Showing posts with label Frankel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frankel. Show all posts

  • Has the Breeders’ Cup Become Detrimental to Racing?

    POSTED Jan 11, 2014 By Derek Simon

    Since the Eclipse Awards were announced, many racing fans have been weeping and gnashing their teeth over the nominees.

    My friend Laura Pugh of Horse Racing Nation was so incensed by the Eclipse candidates that she even made a video about it… which, I suspect, will soon be screening at Cannes — only with Shia LaBeouf playing the part of Pugh.

     “It’s a list of Breeders’ Cup winners — literally,” lamented Pugh in her YouTube production. “If you won a Breeders’ Cup, you got nominated.

    “Is there something wrong with this?” Pugh continued. “No, if you had a good season to go along with it, of course there’s nothing wrong with it.”

     But therein lies the rub, according to Ms. Pugh and others. Some horses did not have a good season to go along with their BC success — horses like Ria Antonia, for example.

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    “Why in the heck is Ria Antonia on this list of nominees,” asks Pugh. “… She won one big race — one big race! And it was by a nostril — nose — excuse me, it wasn’t even by a nostril, she won it by [disqualification] … all her other races this year were dismal. Tell me how she is on here over Sweet Reason?”

    OK, I will tell you, as well as the others who feel likewise, why Ria Antonia has been nominated for an Eclipse Award: It’s because she won a championship race. After all, the Breeders’ Cup events are dubbed “World Championships” (in typical American sports fashion, “world” has a distinct U.S. feel).

    Yes, Yes, I know — that is precisely what irritates critics of the BC.  There are, after all, other races run throughout the year. Still, I don’t see anything wrong with acknowledging that certain events mean more than others.

    How else would one explain Orb being on the list of Eclipse nominees?
    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Let’s be real, outside of a tremendous spring, in which he captured four straight races, Orb was a complete bust. He was spanked in the Preakness, slapped down in the Belmont (by fellow Eclipse nominee Palace Malice), beaten in the Travers and buried in the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

    But he’s an Eclipse Award candidate thanks to one race — the Kentucky Derby, which, as it turned out, was his last win of his career (Orb has been sent to stud).

    And this emphasis on big-race wins is not just a U.S. phenomenon. Guess how many Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe winners have won a Cartier Racing Award (the European equivalent of an Eclipse Award) for Horse of the Year over the past 11 years?

    Try six.

    EUROPEAN HORSES OF THE YEAR THAT ALSO WON THE ARC
    (during the year in which they were honored)

    2013 – Treve
    2009 – Sea the Stars
    2008 – Zarkava
    2007 – Dylan Thomas
    2005 – Hurricane Run
    2003 – Dalakhani

    In fact, outside of Frankel, who was European Champion in 2011 and 2012, all the other Cartier Horse of the Year honorees won either the Arc or — are you ready for this? — a Breeders’ Cup race.

    Granted, Ouija Board (Horse of the Year in 2004 and 2006) and Goldikova (2010) had other big wins on their resume in addition to the BC events that they captured, but it’s worth noting that the former won just three of nine races in 2006 — and two of them came against restricted (female) company.

    Personally, I have no problem giving (much) greater weight to the BC races and other races of historical significance. What do you think?
     
    How important should the Breeders' Cup races be to Eclipse Award voters?




      
    pollcode.com free polls 

  • BC Battle Tested

    POSTED Oct 19, 2012 By Derek Simon
    One hears it constantly — like the word “dude” at a skate park:

    “That horse won easy last time,” a bettor will say. “It’s going to be doubly tough today.”

    Indeed. This notion that a dominant victory is a positive sign has a basis in fact (rare for a racetrack “truism”). Dr. William L. Quirin wrote about the impact of big wins in “Winning At The Races” back in 1979, when Seattle still had an NBA team and I watched it win the city’s one — and only — professional sports title. Where art thou “Downtown” Freddy Brown?

    But I digress.

