Bounce theory, Steve?

[golfer]

I know this has been knocked around enough recently, but Steve just made a statement on ATRAB that I would like clarified. He said a horse coming off a big "effort" would be LESS likely to "bounce" coming back quickly, in this case 2 weeks. I would think that the opposite would be true, the more time since the effort, the less likely the bounce.
Steve, or any other sheet's using, kool-aid drinking, bounce theorists, feel free to respond

[Scav]

Originally Posted by golfer

I know this has been knocked around enough recently, but Steve just made a statement on ATRAB that I would like clarified. He said a horse coming off a big "effort" would be LESS likely to "bounce" coming back quickly, in this case 2 weeks. I would think that the opposite would be true, the more time since the effort, the less likely the bounce.
Steve, or any other sheet's using, kool-aid drinking, bounce theorists, feel free to respond

I have heard the same thing that Steve has said, and also experienced it, I love playing against high tops at the 30-45 day mark.

[Suffolk Shippers]

Originally Posted by golfer

I know this has been knocked around enough recently, but Steve just made a statement on ATRAB that I would like clarified. He said a horse coming off a big "effort" would be LESS likely to "bounce" coming back quickly, in this case 2 weeks. I would think that the opposite would be true, the more time since the effort, the less likely the bounce.
Steve, or any other sheet's using, kool-aid drinking, bounce theorists, feel free to respond

I heard his statement as well, but agree with him. I am totally not speaking for him, but I think his meaning was that you have a horse who put forth a big effort and naturally you tend to think "ok this horse is due to regress a bit". For the sake of the argument, lets say normal rest for that horse is five weeks...Steve was trying to say you are much more likely to see regression or a "bounce" (hate that term BTW) under "normal" regimens of a four or five week lay off than you are when the layoff is only 14 days.

The evidence is there, too...at least most recently in the Derby-Preakness window...Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, all came back to top their Derby performaces with their Preakness wins. The window of time between the two races is so short, that you are more likely to use the Derby as a training tool for the Preakness to stay sharp or even improve. Then, maybe you can more likely see the regression later on (say the Belmont, which is five weeks from the Derby).

[Kasept]

And recognize that regressions come most often off off big, new high water mark performances. Neither Hard Spun or Street Sense are operating under that scenario. Curlin either for that matter... Hard Spun reached a slight new top and Street Sense got back to his BC Juvy top, though he had to leap to get bck to it... Curlin paired up on his string of fast performances...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

In order for Street Sense to get back to his 2yo top on the Thoro-Graph sheets---Any Given Saturday had to run a new top for finishing 8th, and Sam P. had to run a significant new top for running 9th....both beaten double digits.

I'm personally skeptical of the number--though I'm not sure they'd effect the patterns much either way.

[sumitas]

0-2-x

[golfer]

OK, now I am more confused than ever, which, in my opinion, is quite an accomplishment. Jerry Brown has a study on TG website listing all 3 year olds since 2000 who have run negative numbers, and what happened in the subsequent race, also broken down to when that race was 30 days or less later. 48 horses have run negative at age three, NONE of them went forward in their next race, only 9 paired up, the rest regressed. 31 horses ran back in less than 30 days after their negative number, NONE went forward, only 5 paired up, the rest regressed. That's 16% pairing, and 84% regressing.

So I will ask again (and I'm not trying to be argumentative), why is it that you believe that running back quickly negates the bounce? If this is the case, I've been looking at this incorrectly for the last two years, and better to fix this now, then 2 years from now (when I'm living in Steve's basement, because he feels "sorry" for me).
By the way, I encourage everyone to check out the study, the full sheets for all these horses are available for perusing, very interesting.

[TheSpyder]

Golfer,

Where are these studies...directions for the TG novice.

By the way, whether it helps or adds to the confusion, Steve's comments on ATRAB broke it down to 2 weeks versus 3-4 weeks. May have only been his opinion, not sure.

Thanks,
Spyder

[golfer]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Golfer,

Where are these studies...directions for the TG novice.

By the way, whether it helps or adds to the confusion, Steve's comments on ATRAB broke it down to 2 weeks versus 3-4 weeks. May have only been his opinion, not sure.

Thanks,
Spyder

Spyder, go to thorograph.com, click on ROTW section to see this for free. If you are not registered, you will need to sign up (this is also free, with no strings attached).

[Kasept]

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

[Scav]

golfer/byk,

The interesting part of that study is that I wonder how many of those 3 year olds that went negative, went negative as a two year old also, not many. I can't remember many negative 2 year old numbers, especially one as low as neg 2. What I think happens is he moves backward, by 2 points, setting up the 0-2=x theory, and that my friend really puts JB in a bad spot, because the all of the racing world will be talking about it, and if he 'X's like he is suppose to in that given spot, JB becomes even richer, if he doesn't 'X' and wins the TC, that theory loses crediability.

I am guessing SS runs about a neg1/2 to zero range, which wins this race

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

that's why I'll wait until the Belmont to bet against SS. (if he runs)

[Linny]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

In order for Street Sense to get back to his 2yo top on the Thoro-Graph sheets---Any Given Saturday had to run a new top for finishing 8th, and Sam P. had to run a significant new top for running 9th....both beaten double digits.

I'm personally skeptical of the number--though I'm not sure they'd effect the patterns much either way.

I'm looking at the BRIS pp's for the Preakness. They have SS' final # for the BC as 111. They gave his Derby a 108, so your analysis meshes w/BRIS'. He jumped up from his 98 (in the snailpaced BlueGrass) and his 105 in the Tampa Bay race. I'l assume that AGS also got a 105 at TBD. In their estimation, he didn't match his top.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Scav

golfer/byk,

The interesting part of that study is that I wonder how many of those 3 year olds that went negative, went negative as a two year old also, not many. I can't remember many negative 2 year old numbers, especially one as low as neg 2. What I think happens is he moves backward, by 2 points, setting up the 0-2=x theory, and that my friend really puts JB in a bad spot, because the all of the racing world will be talking about it, and if he 'X's like he is suppose to in that given spot, JB becomes even richer, if he doesn't 'X' and wins the TC, that theory loses crediability.

I am guessing SS runs about a neg1/2 to zero range, which wins this race

Stevie Wonderboy ran neg 1, Lost in the Fog and Smarty Jones both ran zero's. Street Sense's negative 2 was the fastest 2 year old number.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Kasept

G,

JB did that study last year looking to see what effect Barbaro's big Derby effort (figure) might have going forward. The information is indeed contrary to basic tenents about big figure efforts, but it is confined in application to 3yo's running negative numbers in the first half of their sophomore campaigns. Interesting to note that besides Smarty Jones, alone pairing up efforts off a negative number on short rest, the other was poor, doomed Egg Head who got sick and died after his incredible Riva Ridge battle with Lost in the Fog.

Remember that with the figs, JB & Co. are trying to anticipate the possible scenario that could result in a wagering opportunity. The decision they are trying to make is whether Street Sense's effort will indeed knock him back enough to be vulnerable. Given that there are already questions about his running style (rail, etc.) to try and find alternatives, the study suggests it is well worth trying to beat the Derby winner Saturday.

As I've maintained since last Monday, the concern I have is the previous model involving Nafzger and this odyssey: Unbridled... a mildly-threatening second in the Preakness and then a never-involved 4th in the Belmont... The focus was on the Derby with him, and the focus was on the Derby with Street Sense. As Nafzger has said, "It's up to the horse." If we believe that he is special and are happy with the way he appears to be coming into the Preakness, then there is enough to feel confident about in supporting him at the windows as a key, believing that the wheels won't come off yet...

Remember that most recent Derby winners, or big effort Derby runners, were able to sustain their form for the second effort before problems arose physically (Smarty Jones-WON; Afleet Alex-WON; FuPeg-2nd; Funny Cide-WON, then effectively knocked out for the rest of the year by the TC..).

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by golfer

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

I'll answer for him. Yes.

