Deaf Frogs

[TGJB]

By the way, buried in one of Chris\' posts was some very interesting information. During the years 1983 to 1991 there was exactly ONE horse who tried to win the Derby off less than three prep races. It was Sunny\'s Halo, who won. So the whole business about the large number of years with only one horse pulling it off becomes somewhat misleading.

I have liked some horses with only 2 preps, and I bet Sunny\'s Halo. From 92 to 97, based on Chris\' list, there was not one I liked in the Derby, and two (Arazi and Talkin Man) were short priced horses that I took a big position against, publicly, on Post Time and in the DRF. From 98 on there were several I thought were strong contenders, some ran well (Victory Gallop, Proud Citizen, Peace Rules), and some did not (Point Given, Saarland, Read The Footnotes). And there were LOTS of horses with two or less preps that I did NOT like and that didn\'t run well. My guess is that my position on these horses-- based on their ability (how fast they were) and patterns was about as good as my position on the ones with three or more starts. And I have done very well on the race overall.

Do we know how many horses are actually in the sample since 1937?

This is from the Beyer article:

* Since 1937, 20 horses have raced in the Derby with a single prep race at 3, and all have failed.

* Of horses with two prep races, only one has succeeded since 1948.

I would guess the 2 prep sample is a lot larger than the one prep sample, but Beyer didn\'t give the exact number.

The Davidowitz article from DRF Simulcast Weekly 3/7 - 3/13, references the same general stats and his rationale for believing the stat is relevant. Mostly it\'s just an analysis of the contenders he feels have or have not been prepped properly. No exact numbers there either.  

I\'ll tell you one thing, it seems to be getting so much attention that \"even if it is\" relevant to getting a spring 3YO ready to run his best at 10F, it might be overcompensated for on the odds board this year. Everyone and his brother might totally throw the limited prep horses out instead of just insisting on a slightly larger margin of safety on the board before betting on one.

[TGJB]

Again, pay attention to WHY the frog wouldn\'t jump. Training methods have changed a lot-- horses used to run once a week and prep for the Derby a few days out (and how they were able to do that involves a few deaf frogs of its own). If a horse had only two preps it was almost certainly because a physical ailment kept him from running, which of course would bias the results, and since they didn\'t train horses to run well off layoffs (ran them into shape), the horses figured to be less fit as well.

The sample that applies to this Derby goes back at most to the 70\'s, and with training methods changing dramatically recently (note the preps being pushed further and further back from the Derby), one could take the position that it is much, much more recent.

One of the problems with your plan for weeding out some off 2 or less preps is that it leaves us with horses that TG players hated, specifically Talkin Man and Arazi, and would eliminate Victory Gallop and Proud Citizen, who we used. But the whole thing is academic-- the whole point of what we do here is to develop a way to most accurately measure performance. We have the most accurate data known to man, and using it we have found no evidence that 2 or less preps reduces a horse\'s chances of running his race. And by the way, my guess is that it would come up about the same with Beyer or Ragozin-- over large population studies it shouldn\'t make much difference which figures you use.

TGJB,

There is obviously no pefect solution otherwise I don\'t think we\'d even be having this discussion. All we can do is look at all the evidence and try to take all the biases out to form a view.

I trust your figures and your subjective handicapping skills. That hasn\'t been the issue.

The issue/debate for me is what should a prudent gambler do with a horse like High Limit given what we know and don\'t know?

Suppose he comes into the Derby with the fastest figures and looks ready to move forward further. Now suppose my \"fair odds\" line on him is 4-1. I look at the board and see 5-1. Normally I\'d probably make the bet.

Then I notice he\'s had only 2 preps and four career starts.

In that case I think it might be prudent to just pass. (at 10-1 I\'d have a different view)

I\'m not giving up much by passing the race.

There could even be another equal overlay in the race I can bet instead and lose nothing at all by betting the other one.

Since \"I personally\" am not satisfied that there isn\'t a \"prep issue\" based on all the data I have seen, there \"could be\" a lot of \"downside\" to taking 5-1 on this horse. I\'d like to avoid any potential downside until I have a stronger view.

Since I have a hard time believing that anyone can be \"that certain\" about this issue at this point, I don\'t see why my suggestion has run into a lot of resistance. I thought it was very prudent advice that would be accepted quickly regardless of what everyone\'s view on the issue is now based on the data we have seen.

