First Up
 

Is there something physiological or psychological about each horse that influences how it performs in its first up run of a campaign?

Or would first up stats be more correctly attributed to trainers? (i.e. it's their practice to start a horse "early" to complete their prep, or nudge their rating downwards, etc; or hold back a runner until it's in the right shape to contest for prizemoney straight away)

Anyone have any anecdotal stories or, better yet, stats regarding horses that maintained their 1st/2nd up characteristics despite moving between trainers who had different practices?

There is no short answer for this walkermac.

It depends on the age of a horse.
If it's a sprinter, middle distance or staying type.
Whether the trainer has his own private training facility where he can trial and race his horses in private, along with the general slow and fast work.
Some trainers have high hopes for certain horses, so put them in races to sharpen them up, others set them up for a first up win, as they race well fresh.
Also injury prone horses will often be set for a first up win and then have a long break and go for a crack again.

Older horses generally take longer to get fit and hit peak fitness.

Problem is, there are exceptions to the rules.

Sorry I can't shed more light on it, but this has been my experience from working with strappers and trainers.

Hi walkermac

In addition to the points raised by CP you could have a look at something I wrote some time ago in a post relating to first up runners.

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_for...ead.php?t=26542

Also there are a number of podcasts that I have done with RSN Radio that touch on the subject that can be found on our website.

1st up, came 4th, then the next race SP 15/1 or less, ~ 10/1 or less
usually places 2nd or 3rd, maybe even 1st at around 1600M race ?
If it drifts out past 15/1, forget it.

If someone can do a database on those please.

I was watching Sky and from the Mounting Yard they were dismissing runners due to state of their coat; that they weren't quiet "ready". It occurred to me that the horses don't enter themselves in a race, circle a day on their calendar and make sure that they're in shape in time. The first up stat in the formguide seems to imply that they do.

I do suppose the stat is as revealing as others, like their career place rate; for example. That is: not very - without taking into account the likelihood of success in each of those races.

While there's scope for individual horses to be managed differently, I imagine that trainers would shy from re-inventing the wheel (and likely the more successful, the more reluctant). The linked thread seems to point pretty clearly that trainer-specific, rather than horse-specific, first up stats are a better indicator.

Maybe I had it backwards, but with a bit of experience reading the market movers, in's or outs one gets a "feel" at certain times.

VR-1-Swan Hill, 1200M

TAB 9, @ 9 Minutes to start, Fixed odds on Tatts, $13.00, it drifted out to
19.00
And thats what happens, it gets "lost" in all the hype after around 6 Minutes before start of race.

LS3
74x

Won.
9: paid:$19.30
$2.90

Comes 4th, then spells, then Wins 1stup
or Spells, comes 4th 1st up then wins or places ( E/W Bet)
the one to watch.

To me it says, it came 7th, then 4th, so it may have improved, they spelled it, then it wins 1st up from a spell and pays OK.

Nice !

Interesting.... There may be something that deserves further investigation regarding the place prior to the spell.

There were 33 horses resuming Tuesday (definition used: more than 60 days since their last). 17 were maidens. Of those, there were 4 that finished top 4 in the race immediately preceding their spell. All placed: 1 first (the $19 shot you mentioned), 2 seconds and a third.

Four horses demonstrated the improving fashion you noted pre-spell: 1 win, 1 third, a 9th and a 10th. The two placegetters had Unitab ratings that put them in the top half of the field; the other two, the lower half.

Lastly, the "ones to watch" - per your suggestion - with a 4th placing after a spell, are Steakandbearnaise and Space Invader (both of which are 1 from 1 2nd up, funnily enough; though they *were* also 1 from 1 first up until today! ;) )

You need to take what they say on these programs and take it with a grain of salt. Many of them are ex jockeys or simply broadcasters.
They mention the state of the coat, showing a bit of rib, on his toes, etc etc.

Some horses may be fit, but take longer for their coat to come through.
Some trainers feed hard boiled eggs to their horses and the coat comes out shiny, others don't believe in it.