    “Of particular significance, as far as impact values are concerned, is the margin of victory,” Quirin wrote. “Horses that won by three lengths or more were more successful in their next start than [last-race winners] as a whole.”

    Makes sense, right? I mean, if a horse was able to soundly defeat its foes last time, it stands to reason that the animal stands a decent shot to do it again today. Conversely, it would seem logical to conclude that the opposite is also true: if a horse wins narrowly, say by less than a length, it is a poor betting proposition next time out.

    Again, there is some statistical evidence to suggest that this is, in fact, the case. Here’s the problem, though, and it illustrates why a blanket approach to racing and racing statistics is doomed to failure: Missing in this “big win” equation is the class element.

    While it’s true that a horse that won its last race by three lengths or more is victorious more often next time than those that did not, when one dissects the statistics one discovers that the vast majority of those follow-up wins occur at the same class level or lower. When the horse is rising in class, the ROI is virtually identical (at least in the testing I did).

    Of course, this suggests that big winners are all too obvious to the betting public, which got me thinking: Given the less wagering-centric crowd that the Breeders’ Cup typically attracts, might one be able to exploit this fact at the windows? In other words, would one do better by taking a contrarian view of last-race winners and upgrading narrow victors, while downgrading those that won by large margins?

    If history is any guide, the answer appears to be “yes.” Since 2003, horses that won their last start by three lengths or more have accumulated the following stats:

    Races (horses): 72 (143)
    Winners (rate): 17 (23.6%)
    Return (ROI): $165.30 (-42.20%)

    Now take a peek at horses that won their final BC prep by less than a length:

    Races (horses): 85 (177)
    Winners (rate): 22 (25.9%)
    Return (ROI): $502.60 (+41.98%)

    Notice that although the race win percentage is about the same, there is a massive difference in ROI — making the point that Quirin’s easy winners are overbet.

     So, with that in mind, here are some (potential) horses to watch this year:

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    For more data like this, be sure to check out my 2012 Breeders' Cup Betting Guide. In addition to all kinds of unique stats and insightful articles, the Guide also contains past performances — with my pace figures and Win Factor Report fair odds — for all the likely BC entrants.

    Frankel’s Swan Song

    By all accounts, Frankel’s race in the Champion Stakes at Ascot Racecourse on Saturday will be the final one of his brilliant career. To many, the horse named after reality TV star Bethenny Frankel — or was it Bethenny’s dad, the legendary trainer Bobby Frankel? — is the greatest thoroughbred of all time.

    “We could be looking at the best horse that ever lived,” said Nick Godfrey of the Racing Post. “I’ve never seen a horse do what he did.”

    Still, the Champion could be Frankel’s sternest test yet, as he faces the battle hardened Cirrus Des Aigles, who won the event last year. Even though he’s now six years old, Cirrus Des Aigle has been very impressive this year and his trainer, Corine Barande-Barbe, believes he may still be improving.

    “Every race he has run in, he always seems to take one step up and he always seems to look his best when he tries something new,” she said. “Last year he wasn't even a Group One winner before the Champion Stakes. He won and he showed that the better the field, the better he is.

    “Maybe he's still improving,” Barande-Barbe continued. “On Saturday, it could be the best in the world over a mile to middle distances against the best over 10 furlongs to a mile and a half.

     “Whatever happens, it will be a great experience and we will enjoy it,” the veteran conditioner concluded. “If he wins, I will be pleased, but I won't be surprised… I'm not scared of Frankel.”

    Nor am I. Given the odds, I think “Cirrus” might be a reasonable alternative to the favorite, who is sure to have additional money rained down upon him due to the fact that the Champion is his final race.