[TGJB]

It\'s not a question of resistance. It\'s a question of doing the research, looking at the evidence, and coming up with a conclusion. If the study had shown different results, a lot of people would be agreeing with you.

For me personally, you have to keep in mind that I\'ve managed lots of horses, and was down this road with VG, who got only two preps, but not by design-- he was sick. Without that he would have run in the softest, richest preps we could find, because he started the year as NOT one of the fastest 3yos, and it would have been crazy to take a route that made the Derby the specific goal-- it\'s too hard a target (and as we found, there is too much randomness).

BUT-- if I did have a top contender, and knew it as I mapped out a campaign, and/or the owner wasn\'t primarily concerned with running things like a business, and wanted to shoot specifically for the classics, I would go with two preps. I think this greatly reduces your chance of peaking too early (and I think several have this year, again), and gives the trainer more chance to adjust-- it\'s easier to tighten a horse up before or after the last prep than it is to back off once he peaks in March-- as Michael said with High Fly, the only move is to lay them off, which is tough to sell, and tricky to do right.

The other issue is a long term one-- if you are a little short for the Derby, you\'ll be tight for the next one. If you are over the top, the compacted triple crown schedule is the end of the horse--you are much better off being one race too late than one race too early. In my not so humble opinion, the 3 prep or more deal is one reason why these triple crown horses ain\'t sticking around-- and others are starting to agree with me. It\'s worth noting that VG was one of the few horses of recent years who ran in all 3 races, and still had success as a 4yo. And among those horses with only two preps were Lemon Drop Kid, Birdstone and Point Given, who along with us won the Belmont (just since 97) as all the others were looking for a place to lie down, Lion Heart and Peace Rules, who went on to win the Haskell, and Essence Of Dubai and Old Trieste, who also won G1s. Out of only 24 horses.

TGJB,

>It\'s not a question of resistance. It\'s a question of doing the research, looking at the evidence, and coming up with a conclusion. If the study had shown different results, a lot of people would be agreeing with you.<

This is the kind of comment that gets us into trouble. :-)

You are pretty much looking at one set of evidence to the exclusion of all others because you believe so strongly that your figures are the way, light, and truth and can explain everything.  

A few other very competent people (like Beyer and Davidowitz) are looking at other things and are coming to different conclusions because they must think the figures and other factors can\'t explain away some of the terrible historical ROI data.

I am looking at both and it seems obvious to me that neither side has a solid case. So the default value for me is caution and extra margin of safety.

By the way, I defintely agree that you will get more out of the horse long term if you use fewer preps, but that\'s more of an ownership issue. They all want the Roses.



Post Edited (03-31-05 16:22)

[spa]

You want the extra race and the bounce in the last prep. Your horse must have the \"bottom\" or toughness to win this race. You are right,when you say there are many circumstances out of your control, that must be managed.

[TGJB]

I know the other people are looking at other evidence and coming to different conclusions-- hence my story about the deaf frog and the scientists, and Chris\' Mark Twain quote.

For years BloodHorse and other publications published stats on \"broodmare sires\"-- sires of the dams of runners. Three who topped the lists for a while were Buckpasser, Secretariat, and Spectacular Bid. Quick, let\'s all go out and buy broodmares by those stallions!

Well, maybe not.

Basically, the way the breeding industry works is this-- the top 1-2% or so of male breeding candidates get bred, since they can be bred many times a year, while females can only have one foal, and the top 50% (that\'s a seat of the pants estimate) are bred. This means that there is a FAR greater disparity between a top broodmare candidate (top 1%) and a poor one (50th percentile), than between a top stallion (top tenth of one percent) and a \"poor\" one (still in the top 2% of all male prospects). Which means in turn that the mare is far more important than the sire-- while stallions pass on characteristics (hence our profiles), all the major ones are capable of producing good runners IF THEY GET THE GOOD MARES. Some more so than others, but most can get some good ones IF THEY GET THE CHANCE.

None of which is lost on the smart Kentucky people-- like Seth Hancock at Claiborne, where the three aforementioned stallions stood. So what they do is pack the top commercial stallions book the first few years with absolute blue chip mares, to get them off to a good start with some big runners early. Except you know what? Sometimes it works, and sometimes, as in the case of those three, it doesn\'t work-- they produced a few good ones, but in general didn\'t do well considering the level of mares they got.