Some horses are light doers and showing rib means they are overdone and not fed enough, so are likely to not do so well. Others are heavy doers and a bit of rib shows they are fit as they can be.

Some horses on their toes are purely nervous types which expend all their energy before the race. Others on their toes are rearing to go.

What I'm getting at, is one really should study the actual horse and get an idea of the trainers methods, and the horse.

Jockeys are notoriously bad tipsters, as are many broadcasters (overall).
They overlook what the trainer has in mind and the physiology of the actual horse.
Sweeping statements, do not help punters.

I know of at least two professional punters, that follow horses from particular stables, the formguide means nothing, they turn up for trackwork, they talk to the strappers and foreman, they watch intently as the horse does it's work and they get to know everything they can about the whole operation.

I remember going to Moonee Valley race club on a business matter and meeting with an un named trainer, who told me about the best horse he had in his stable, but that she had dicky legs, and would always have problems and never reach her full potential. Punters didn't know this. She had a few placings after that date, but never won another race before retirement.

One needs to be aware of the trainers that always talk up their horses, it's their job to do so, so often the stablehands and track riders are the best sources of information. Other trainers work the media, but one on one will tell you what's what, if they get to know you and think you're not just wasting their time.

These are things people don't take into account when looking at the formguide.

You can only work with what you have, but some guys out there go the extra mile and put in as much work as a strapper does.
These guys have a far bigger edge, than the rest of us overall.

Beware not to make it too "rule-ish" or mechnical or systemmetised, these things don't "feel".

Ask,
Why did it come 4th then spelled, why was it spelled, why did it come 4th after the spell and was it an improver or does it have potential?

Consider further on-the-day analysis by watching prices, pre-posts etc.

At times nothing seems to happen.
To borrow that cliche, "nothing is a certainty".
If nothing is a certainty, I don't "get" an why E/W bet is 50/50.
More to the tune 75/25 - 60/40 the lesser on the Win accordingly.

I hope you had the same feel regarding Who You Know in Race 2 at Balaklava.

Form was 543x. Price opened at 12 and blew out to 21. Very similar to your selection of yesterday...

I considered it, but was dissuaded by there being 7 debutantes in a large field of 16.

How about targeting first starters? As revealed in my posts of the past...

Taking my Maiden System involving 2&3yo first starters by certain sires and looking at female line and cross etc. All horses only backed for a maximum of 4 runs or the first win, whichever comes first. A tidy sum can be made using a bank and betting 5% on each. All horses racing in New Zealand.

Horse Warrior 1st start $1.60 (2nd), 2nd start $1.80 $1.00
Kash For Lass 1st start Unplaced, 2nd start $34.10 $8.10
King's Rock 1st start $4.70 $1.90
Lotto 1st start $2.10 (3rd), 2nd start unplaced, 3rd start $2.10 (3rd), 4th start unplaced
Ringo 1st start $3.60 (2nd), 2nd start $2.40 $1.40
Ruthless Lady 1st start $3.00 (2nd), 2nd start $1.70 (3rd), 3rd start $1.90 $1.30
Satay 1st start unplaced, 2nd start $9.10 (3rd), 3rd start $2.40 (2nd), 4th start $2.70 $1.30
Whistling Dixie 1st start $3.30 (2nd), 2nd start $8.90 $2.90
Postnthyme 1st start $1.70 (3rd). 2nd start $1.90 (2nd), 3rd start $1.70 $1.10
Dillinger 1st 3 starts unplaced, 4th start $11.10 $3.10
Saint Kitt 1st 3 starts unplaced, 4th start $9.40 (2nd)
Cookie Monster 1st start $3.90 $1.50
Lamason 1st start $3.40 $1.60
Lincoln Sun only one start unplaced
Keepaflight 3 starts unplaced
Glamazon 1st start unplaced
Shuthegate 1st start unplaced, 2nd start $3.90 (3rd)

seeing how there is no interest anymore in my efforts I will run along. Thanks to the very few who interacted when I first gave an insight in to using breeding to select winners. I will continue to study and refine my syste.

