Help me learn to "watch" a race

[2MinsToPost]

Ok, I am going to keep this simple but I really would enjoy and appreciate some input. I have decided the past couple of days that I am going to employ a new method to my handicapping a days card. Since I have an online account that provides easy access to video archives of a horse's past races - why should I not take advantage of this feature? Which brings up this problem -

I don't know what I should be watching for besides the obvious. So, if any of you experienced players have the time and are inclined, would you please share a basic ABC elementary beginning to what I should start with?

Not only will it help me but all those others on this forum whom are not at that level. Thanks in advance!

[blackthroatedwind]

There is no short answer....there is only a dissertation.

There is no better way to improve yourself as a handicapper than to learn to watch races well. The only way to do this is to watch races endlessly. The first thing you should do to teach yourself is watch as many races as possible, from both the pan and head-on angles, and take notes on EVERY horse in the race. Mark down what paths they are on while going around a turn ( each turn in some cases ) and also note any obvious trouble they have ( gate trouble and intrarace trouble ). A great deal of this is " make work " but over a period of time it will teach you how to watch a race.

Obvious trouble is one of the trickiest and most misunderstood occurances in racing. People tend to greatly overvalue it, especially when it happens to a horse they bet on, and invariably cost themselves money by adamantly betting such a horse back in the future. It is very important to accurately understand just how much specific trouble cost a certain horse. On this level I will give two recent examples ( and obvious ones ). Sweetnorthernsaint was bumped around at the start in the Kentucky Derby and lost not just a couple lengths with the trouble, but significantly more lengths in positioning in the race. He was six or more lengths out of position early and spent the next six furlongs working himself to a contending position. Not surprisingly he was empty late in the race. Oonagh MacCool had a similar bad start in a six horse stake at Gulfstream late in their meet, but recovered very quickly, and lost no significant position due to her start. Not surprisingly, she was still able to run her race. So, what I am trying to say, is that you cannot judge even similar trouble equally, but must analyze in every specific instance how that trouble affected a horse.

Another thing to think about is the trouble in association with a horse's overall trip. Suppose you bet a horse that saves ground behind a contentious pace in a turf race, only to be blocked when entering the stretch and forced to steady angling out. Yes, the steady may cost him ( or her ) a length or so, but think of all that was gained by the rest of that horse's trip, and all in all the horse probably got a very good trip. Many people will only point at the trouble and not understand that in the total concept things went better than average for that given horse.

" Wides " are another eternal argument. Many horses are intimidated by running inside, so while at a cursory glance you might tend to upgrade a horse that moved three wide, while downgrading a horse that stuck to the rail, the wider horse may well have had a free and unencumbered trip with the inside horse getting a trip that prevented it from running its best race. These situations can also be surface and/or very much particular horse specific. It is up to you to teach yourself to understand which situation came into play in a given race.

None of this stuff is easy, and it can be very interpretive, and you will not always make the right determination, but the more races you watch carefully the closer you will get to a desired level of understanding.

As other posters ... such as the learned Blackthroatedwind ... have and will tell you ... it's a complex subject ... but ...

... to boil it down to the two simplest factors ... they are ...

[1] Watch to see how well a horse quickens his pace when the jockey asks him to. If he accelerates quickly and moves past rivals easily ... and/or lengthens quickly if on the front end ... that's a very good sign. If he only inches up to rivals ... or fails to lengthen out ... that's bad news.

[2] Make note of the horse's time for the final furlong. Did he do it easily and in fast time? Very good. Did he have to work hard and still come home slowly? Very bad.

If a horse does well by these two criteria ... he's likely to come back and run another good race ... and vice reversa.

[Scav]

I love playing horses maidens that ran evenly the time before, meaning they just sat in 4th place the whole time...I also like playing horses that dueled with a horse inside and outside of them, if you notice, horses that are in the middle of that RARELY win the race, and most likely will pull themselves up because panic is coming from both sides....An angle this old timer taught me...

The other thing is a HARD race. You can tell an easy win from a hard win, watch the jock. If a jock works the horse feverishly all the way to the wire, I will make a mental note like 'all out' or 'all over him' and try to beat them next time

I like to follow pace but the most important thing you can sometimes tell what part of the track is dead.

