"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
-- Milton Friedman
A lot of racing topics are discussed on Facebook, but a certain thread took me aback today. The thread had to do with the announcement that Line of David, the longshot winner of the Gr. 1 2010 Arkansas Derby (defeating 2010 Kentucky Derby winner Super Saver, among others), was retired and will stand at Spendthrift Farm in Kentucky. What struck me as odd was how several contributors to the thread DESPISED this transaction, as if they had any input on the matter. I'll just show the content of the posts without the names.
#1: Yes he's (Line of David) one of the most non exciting prospects to enter stud in a long time.
#2: He'll be in Oklahoma or South America soon enough. Personally I would cut him (geld him. i.e. remove his testicles) and try to have a nice 4 year old...
#3: Either they thought he couldn't stay racing sound or thought he only had one Grade 1 win in him. Nothing else makes much sense. So . . .Line of David and Battle Plan with, what?, 13 wins between them. Three cheers for fragility.
#1: Until the industry rejects these "one hit wonders" they will continue to leave them intact and allow them to pass along their genes. "He won't stand for a lot" in other words if your mare has ovaries that have produced a runner you get the season for free..
Wow! I wonder how many Graded stakes winners #1, #2 and/or #3 have been involved with? Obviously they "know" what the racing industry needs. My thinking is they know little, except in their own "purple-skied" world. Certainly they know how to disparage other horses, owners, farms, etc.
This deal with Line of David and Spendthrift Farm was a deal made between consenting adults, and we have to assume that the deal was beneficial to all parties. The owners of Line of David probably got a multi-million dollar deal and get to stand their horse in Kentucky, where the best mares are. Spendthrift Farm got a very good looking speed sire with a solid Grade 1 win on his resume'. Line of David gets to meet a lot of female mares. This whole agreement has win-win-win all over it.
Now, #1, #2 and #3 are certainly UNHAPPY, but the beauty of the free market is they can breed to horses like Empire Maker for $60,000 a shot and hope the horse will break it's maiden before it turns five. The beauty of the free market (and in general the world's equine markets have very few restrictions besides capital requirements) is that people get to CHOOSE what they want to do. Please don't hate on people for choosing.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
What are average results at the track?
IT FIGURES
I've recently become enamored with Thoro-Graph, the specialty speed-figure people. For $25 a card (or $15 for British racing), they can provide very, very good speed figures. If you are interested, they are on the "web" at thorograph.com.
AVERAGE TRAINER PERFORMANCE
In addition to its speed figures, Thoro-Graph crunches a LOT of data. Here are some FREE stats Thoro-Graph provides with their speed figure data that I found useful:
Average Trainer win % (all odds ranges, all horses) = 12.2%
Average Trainer win % for horses 10/1 or higher in odds = 3.4%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on 90 days or less = 12.5%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on over 90 days = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo starters = 11.9%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 9.1%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 7.7%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 6.9%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time TURF = 7.8%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time ROUTE = 10.4%
Average Trainer win % for Route to Sprint = 10.2%
Average Trainer win % for Sprint to Route = 10.9%
Claimers, Down in Class, win % = 13.8%
Claimers, Up in Class, win % = 9.8%
SIRE AVERAGES
All dirt runners = 12.2%
All 'synthetic' runners = 11.5%
All 'wet tracks/off tracks' = 12.4%
All turf = 11.1%
1st time turf = 7.8%
1st time starters = 8.5%
Fillies/Mares = 12.1%
Colts/Geldings = 12.1%
(So much for the female runners being more 'inconsistent'...)
I've recently become enamored with Thoro-Graph, the specialty speed-figure people. For $25 a card (or $15 for British racing), they can provide very, very good speed figures. If you are interested, they are on the "web" at thorograph.com.
AVERAGE TRAINER PERFORMANCE
In addition to its speed figures, Thoro-Graph crunches a LOT of data. Here are some FREE stats Thoro-Graph provides with their speed figure data that I found useful:
Average Trainer win % (all odds ranges, all horses) = 12.2%
Average Trainer win % for horses 10/1 or higher in odds = 3.4%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on 90 days or less = 12.5%
Average Trainer win % for horses coming back on over 90 days = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo starters = 11.9%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 9.6%
Average Trainer win % for all 2yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 9.1%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MSW (maiden special) races = 7.7%
Average Trainer win % for all 3yo 1st starters in MCL (maiden claiming) races = 6.9%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time TURF = 7.8%
Average Trainer win % for 1st time ROUTE = 10.4%
Average Trainer win % for Route to Sprint = 10.2%
Average Trainer win % for Sprint to Route = 10.9%
Claimers, Down in Class, win % = 13.8%
Claimers, Up in Class, win % = 9.8%
SIRE AVERAGES
All dirt runners = 12.2%
All 'synthetic' runners = 11.5%
All 'wet tracks/off tracks' = 12.4%
All turf = 11.1%
1st time turf = 7.8%
1st time starters = 8.5%
Fillies/Mares = 12.1%
Colts/Geldings = 12.1%
(So much for the female runners being more 'inconsistent'...)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Historical Breakdown of the Belmont Stakes - Last 30 Runnings
Over the last few weeks I have been analyzing the last 30 runnings of the Belmont Stakes. Why, you may ask?
