Value Wagering

A Web Site Promoting Better Betting

The Freshened Horse Fallacy

For years the chorus has been building: Today’s Thoroughbred is simply not as stout or robust as it was in years past. With much weeping and gnashing of teeth — well, actually, the weeping is coming mostly from me; as I was writing this, I narrowly missed a juicy trifecta — veteran horsemen and horse players lament the fragility of the breed and contemplate the reasons for it.

“America’s breeding industry is producing increasingly fragile thoroughbreds,” wrote speed figure guru Andrew Beyer in wake of Eight Belle’s tragic demise in the 2008 Kentucky Derby. “They may not break down, but they have shorter and shorter racing careers before going to stud to beget even more fragile offspring.”

That horses are racing less in modern times is indisputable, Beyer says, noting that, “In 1960, the average U.S. racehorse made 11.3 starts per year. The number has fallen almost every year, and now the average U.S. thoroughbred races a mere 6.3 times per year. Almost every trainer whose career spans the decades will acknowledge that thoroughbreds aren’t as robust as they used to be.”

As a result of this, extended layoffs and unorthodox training regimens have become the norm, as wary conditioners seek to produce the “freshened” horse, a mythical beast said to have the strength of an elephant, the speed of a cheetah, and the stamina of an ox. But does such a steed really exist, or is it merely a capricious concoction born of the ultimate chicken-and-egg argument? I decided to find out.

Of course, the biggest challenge one faces when attempting to prove or disprove a racetrack “fact” is obtaining truly independent variables. The reality is that almost no single factor contributing to the outcome of a horse race can be easily isolated. Take, for example, speed and form — what’s the real difference? Typically, a horse that runs fast also runs well, right? After all, it’s not often that a 30-length loser will post an outstanding Beyer figure.

So, my first hurdle was distinguishing between a “freshening” and layoffs resulting from injury or infirmity. Thus, I decided to concentrate solely on post-time favorites (ignoring entries). That way, I could be reasonably certain that I was appraising only those contestants that had shown at least a semblance of class and form in the recent past. Now, does this ensure an autonomous sample? Of course not. Obviously, the date of a horse’s most recent outing is going to influence the crowd’s betting habits, but at least it helps eliminate those hapless nags that neither racing nor resting will aid.

First, I looked at favorites as a whole (provided they were single betting interests with at least one lifetime start) from assorted races run during 2004-2009:

Races: 5,786
Won: 2,075
Rate: 35.9%
ROI: -15.49%

As you can see, these figures are right in line with long-term national averages. Thus, my database would appear to be “fair.” Next, I looked at favorites that were coming back on less than 10 days rest:

Races: 250
Won: 98
Rate: 39.2%
ROI: -8.36%

True, the sample size was limited, but look at those numbers. They hardly endorse the notion of a deteriorating breed. Quite the contrary, they tend to mirror the results produced by William Quirin in similar studies conducted nearly a decade ago — when the breed was purportedly stout and strong and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

How about favorites returning less than 15 days after their latest trip to post?

Races: 1,266
Won: 491
Rate: 38.8%
ROI: -8.96%

Interesting. Note that the ROI is still better than that produced by favorites as a whole and that the winning percentage is slightly higher as well.

OK, I hear someone grumbling, but what about the distance factor? Surely, animals competing in routes (races of one mile or longer) will not fare as well without proper rest.

Surprisingly, that doesn’t seem to be true:

Races: 487
Won: 182
Rate: 37.4%
ROI: -9.95%

Still think the modern thoroughbred lacks fortitude?

Now let’s take a look at the freshened favorites. We’ll start with those fancied steeds that have been away from the track for 30 days or more:

Races: 1,670
Won: 579
Rate: 34.7%
ROI: -18.91%

Not encouraging. So, how did those public choices that had been frolicking in the pasture for 60 days or longer perform?

Races: 321
Won: 102
Rate: 31.8%
ROI: -22.65%

Wow. Even worse. But, once again, I detect murmurs of discontent. Of course the statistics look bad, some will sneer, a lot of horses in this category were undoubtedly bottom-of-the-barrel claimers, cheap nags that could barely walk, much less run. What about the higher class animals? How did they fare?

To find out, I used the same criteria as above, but concentrated only on those races offering a purse of $50,000 or greater. Here’s what I discovered:

Races: 59
Won: 18
Rate: 30.5%
ROI: -33.22%

Naturally, the sample size is much, much smaller but the early returns aren’t encouraging.

So what is one to make of all this? Well, to me, the conclusion seems obvious. There is simply no truth to the theory that longer layoffs produce better results. In fact, just the opposite appears to be true.

August 19, 2009 - Posted by | Horse Racing | , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: