Good Horses Don't Bounce

[Mathcapper]

Ran across this piece earlier by what looks to be a fellow TGenerate. Not sure if he follows or posts on the board(?):

The Real Reason Frosted Lost the Woodward

[Fairmount1]

Miff posted a link to this article on twitter earlier today.  Interesting tidbit for you.

[Boscar Obarra]

Just started reading, and right away a problem. 5-10% beat the game?

 A game with a blended 20% takeout? Lol.

[Furious Pete]

What did Frosted run in that race, anybody know?

Interesting article but I can\'t really get myself to agree with the \"what is a bounce\"-part, surely a bounce isn\'t purely a \"4 4 4 1 6\" to use his example. Thoro-graph and Ragozin don\'t get to define the bounces like that. They might however be best suited to describe and identify them with their figures, but surely there must be some underlying physiological response to big performances that really \"is a bounce\", for it to be a real thing. I sure would love to learn more about just that, when it applies and when it not applies, what\'s really happening in the horses body etc.

Also not quite sure if Frosted here is the best example of a bounce, wouldn\'t it be a better description to say that he just freaked in that one race? I don\'t know the last figure yet, but if it was about a neg 2 he has just ran back to his previous best form in the last two, do you guys really describe that as bouncing?

[JimP]

\"I never understood ... how anyone who knows the game can have an opinion on the outcome of a race not even drawn yet. Not only did I think he'd lose this year, I wondered if he'd win another race.\" He doesn\'t understand how anyone can have an opinion, but then states his opinion. LOL.

[shanahan]

\"Can you manage a bounce?\" Was my first thought the week after.  In other words, would a trainer who believes in the TG definition of a bounce purposely put a horse in a race leading to the Breeders with the understanding he doesn\'t need to win, but rather get it out of the way.  Trainers out there, I\'d appreciate thoughts unless you believe it also clearly deceives the bettors.

[jbelfior]

Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just started reading, and right away a problem.
> 5-10% beat the game?
>
>  A game with a blended 20% takeout? Lol.


I agree. I think 5-10% have fun with it meaning they don\'t get hurt to the point that bills aren\'t getting paid.

Read in different places where approximately 1-5% make a modest profit year to year and less than 1% average a material profit.  


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[Bet Twice]

I would say you manage a bounce by giving the horse additional time to recover, not by running him back to \"get it out of the way\".  Running a horse back like that would only prolong the effects of the performance that \"hurt\" him to begin with.

[sekrah]

\"Getting one out of the way\" is not sheets theory.  Rest and recovery is.

[shanahan]

Bet/Sek - I applaud the \"noble thing to do\", but whether it sheets or not really doesn\'t matter.  AS knowledgeable people here, what would you consider \"enough time\"....or does the TR just know?

[jimbo66]

An interesting read, but too many holes in the article to put too much thought into it, if you are a serious player.  (my wife would find it interesting reading - and that is not a chauvinist statement, she just isn\'t a horse player)

1.  Saying that 5 to 10% of players beat the game is stupid.  Anybody that plays this game should know that isn\'t true.

2.  Not sure that Frosted got \"track biased\" wins in both the Met Mile and Whitney.  (and how does that tie into the \"bounce\" argument he is trying to make?

3.  Frosted didn\'t get an \"easy lead\" in the Whitney.  Just not accurate.

4.  His conclusion, that based on Thorograph figures, he saw the bounce coming in the Woodward, likely was wrong, at least the theory.  I say \"likely\" because I haven\'t see the TG figure ,but based on the Beyer figure, the ground loss and weights, I am pretty sure TGJB isn\'t giving Frosted a bounce from the Whitney figure.  (I do think he regressed, as debated here in another post, but it won\'t show in the fig.  An unalert start and loss of tactical speed are both signs of form regression that don\'t necessarily get calculated into a figure.  

Jim

[Bet Twice]

Would say \"enough time\" depends on the horse and the circumstances, and in some cases there isn\'t enough time in the sense the horse never gets back to his best. In general terms, 5-6 weeks between races seems like the sweet spot for many but obviously depends on the circumstances, how large of a top, how they have reacted to tops in the past, etc. It goes without saying that an astute trainer knows when his horse is doing well versus not but don\'t imagine they ever know definitively if they are going to top/pair/regress.

[johnnym]

Was there such a thing as a bounce back in the day when it seems horses would run much more frequently? Or is this a new thing since it seems horses are pampered these days.

[Topcat]

johnnym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was there such a thing as a bounce back in the day
> when it seems horses would run much more
> frequently? Or is this a new thing since it seems
> horses are pampered these days.


Can only testify that the bounce has existed as long as I\'ve been following figures (close to 40 years), despite the hysterical attempts of some who should have known better to deny reality.  Their mistake -- their expense.

Continue to maintain the \"overrace/closely-space better stock at your peril\" (a closely-related reality) appears markedly-related to modern Lasix usage patterns.

[Al Caught Up]

for what it\'s worth, Ernie Dahlman is famously a Sheets player who is a bounce atheist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/03/magazine/the-wizard-of-odds.html