Younger the horse the more likely that he will bounce. I think you really have to look at the situation and who is doing the entering. If a horse has been running between the 3-5 range and then alll of a sudden jumps to a 0, and then comes back in 14-20 days into a stakes race where others were pointing, and progressing well and you predict them to run a 2, I would bet the horse that I am predicting to run the two, and not the horse that just ran a zero.

The only two rules that I really live by when it comes to TG is the 3year old year to 4 year old year. If you think the horse has some talent, and is coming off the layoff, they improve immensely when they get that 60-90 day layoff in the winter from 3-4 years old. ESPECIALLY horses that looked rushed to the races or ones that have a stretch out pedigree's. Unbridled's horses were unbelievable when going from 3-4 and 4-5, they just got better with age. If a newly turned 4 year old matchs his top first out, he is an AUTOMATIC play for me next out unless it is a long layoff. AUTOMATIC. If they don't I then look at it more, but the 3 year old to 4 year old angle is EXTREMELY strong, and for good reason.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

the chicken bones say 2o-xneg = at 2 a chicken nugget..at 3 a crispy chicken...of you add in the blood of rooster is all makes sence...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Scav

I'll answer for him. Yes.

Younger the horse the more likely that he will bounce. I think you really have to look at the situation and who is doing the entering. If a horse has been running between the 3-5 range and then alll of a sudden jumps to a 0, and then comes back in 14-20 days into a stakes race where others were pointing, and progressing well and you predict them to run a 2, I would bet the horse that I am predicting to run the two, and not the horse that just ran a zero.

The only two rules that I really live by when it comes to TG is the 3year old year to 4 year old year. If you think the horse has some talent, and is coming off the layoff, they improve immensely when they get that 60-90 day layoff in the winter from 3-4 years old. ESPECIALLY horses that looked rushed to the races or ones that have a stretch out pedigree's. Unbridled's horses were unbelievable when going from 3-4 and 4-5, they just got better with age. If a newly turned 4 year old matchs his top first out, he is an AUTOMATIC play for me next out unless it is a long layoff. AUTOMATIC. If they don't I then look at it more, but the 3 year old to 4 year old angle is EXTREMELY strong, and for good reason.

I strongly disagree. If a horse runs a big race, he will be way less likely to repeat that race if he comes back too soon. You think a horse is more likely to repeat a big effort if he's brought back in 2 weeks? If that were the case, then horses would just keep running every two weeks. Horses would be running 26 times a year.

Any good trainer will tell you that if a horse runs a big race, the horse will be more likely to repeat that effort if he is given plenty of time(at least 4 weeks). All the best trainers will tell you that. They've all learned it through experience. I learned it very quickly through handicapping. It was one of the first things that I noticed back in the mid-1980s when I first started going to the track. I noticed that really good horses would often times regress badly if they came back too soon.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by golfer

Steve, my question is more general, and less Preakness-specific. I have not yet mastered these "sheets" rules as they relate to different age horses. So you're saying that when dealing with older horses, quicker turnaround time (2 weeks?) is more likely to negate a bounce than the "normal" sheets recommended 4-6 weeks spacing?

Bobby Frankel will tell you the absolute opposite. He will tell you that the best way to prevent a sound horse from bouncing off a big race is by giving the horse plenty of time between races.

I think this is common sense. I can't believe that anyone could think otherwise.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I strongly disagree. If a horse runs a big race, he will be way less likely to repeat that race if he comes back too soon. You think a horse is more likely to repeat a big effort if he's brought back in 2 weeks? If that were the case, then horses would just keep running every two weeks. Horses would be running 26 times a year.

Any good trainer will tell you that if a horse runs a big race, the horse will be more likely to repeat that effort if he is given plenty of time(at least 4 weeks). All the best trainers will tell you that. They've all learned it through experience. I learned it very quickly through handicapping. It was one of the first things that I noticed back in the mid-1980s when I first started going to the track. I noticed that really good horses would often times regress badly if they came back too soon.

Rupert, this is the impression I was under, and that's why I created this thread. I am trying to keep an open mind, learn from others experience, but as you just wrote, 2 weeks back off a top being better than 4 to 6 weeks just doesn't make logical sense.