(1) Greed and envy.
While I stumble on a Belmont Stakes winner every few years, I have been much more successful selecting winners for, in order, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. I would liken my struggles to the student taking an ACT exam who does well on the first two-thirds of the test, but runs "out of gas" on the last section. My game is identifying brilliant speed horses up to a mile, ideally one turn mile races. That kind of horse is not what the Belmont, with its 12 furlong distance over usually dry, sandy terrain, calls for. I am hopeful that doing this years' research will put me on more winners, or at least the RIGHT winners.
(2) NYRA.com made the charts for EVERY Belmont Stakes (going back to 1867) available on its website. This made the research relatively painless. Here is the link:
http://www.belmontstakes.com/racing/belmontstakes.aspx
(3) The 30 year period I researched correlates with the last time there was a Triple Crown winner (Affirmed in 1978), and supplied enough runners to give me confidence in the data.
"B" STANDS FOR "BELMONT," BUT ALSO FOR PARIMUTUEL "BOMBS"
The Belmont Stakes has thrown a LOT of price horses in the last 30 years, starting with Temperence Hill winning in the slop in 1980 and paying $108.80 to win. Other significant longshots in the Belmont Stakes over the last 3 decades were Sarava ($142.50), Da' Tara ($79), Birdstone ($74), and Lemon Drop Kid ($61.50). As you can see, the modern era of the Belmont Stakes has produced some shock prices. The Belmont Stakes has been called the "Test of the Champion," but a better name for it might be the "Test of the Handicapper."
A TALE OF TWO TYPES OF BELMONT WINNERS
From a parimutuel perspective, there are two kinds of winner payouts - horses who won at least one race in the Triple Crown, versus a horse who did not win a Triple Crown race.
In the last 30 years, 7 horses have won the Belmont Stakes after winning at least the Kentucky Derby or Preakness. There are 23 winners over that same span that DID NOT win a Triple Crown race. Please go to my Google Docs link for the complete breakdown:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
What I find interesting is the huge disparity in WIN PAYOFFS between horses with Triple Crown form, and those without such form. Of the 7 horses coming off a Kentucky Derby or Preakness win, the average winning mutuel was $6.32. Not terrible, if you were able to pick the right horses on other criteria. The other 23 winners, in contrast, had an average win mutuel of $31.68, a much, much higher return! So my first recommendation on betting the Belmont stakes is picking a horse that did not win or run notably well in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness Stakes.
Now, who are the glamor horses in the 2010 running of the Belmont Stakes? There would be Ice Box from the Kentucky Derby (2nd) and First Dude from the Preakness (2nd). The crowd will make these two horses the favorites off their Triple Crown efforts, which may be a good reason to avoid them. Here is the list of the 7 horses who won a Kentucky Derby or Preakness and then the Belmont:
Swale - very nice horse
Risen Star - very, very nice horse
Hansel - very nice horse
Tabasco Cat - very nice horse
Thunder Gulch - very nice horse
Point Given - just voted into the Hall of Fame
Afleet Alex - potential Hall of Fame horse
That's a pretty imposing list. So my recommendation on using Ice Box or First Dude would be to DEMAND VALUE, because history is going against you.
THE BELMONT STAKES AND RUNNING STYLES
Lastly, I looked at this Belmont Stakes data and tried to see any patters in running style and wagering profits. I broke the running styles of horses in the Belmont into five categories:
(a) Horse on the LEAD at the 1/2 mile (second call)
(b) PRESSING the lead horses (0 to 2 lengths off the lead - second call)
(c) MIDPACK horses(2 to 4 lengths off the lead - second call)
(d) "BACK MARKERS" (the last 2 horses - second call)
(e) TOWARDS the BACK - horses between "midpack" and "last." - second call
Note: If a running of a Belmont Stakes was run with 10 or less horses "BACK MARKERS" were combined into the TOWARDS THE BACK category.
The result of this analysis is shown at the BOTTOM of my Belmont Stakes spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
I thought the results were stunning. THREE of the running styles (LEAD, MIDPACK,and TOWARDS BACK)threw profits if the player bet EVERY horse that fit that style over 30 years!!! The crowd probably overbets (see the expectation value" calculations in the spreadsheet) PRESSING and "BACK MARKERS" compared to the other styles.
SUMMARY
(1) Focus your win keys on horses that do not have Triple Crown form
(2) Don't be afraid to bet a big price. LONGSHOTS WIN THE BELMONT STAKES OFTEN!!