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Weekend Win Factor Reports

    10/20/12 Belmont Park
    10/20/12 Charles Town
    10/20/12 Hawthorne
    10/20/12 Keeneland
    10/20/12 Santa Anita Park

  • Historically insignificant

    POSTED Oct 1, 2012 By Unknown
    Back in 2009 I balked at the idea of a shared Horse of the Year award between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta, but given the historical insignificance of the so-called Horse of the Year campaigns in 2008, 2010, 2011, and likely 2012 I'm sort of thinking maybe a shared award wouldn't have been such a bad thing.
    I voted for Rachel Alexandra in 2009, but the season Zenyatta put together that same year dwarfs what any other winner of the award has accomplished since Curlin's first gold statue in 2007 (Curlin won it again in 2008, but that season paled to his previous year and what Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta both accomplished in 2009).

     Horses of the Year in 2010 and 2011 weren't much better. Zenyatta earned a lifetime achievement award in 2010, and Havre de Grace earned hers because someone had to win (I voted for Blame in 2010 and Cape Blanco in 2011).

     In alphabetical order here are the horses I still see with a chance at Horse of the Year and what each would need to do the rest of the year to secure my vote. In none of these cases, though, are we talking about a season that people will use as a high water mark for future Horses of the Year. 

    Awesome Feather: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic and defeat males in a major race (e.g. Clark or Cigar Mile) later in month. 

    Dullahan: Needs to win Jamaica and Breeders' Cup Classic. 

    Flat Out: Needs to win the Breeders' Cup Classic and another Grade 1.

    Fort Larned: Needs to win the Breeders' Cup Classic and another Grade 1.

    Frankel: Needs to win Champion Stakes and Breeders' Cup Classic. A Mile win would do it as well if a multiple Grade 1 winner does not win the Classic.

    Game On Dude: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Classic.

    Groupie Doll: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Filly & Mare Sprint & Cigar Mile.

    I'll Have Another: If no one on this list does what I prescribe then I would vote I'll Have Another as Horse of the Year.

    Include Me Out: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Classic OR Ladies' Classic and then defeat males in a major race (e.g. Clark or Cigar Mile) later in month.

    My Miss Aurelia: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic and defeat males in a major race (e.g. Clark or Cigar Mile) later in month. 

    Point of Entry: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Turf and for a horse without multiple Grade 1 wins this year to win the Classic.

    Questing: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic and defeat males in a major race (e.g. Clark or Cigar Mile) later in month. 

    Ron The Greek: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Classic  

    Royal Delta: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Classic OR Ladies' Classic and then defeat males in a major race (e.g. Clark or Cigar Mile) later in month. 

    Wise Dan: Needs to win Breeders' Cup Mile AND the Clark Handicap or the Breeders' Cup Classic. A Shadwell Turf Mile-Clark double could do it as well if no one else on this list does what I say s/he needs to do.

    There is precedence for a three-year-old filly to race in the Clark following the Breeders' Cup to secure a championship, as that is the path Surfside took after losing to Spain in the 2000 Breeders' Cup Distaff.

     Obviously these scenarios are not exclusive. E.g., Chaos could reign in the Classic, My Miss Aurelia could win the Ladies' Classic & Clark, and Groupie Doll could win the Filly & Mare Sprint and Cigar Mile, etc. Then what?

    One thing I do value is completeness of a season. I know many will point to I'll Have Another's win in the Derby over Dullahan as a reason I'll Have Another should win the award over Dullahan even if the latter wins out with four Grade 1 wins, including two against older males, but multiple surfaces and distances over the course of nine months instead of four does for me. Unquestionably, though, Dullahan is the only three-year-old male with a shot of usurping I'll Have Another for an Eclipse Award.

    The only horse I see as truly controlling his own destiny is Game On Dude, who would be hard to deny as Horse of the Year if he won this year's Classic regardless of what else happened. After that, it's pretty tenuous regarding whether this year's Classic winner could be the first Horse of the Year since Curlin in 2007.

  • Time to shine, the TCI weekend preview

    POSTED Sep 28, 2012 By Unknown
    If San Pablo wins the Jockey Club Gold Cup then Joel Cunningham of PM Advertising will shine my shoes on next week's preview.
    I'll stop short of calling San Pablo the most likely winner of the East Coast's most prestigious race for older males, but he's certainly likely enough given his expected price, and even though Todd Pletcher's name is usually enough to attract attention that may not be the case in the JCGC since San Pablo is not one of the race's six Grade 1 winners.