[miraja2]

This is a simple thing that you probably already know, but I think a lot of new cappers make this mistake.
If a horse closes like a freight train down the stretch in a race that is say, 7f, that does NOT mean that he will automatically like going 8f in his next race.
Similiarly if a horse set the pace and was caught going 7f that does NOT automatically mean he will wire the field if he goes 6f in his next.
So how can you tell? Here is where watching races gives you a big advantage over just reading the forum. Look for some of the things the previous posters mentioned, and it will give you real insight in to the ideal distance for a horse.

The only definitive thing that you can tell is a troubled trip IMO...."bet-back" horses that had a troubled trip in their last starts is a bit overrated and an angle that I rarely see work - although it is obviously legitimate..But, think about it...how many horses have you ever seen have a troubled trip and then they came back and won in their next starts?..You may grow really old sitting aroun and waiting to use that angle.

The best thing about watching as many races as possible IMO is just to simply gain the experience of understanding class ad understanding what a good horse looks like wen he travels....Unfortunately, that is where I find th most value in watching a lot of races nine times out of ten....just having that experinece to understand class and good horses for a particular level.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

The only definitive thing that you can tell is a troubled trip IMO...."bet-back" horses that had a troubled trip in their last starts is a bit overrated and an angle that I rarely see work - although it is obviously legitimate..But, think about it...how many horses have you ever seen have a troubled trip and then they came back and won in their next starts?..You may grow really old sitting aroun and waiting to use that angle.

The best thing about watching as many races as possible IMO is just to simply gain the experience of understanding class ad understanding what a good horse looks like wen he travels....Unfortunately, that is where I find th most value in watching a lot of races nine times out of ten....just having that experinece to understand class and good horses for a particular level.

I've been watching races a long time and alway find it interesting to hear other's thoughts. I think I understand what you say about being able to tell how a good horse looks as it travels. The part of your comment that I find difficult to understand -- and always have -- is determining "class" from watching races.

Leaving aside races where horses either dominate or are obviously over-classified, what do you look for to determine class in a racehorse when you're looking at replays?

[packerbacker7964]

I hate late breaks and break and rush. I also look for horses who raced between others and still held on for a piece.

Its so hard to tell someone everything that goes into watching a race. I wouldnt even know where to begin. But I will add something that is of the utmost importance. When watching a race the fisrt time through its natural to watch the horses that you bet on and to be emotional.
Make sure you watch the replay dispassionately. Just watch it without worrying about who you bet, thats over now. Watch the whole race as someone who is trying to learn something.
Another thing thats crucial is not to let who you bet or thought would win to temper your evaluation. I have a friend who constantly makes excuses for every horse he bets who loses. Will say things like "the jockey moved too soon" or too late, etc. If this is going to be you then please don't waste your time even bothering. I will also hear people say things like "the jockey let up on the horse in the stretch" when it has clearly been bashed 20 times with the whip and ridden to the wire. Don't watch the replay to try and make up excuses, as I said, who you bet no longer should be of the slightest concern anymore. Don't watch replays trying to come up with an alibi that doesnt exist for a horse you bet so that you can state your case to friends, etc.
Just watch dispassionately and try to see the reality of what occurred. Thats the point to the whole exercise. You aren't watching to try and create an alibi or reason the horse you bet lost. You are trying to figure out what actually occurred in the race so that the next time you can have the winner. I would point out the English Channel- Cacique race at CD as a prime example of a race where if you watched the replay you could determine that Cacique was hemmed in the whole way behind a moderate pace and came running hard. There wasn't a doubt in my mind whatsoever that he would beat EC the next time they met, none.
Its ok to bet a horse and win and admit afterwards that you got lucky and won with a horse that wasn't the best in the race. Lets face it, it happens all the time and sometimes you bet the best horse and get beat by another who had a better trip. IN those cases people will always state the case of why their horse was best in defeat. Well thats also works in reverse. Sometimes you bet a horse who wins and notice on the replay that another horse or two may have been better. Its not an admission of failure to admit that another horse in the race may have been best, its just common sense.
Try and remove the emotion completely when watching a replay and view it like you would view any science project, void of emotion and trying to learn.

[randallscott35]

I agree with Mike, I wouldn't know where to begin at all. Just set some money aside and put in the time and take a year and just soak up as much information as you can. Place some bets, don't go crazy. Trial and error. Same with watching races, its better to find tough trips that people miss. Left at the gate and checked hard on the turn is obvious to everyone and is bet accordingly. Sometimes you see subtle things and that's where watching races will pay off.