 14-20 days into a stakes race where others were pointing, and progressing well and you predict them to run a 2, I would bet the horse that I am predicting to run the two, and not the horse that just ran a zero.

The only two rules that I really live by when it comes to TG is the 3year old year to 4 year old year. If you think the horse has some talent, and is coming off the layoff, they improve immensely when they get that 60-90 day layoff in the winter from 3-4 years old. ESPECIALLY horses that looked rushed to the races or ones that have a stretch out pedigree's. Unbridled's horses were unbelievable when going from 3-4 and 4-5, they just got better with age. If a newly turned 4 year old matchs his top first out, he is an AUTOMATIC play for me next out unless it is a long layoff. AUTOMATIC. If they don't I then look at it more, but the 3 year old to 4 year old angle is EXTREMELY strong, and for good reason.

I strongly disagree. If a horse runs a big race, he will be way less likely to repeat that race if he comes back too soon. You think a horse is more likely to repeat a big effort if he's brought back in 2 weeks? If that were the case, then horses would just keep running every two weeks. Horses would be running 26 times a year.

Any good trainer will tell you that if a horse runs a big race, the horse will be more likely to repeat that effort if he is given plenty of time(at least 4 weeks). All the best trainers will tell you that. They've all learned it through experience. I learned it very quickly through handicapping. It was one of the first things that I noticed back in the mid-1980s when I first started going to the track. I noticed that really good horses would often times regress badly if they came back too soon.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I strongly disagree. If a horse runs a big race, he will be way less likely to repeat that race if he comes back too soon. You think a horse is more likely to repeat a big effort if he's brought back in 2 weeks? If that were the case, then horses would just keep running every two weeks. Horses would be running 26 times a year.

Any good trainer will tell you that if a horse runs a big race, the horse will be more likely to repeat that effort if he is given plenty of time(at least 4 weeks). All the best trainers will tell you that. They've all learned it through experience. I learned it very quickly through handicapping. It was one of the first things that I noticed back in the mid-1980s when I first started going to the track. I noticed that really good horses would often times regress badly if they came back too soon.

Rupert, this is the impression I was under, and that's why I created this thread. I am trying to keep an open mind, learn from others experience, but as you just wrote, 2 weeks back off a top being better than 4 to 6 weeks just doesn't make logical sense.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by golfer

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

Bobby Frankel will tell you the absolute opposite. He will tell you that the best way to prevent a sound horse from bouncing off a big race is by giving the horse plenty of time between races.

I think this is common sense. I can't believe that anyone could think otherwise.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Look I can't bash Frankel as he is obviously a world class trainer, but he is also so overly cautious and scratch crazy it's maddening. I think as horse fans we are all being brainwashed into thinking horses can't run well without 4 weeks or more rest. I think it's crap. I understand not all can, but I truly believe good horses can run good races without having "plenty" of time off. Allen Jerkens seems to disagree strongly with Frankel and he seems to have made an okay career for himself. Not all horses need to be babied.

You can bring a horse back in 3 weeks and they may win, but you may win the battle and lose the war. They may not come out of the race very good. It can totally knock them out. It obviously depends on the horse. Some horses are stronger than others. Smarty Jones was an "iron-horse". Most horses would fall apart if you gave them a campaign like that. He lasted for a while but it eventually caught up with him. I heard that when they finally retired him, he was a mess. He had practically no cartilage left.

In addition to handicapping for the last 25 years, I've been an owner and racing manager for about 23 years. I can tell you that in most circumstances I personally hate running a horse back in 3 weeks. There are times that I will do it, but in general I will try to avoid it.

It obviously depends on how hard the horse ran in his previous race. If the horse didn't run very hard, then that's a different story.

Everything I'm saying is a generalization. If you have a horse that always gets 5-6 weeks between races and then you run him on 3 weeks rest as a one-time deal, you can probably get away with it. You just don't want to make a habit of it.

[golfer]

OK, while woking on Saturday's card, I came across a perfect example of what this thread is about... 2nd race, #10 Travelin Leroy. Steve, when you get a chance (or anyone else), Travelin Leroy is a 4 yr old for Gamiel Vezquez, ran on April 29th (off 11 week layoff), ran a 1.5, which is a 5pt career top..now comes back 20 days later. I would normally expect a reaction to that 5 point, quite isolated top, and only 20 days rest. What say anyone else?