     I'm as interested in the Jockey Club Gold Cup for who will win this race as for what it can mean to the Horse of the Year picture. As Rolly Hoyt said on Twitter, "only [a] couple [of] runners left with potentially historically significant seasons to merit [a] vote over undefeated dual classic winner" I'll Have Another.

    I disagree in the sense that I'll Have Another is the default Horse of the Year option, but I agree in the sense that people banging the Horse of the Year drum without running in Horse of the Year races puzzle me.

     For instance, even with a Breeders' Cup Classic win, I'd be hard-pressed to vote for Mucho Macho Man as Horse of the Year since that would mark his only Grade 1 win, but horses like Camelot, Dullahan, Fort Larned, Frankel, Game On Dude, Hymn Book, Ron The Greek, and Wise Dan are no brainers to me as Horse of the Year if they win out, and that last win comes in the Breeders' Cup Classic.

     Other potential Breeders' Cup Classic winners might have to do more if their connections want the gold statuette. Mucho Macho Man, for instance, could go in the Clark. If Wise Dan won the Mile then the Clark could give him the boost he needs.

    I realize I'm mostly alone not only in my zest for the Eclipse Awards but assigning "standings" to each division this far out from the end of the season (and granted, my "standings" are as loosely defined as the voting guidelines themselves), but Eclipse Awards help quantify the prestige horses run for (they also run for money).

     No Breeders' Cup Classic winner has earned Horse of the Year honors since Curlin in 2007, and this weekend's races will go a long way to define which Classic entrants can claim the gold statue with a win on November 3 at Santa Anita Park.

  • A more telling weekend

    POSTED Aug 31, 2012 By Unknown

    The Pacific Classic had a bigger say on this year's three-year-old male division than did the Travers Stakes.

    Theoretically either Alpha or Golden Ticket could sneak into the Eclipse Award discussion by pointing toward the Breeders' Cup Classic following a win between now and then (Dullahan already has two Grade 1 wins plus he placed in a classic [the Kentucky Derby]), but the Travers bunch strikes me as not ready for primetime and evoke thoughts of playing out a loser's bracket rather than racing for a championship.

    The Pennsylvania Derby will be a good, competitive, race in the same way the Travers was, but any hope the connections of a three-year-old has of dethroning I'll Have Another must include a Breeders' Cup Classic win.

    Camelot is a sort of dark horse in the discussion, as a Breeders' Cup Classic win to go with his two classic wins (and possible Triple Crown) might be enough to sway American voters in a year without any real superstars. If Frankel would win Horse of the Year with a Classic win (and he would) then why not Camelot (the assumption being that if Camelot won HotY he'd also be champion three-year-old male)?

    The benefit of not having a superstar dominate the racing landscape is that the best of what's around in each part of the country face each other with some regularity, and connections of East Coast- & Midwest-based horses will have to ship West to the Breeders' Cup World Championships if they hope to secure a championship.

    I don't think the Woodward winner (even if it's Mucho Macho Man or To Honor And Serve) can lay claim to being the East Coast's best since Fort Larned, Hymn Book, Ron The Greek, and Wise Dan are sitting this one out, but certainly a win by either of the aforementioned horses would enhance their credentials while a win by any of the other starters would further illustrate the parity among this year's group.

    The Forego is a sort of in-between race. If Shackleford wins, it's impossible to see him cutting back to six furlongs, as the Dirt Mile around two turns is certainly in his wheelhouse, but could that path lead to a championship? If Game On Dude (Classic) and Amazombie (Sprint) both win out then which division does Shackleford reign (burrito) supreme in? Game On Dude would get HotY and older male honors while Amazombie would get the sprint nod. The same goes for Jackson Bend as well. The Dirt Mile is nice given the money and Grade 1 status, but it's not where a championship is going to be decided.