(3) Look at horses that you expect will be on the lead, or sitting 3 to 6 lengths off the lead (but NOT last!!!). These horses have running styles that over time pay fair value.
(1) Greed and envy.
While I stumble on a Belmont Stakes winner every few years, I have been much more successful selecting winners for, in order, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby. I would liken my struggles to the student taking an ACT exam who does well on the first two-thirds of the test, but runs "out of gas" on the last section. My game is identifying brilliant speed horses up to a mile, ideally one turn mile races. That kind of horse is not what the Belmont, with its 12 furlong distance over usually dry, sandy terrain, calls for. I am hopeful that doing this years' research will put me on more winners, or at least the RIGHT winners.
(2) NYRA.com made the charts for EVERY Belmont Stakes (going back to 1867) available on its website. This made the research relatively painless. Here is the link:
http://www.belmontstakes.com/racing/belmontstakes.aspx
(3) The 30 year period I researched correlates with the last time there was a Triple Crown winner (Affirmed in 1978), and supplied enough runners to give me confidence in the data.
"B" STANDS FOR "BELMONT," BUT ALSO FOR PARIMUTUEL "BOMBS"
The Belmont Stakes has thrown a LOT of price horses in the last 30 years, starting with Temperence Hill winning in the slop in 1980 and paying $108.80 to win. Other significant longshots in the Belmont Stakes over the last 3 decades were Sarava ($142.50), Da' Tara ($79), Birdstone ($74), and Lemon Drop Kid ($61.50). As you can see, the modern era of the Belmont Stakes has produced some shock prices. The Belmont Stakes has been called the "Test of the Champion," but a better name for it might be the "Test of the Handicapper."
A TALE OF TWO TYPES OF BELMONT WINNERS
From a parimutuel perspective, there are two kinds of winner payouts - horses who won at least one race in the Triple Crown, versus a horse who did not win a Triple Crown race.
In the last 30 years, 7 horses have won the Belmont Stakes after winning at least the Kentucky Derby or Preakness. There are 23 winners over that same span that DID NOT win a Triple Crown race. Please go to my Google Docs link for the complete breakdown:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
What I find interesting is the huge disparity in WIN PAYOFFS between horses with Triple Crown form, and those without such form. Of the 7 horses coming off a Kentucky Derby or Preakness win, the average winning mutuel was $6.32. Not terrible, if you were able to pick the right horses on other criteria. The other 23 winners, in contrast, had an average win mutuel of $31.68, a much, much higher return! So my first recommendation on betting the Belmont stakes is picking a horse that did not win or run notably well in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness Stakes.
Now, who are the glamor horses in the 2010 running of the Belmont Stakes? There would be Ice Box from the Kentucky Derby (2nd) and First Dude from the Preakness (2nd). The crowd will make these two horses the favorites off their Triple Crown efforts, which may be a good reason to avoid them. Here is the list of the 7 horses who won a Kentucky Derby or Preakness and then the Belmont:
Swale - very nice horse
Risen Star - very, very nice horse
Hansel - very nice horse
Tabasco Cat - very nice horse
Thunder Gulch - very nice horse
Point Given - just voted into the Hall of Fame
Afleet Alex - potential Hall of Fame horse
That's a pretty imposing list. So my recommendation on using Ice Box or First Dude would be to DEMAND VALUE, because history is going against you.
THE BELMONT STAKES AND RUNNING STYLES
Lastly, I looked at this Belmont Stakes data and tried to see any patters in running style and wagering profits. I broke the running styles of horses in the Belmont into five categories:
(a) Horse on the LEAD at the 1/2 mile (second call)
(b) PRESSING the lead horses (0 to 2 lengths off the lead - second call)
(c) MIDPACK horses(2 to 4 lengths off the lead - second call)
(d) "BACK MARKERS" (the last 2 horses - second call)
(e) TOWARDS the BACK - horses between "midpack" and "last." - second call
Note: If a running of a Belmont Stakes was run with 10 or less horses "BACK MARKERS" were combined into the TOWARDS THE BACK category.
The result of this analysis is shown at the BOTTOM of my Belmont Stakes spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIEKmqxdf7p18N-cvAfWdCg&output=html
I thought the results were stunning. THREE of the running styles (LEAD, MIDPACK,and TOWARDS BACK)threw profits if the player bet EVERY horse that fit that style over 30 years!!! The crowd probably overbets (see the expectation value" calculations in the spreadsheet) PRESSING and "BACK MARKERS" compared to the other styles.
SUMMARY
(1) Focus your win keys on horses that do not have Triple Crown form
(2) Don't be afraid to bet a big price. LONGSHOTS WIN THE BELMONT STAKES OFTEN!!
(3) Look at horses that you expect will be on the lead, or sitting 3 to 6 lengths off the lead (but NOT last!!!). These horses have running styles that over time pay fair value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