Rich

CosMos, of course there is interest. The fact that you had no replies, possibly means that there is nothing to add, but I'm sure many like myself are interested in your progress. Especially because it's something a little different.
My Breeding Training Punting thread had a lot of views but very little replies, but the horses selected have now won nearly 3 million in prizemoney, but only broke even punting wise. Perhaps only winning systems create replies. But the astute, would soon realize that owners are throwing money at well bred stock and for the most part failing. There is a moral to my thread, but I'm not going to spell it out. Just let the smart ones figure it out for themselves.

Sometimes one thinks there is nobody watching, but they are watching from the sidelines ;)

Sad to see another one go CosMos. You're specialty is .....well very specialized....and few are prepared to put the effort in nowadays to research breeding, myself included. Off chasing other tangents.

I post some whacky stuff, more to stimulate the mind, but seldom get many replies, not like yesteryear. But I'm heartened by the number of guests that are online. The average number of members might be 2 at any one time, but guests 40-50. I can only assume they're from overseas, so a silent majority.

Just remember that whatever you post is there for the world to view, for posterity (I think?), so don't be too disheartened. You can google breeding and suchlike and your name comes up all the time!

Stick at it :)

thanks guys, sorry but was a little down as we lost a young local photographer to suicide, has been a rough week.

My study has been based on NZ horses, this system works really well there for some reason. I am trying to identify Australian sires that I can apply it to so hopefully I can come up with something new very soon.

cheers Rich

Inspired by your earlier posts, I tried to do something similar - but met with little success.

It was the volume of work that was the real problem though, I can see why you've heretofore limited yourself to NZ Racing. I pursued it for just over 2 months of Aus/NZ racing and identified waaaay too many possible stable runners. Of course this number would vary depending on the number of sires/broodmare sires you judge worthy of following: my list eventually comprised around 30 of each, judged by winner to runner, and blacktype winner to runner statistics. To pare the list further I also looked at each sire's stats for the last couple of seasons (to see their quality wasn't dropping off) and their record for young horses (to ensure I was getting a fair chance of early maturers). A qualifier had to have both their sire and broodmare sires on the two lists.

Once the lists were compiled, finding qualifiers was automatic. But then the manual process began.... I wanted their dosage index above 20 (using the list of Aus/NZ sires), a dam or granddam that had at least placed in blacktype races, at least 1 chef in its last couple of generations....all hints you either dropped in your own threads, or that I had picked up elsewhere.

In the end, it left me with a stable of 36 debutantes. I abandoned the effort due to not getting immediate results ( :) ) but reviewed it recently to see if there was any long-term success to be found. Limiting each runner to a max of 5 bets before they hit their first win....it came out slightly less than even.

I had noted Cross stats (i.e. results from previous breeding between the same sire and brooodmare sire, if any) and there was little correlation. Actually, the worse, the better, as far as debut victories went. The less chefs in the last couple of generations, the better, was another unexpected result (so ruling out runners with 0 chefs may have been a bad move).

7 of the 36 won their debut (without any further investigation re trial form, or their competitors). But there did seem to be a clear sweet spot at a certain range of DIs or CDs (and you'd imagine that would be the case, as most horses debut in sprint races - and you'd assume those best suited to sprints to perform better; if this methodology reflects reality). A particular DI range contained 6 of the 7 winners and 3 misses - 2 of which were seconds.

Sounds awesome, right? Not really... There must have been some good trial form, or a "name" trainer attached to what were likely premium purchases per paper pedigree (or alot of people doing handicapping in much the same way as I was) as the odds in this range were quite low: $1.80, $2.00, $2.20, $3.70, $3.80 and $6.50. The 2 seconds were also short; the miss was at $13.

Basically, if a stable runner didn't win their first race, you were doing your best to make your money back. After its first run, the rest of the market was clued in regarding its ability. Given the amount of time spent identifying prospects, my particular method wasn't worth the effort. Certainly, as CosMos has demonstrated, there are ways to have some success at pedigree handicapping, but it ain't for me....