  • The Science of Betting

    POSTED Aug 30, 2012 By Derek Simon
    Originally, I’d planned on discussing a variety of racetrack issues in this week’s column — Dullahan’s surprise (at least to me) victory in the Pacific Classic, hopes that Frankel may travel to Paris, etc.

    But some comments on a couple of recent TwinSpires blog pieces have caused me to change my mind.

    Regarding a piece written by Ed DeRosa entitled “TwinSpires.com bettor plays name game to scoop Pick 6 at Del Mar” that — surprise, surprise — details how a TwinSpires account-holder made over $500K by hitting last Thursday’s pick-six as well as a few other multi-race wagers at Del Mar by keying on certain names, an anonymous poster had this to say:

    “Betting on horses is ridiculous. It's honestly the dumbest thing you can do. You might as well go play ‘War’ in the casino.”

    Later, Old School explained why betting on horses is ridiculous:

    “This is just another example of the true odds one faces wagering on horses. An industry that loves the [shadows] and refuses to punish lawbreakers creates results that can only be hit this way…

    “Give the government their 60% cut and learn to play poker. It will last longer.”

    Added to this, were comments I received from a guy named Kyle on my piece “Fit vs. Fragile.” Among other things, Kyle thought I was dead wrong about the effect of takeout and the importance of one’s winning percentage as it pertains to ROI:

    “The more bet collectively on a set of winners the lower the return; the less, the higher. How often horses of either set win is beside the point,” he explained.

    “Yes, takeout is not currently tied to field size. It should be. But racing does work that way — field size overcomes take at a certain point. You admit that (I didn’t and don’t). You just don't believe it, I guess.”

    Kyle then challenged me to a handicapping/wagering contest to, as he put it, “show you how much more knowledgeable I am than you.”

    Now, to be fair, I’ve since communicated with Kyle and he apologized “if he came off arrogant” (I did likewise). However, I still disagree with certain aspects of his approach — mainly, his dismissal of win percentage and what I consider to be his over-emphasis on field size (although, curiously, Kyle told me on my latest podcast that he does not pay attention to field size when he bets).

    I also took him up on his challenge. Each of us will start with a $1,000 bankroll — mythical for Kyle, real for me — and we will make bets up to and possibly including the Breeders’ Cup.

    I did this for two reasons:
    1) I want to show that the races can be and are beaten — in a myriad of ways. Frankly, although I certainly want to beat Kyle in our little head-to-head showdown, I also want him to show a nice profit — using techniques that are surely different from my own.

     2) It is my hope that this demonstration will help generate more interest and understanding of the wagering side of the game. Toward that end, I will periodically list some of my proposed plays. I won’t be doing this all the time, mind you — because I am betting real money, I want/need to concentrate on what I’m doing and not be sidetracked by social media stuff — but I’ll shoot for a post or two a week. (Kyle, on the other hand, doesn’t have my time management issues and has graciously allowed me to post his plays on my Facebook page.) 
    While Kyle has already started betting in earnest, I still want to finish a few database tests before I start officially, hopefully in early September. In the meantime, however, I’ll make a few action bets... just to keep things interesting.

    Below are my plays for Thursday, Aug. 30 (ignore races carded for turf that come off the green):

    2nd Canterbury Park (turf): $15 to win on 3-Love Makor.
    5th Del Mar (turf): $15 to win on 9-Marlenadarlena.
    7th Finger Lakes: Conditional $15 to win on 6-Say Mr. Sandman (at least 7-5 odds with 0 MTP).
    3rd Hoosier Park: Conditional $15 to win on 6-Our Blushing Rose (3-5, 0 MTP).
    7th River Downs: Conditional $15 to win on 8-Louimpressme (6-5, 0 MTP).
    10th Saratoga (turf): $15 to win on 10-Notacatbutallama.

    Check back for other plays this weekend.