Cut to years later. All of a sudden, good runners start showing up out of mares sired by those stallions. Know why? Because those unbelievable female families the stallions were bred to were kicking in. Those 3 stallions had nothing to do with it.

Then there was the famous Mr. Prospector/Northern Dancer cross that produced so many stake winners. See if you can figure out why that one happened.

If it were all a question of measuring wins, nobody would need figures at all in handicapping. We make figures to accurately assess performance because we recognize that lots of other things can affect chances of winning. Just like the inability to hear someone telling him to jump is not the only thing that might hold a frog back.

spa,

Off the top of my head I can\'t compile a list, but there are a real lot of horses that came into the Derby and BC with a slightly sub par race and then peaked perfectly at the right time. I don\'t know if it was intentional or a bounce, but I\'ve hit a few at a big price.  

I\'ve noticed it so often (especially in the BC races) that I now put way less weight on a horses last effort these days than I normally do when I am handicapping the really big ones.

Of course if there\'s a lot of evidence the horse is just \"done\" then that\'s something different, but I think it\'s a great idea to look at the peak effort and not just the last race. A lot of trainers send them out short in that last prep (or bounced whatever you believe).

TGJB,

I hear you.

But sometimes it isn\'t all about how fast they ran or how many ran faster next time, it\'s about if they ran to your expectations often enough to profit.



Post Edited (03-31-05 17:33)

[Michael D.]

jerry,
secretariat, buckpasser, and \'bid were so great because they had a freakish ability to run very fast for an extended period of time. all three are well known carriers of the \"large heart gene\".  buckpasser through blue larkspur, secretariat through princequillo, and \'bid through mahoud. in fact, buckpasser and secretariat are out of rare \"double copy mares\" (large heart gene on both x chromosomes). as you know, the large heart gene is usually only passed through the x chromosome. sires can only pass on their large heart gene to their daughters, not their sons (mares have two x chromosomes, then can pass the gene on to sons and daughters). the broodmare sire success of secretariat, buckpasser, and \'bid is the result of two factors - the first, as you say, is because they had great books of mares. the second is because they passed on their greatest trait, their large hearts, to some of their daughters, who then passed on the trait to some of their offspring........ my question is: is the large heart gene evaporating? are the large heart genes that let secretariat run 1:59 at CD and \'bid run 1:57 at SA no longer present in ANY horses? ...... interesting discussion, one probably better left for a quieter period.



Post Edited (03-31-05 19:13)

[TGJB]

Michael-- Other issues aside (I\'m not biting on the 1:57 either), I\'m interested in knowing more about the \"heart gene\" stuff. Any place we can look for the science on this? It\'s news to me, and the stuff about not being able to pass it on to males is very interesting.

And if you are making it up, you are a day early-- tomorrow is April Fool\'s day. Which may have escaped the Daily news, which ran a story today about a guy with the last name of Death who ran a cemetery. That one had me checking the date.

[Michael D.]

hahahah.... no it\'s pretty well known. i will find some info for you.
.....
that\'s not to say sires don\'t pass on stamina. ap indy can only pass on the rare large heart gene (if he has it, not positive) to his daughters, but most of his offspring have that long stride that enables them to cover ground pretty well.



Post Edited (03-31-05 18:45)

[Delmar Deb]

Thunder Gulch had 3 preps, won the Derby and Belmont (losing the Preakness by a short margin) and then went on to win the Swaps and Travers in his 3 year old year.

I was living in Florida at the time and followed him closely as his sire\'s broodmare was one of my all-time favorite horses - Jameela.  Pletcher trained the horse - not Lukas.  In fact, I don\'t think D. Wayne even came for the Fountain of Youth.  Also, there was no Dr. Allday around Pletcher back then.

Thunder Gulch was as sound as his sire and paternal broodmare - and to my mind, the best 3 year old I\'ve seen since Affirmed.

[Ron G.]

He\'s not kidding, the double copy mares and large heart gene \"theory\" has been around a while.  I own part of a stallion who is out of a double copy mare and some have bred to him just because of that reason.