...not unless there's a source that I can scrape dosage profiles from (that include Aus/NZ chefs; I struggle to see the use otherwise... Apparently Black Caviar's "official" dosage indicates she was a 1650m runner, it's not until the local chefs are added to the mix that her Brilliance comes to the fore).

well done for persevering but way too many rules mate. Have been there done that and the simpler you can make it the better. When dealing with maidens, winners can come from anywhere, class of sire may not enter in to it.

The first two dams are important and I also look at the cross which must have at least 50%+ winners to runners or yet to have any runners (excluding the maiden in question). In other words, if the cross has 'failed' under my criteria I leave the maiden alone.

I found that 2 and 3yos are the better bets though an not dismissing 4-5yos, just that they seemed to hit sooner.

I don't touch dosage or pedigree patterns etc, nor do I factor in race stats such as days since last start or weight etc. I also dont look at form or trials, just back them from 1st start to first win or 4 starts. This gives me a better dividend overall as some place prices can be huge.

Once I have found a sire that produces winners early on, I follow the qualifiers. I do not look at the Sires list to see their winners to runners strike rates as I am not backing everything by that sire, I have culled those that dont qualify and am hopefully on the better potential runners.

For instance the sire Keeper has an average strike rate of total winners to total runs. But I am only betting his 2&3yos and qualifying on female line and cross. Pins is another.

Backing each horse in isolation does OK overall but backing all horses as part of a management plan pays better. 5% of the bank on each horse in turn earns well, so far anyway as the winners make up for the losers.

Still a work in progress

walkermac...

http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.co...topic32589.html

http://www.chef-de-race.com/main_menu.htm

In my small sample (36) no horse won their debut when the cross winners to runners was greater than 66.2% (12 total). Winning debutantes were either 0/0 (2 from 3 possibilities) or 50-66.1% (5 from 16). Previously "failed" crosses were 0 from 3 possibilities.




My original sires/broodmare sires lists were just based on their overall stats. For that reason Keeper didn't make it. Afterwards, I considered I was only interested in the results of their young so looked at their 2 and 3yo stats and culled those that were poorer from the existing lists. For that reason Pins stayed there. I wasn't interested in going back and finding sires like Keeper that I'd missed on the first sweep, as those I had were still throwing up plenty of possibilities.


Regarding my comment on scraping dosage profiles from a website, pedigreequery produces a plaintext "family tree" that I could probably parse (whereas most other sources are pdf files). I can then automate calculation of each horses's dosage profile, DI, CD, etc. One day I'll do it and see if there's any statistical significance to these figures....


Regarding "name" trainers possibly being associated with debutantes in my sweetspot range accounting for their low winning odds, I went back and checked who they were (actually, *are*, I suppose they could've changed trainers in the 6-8 months between debut and now...) : Gai Waterhouse - $6.50 winner, David Murphy - 2nd @ short odds, Robert Smerdon - 2nd @ short odds, JE & C Ledger - $2.20 winner, Kris Lees - $2 winner, Patrick J Webster - miss @ long odds, David Hayes and Tom Dabernig - $1.80 winner, David Hayes - $3.70 winner, Tony McEvoy - $3.80 winner. Given that I know ************-all about trainers yet recognise most of these names...was I right?

If you or anyone else has an inkling to cast their eye over the following, the "sweetspot" horses were:
Nayeli
Gold Buttons
Reldas
Red Kaoru
Lunar Snitzel
L'amoureuse
Urban Bourbon
Wawail
Kayjay's Joy

All of which have gone on to win since they're debut (at short odds) asides from L'amoureuse. This filly was the long odds loser at its first run and hasn't been sighted since. It's also got the lowest CD of the lot. The highest CD is claimed by one of the 2nd placegetters; funnily enough.

*insert statement here regarding small sample size, normal statistical variation, etc ;) *