The Value of leading at the 1st call on dirt

[The Indomitable DrugS]

In a sample of 201,268 North American dirt races on file ...

A total of 1,470,616 starters failed to make the lead at the 1st call. They yielded an ROI of $1.32 .. meaning if you bet $100 on each one you'd be down over $50 million.

The 201,268 horses who led at the first call yielded an ROI of $3.12. Meaning that if you bet $100 on each of them - you'd be ahead by over $11.27 million dollars.

In terms of win percentage - non-leaders at first call win at 10.0% - leaders at first call win at 28.4%.

Obviously, if anyone gains the ability to place bets a quarter mile into a race - they basically have the ability to print money. They need not know a damn thing about horse racing - just merely betting on the leader will prove very profitable.

I took a teller job when I turned 18 - and - at the time - tellers had the ability to cancel tickets up to about four or five seconds after the race started. I took advantage of this real well at Charles Town in the 4.5f races and at places like Timonioum. Bet the two horses you like most - cancel the one which gets outbroke.

I was always told the employee in the money room had the ability to manually cancel tickets up to 30 seconds after the start of the race - but to my frustration - I couldn't talk my way into letting them allow me to work back there because I was an 18yo who they knew was betting all the time...or even get them to show me how this tote cancel was done.

Anyway, it's not exactly ground breaking stuff that first call leaders - especially when unpressured - have an extreme advantage. Though, reading message boards, you wouldn't always know this.

Today's latest gem is that To Honor And Serve will be a better horse when he rates off the lead. They never are.

[cmorioles]

I'm sure you know the problem with this is that the ones the make the ROI so nice are the ones that are very hard to predict will make the lead.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm sure you know the problem with this is that the ones the make the ROI so nice are the ones that are very hard to predict will make the lead.

How is it a problem if you are betting after the race started? Isnt that the point of DrugS post? He wants another job as a Tix puncher

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm sure you know the problem with this is that the ones the make the ROI so nice are the ones that are very hard to predict will make the lead.

For sure - but it's why I've always spent so much time studying pace - and more recently, seeing the light on pace figures.

There are a lot of situations where a horse should be loose on a lead - and because of extreme human error or a poor start - they aren't.

I also think the nature of the animal has a lot to do with why the ROI is so high. If they can't make the lead - they'll quit - and finish dismally. If they have to fight for it - they'll burn out and tire severly. This in turn leads the public to underrate the horses ability .. and when said horse finally gets that unpressured lead, it gets brave and runs to its true ability.

Most of the trailing horses also have to run while getting dirt kicked into their eyes and up their nose. They typcially have to race wider on the turns. They are more subject to traffic trouble and bumping etc. In a sport where 0.10 seconds can make all the difference - that's a setback.

Again, not that any of this is even slightly ground breaking.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by freddymo

How is it a problem if you are betting after the race started? Isnt that the point of DrugS post? He wants another job as a Tix puncher

Go to Freehold and ask for a teller job - try it for a day.

If nothing's changed - you should be able to scope out a trotter race where there's an even money horse and a 8/5 horse ... bet them both to win with the intent of cancelling both ... if one breaks before or right at the start ... only cancel the ticket of the breaker.

It's a blast - you'll feel like a genius until you inevitably watch your standout break as well.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Today's latest gem is that To Honor And Serve will be a better horse when he rates off the lead. They never are.

In the interest of keeping this thread alive, why don't you highlight this mantra with some examples.

As you said elsewhere, To Honor And Serve is likely to run into a horse or two that have more early speed than him.

Some recent classic colts that had frontrunning prowess at 2 and then had to adopt stalking positions at 3 include:

Coronado's Quest
Go For Gin
Big Brown
Smarty Jones
Afternoon Deelites
Unbridled's Song

How did they fare when taken off the pace?

Also, in this scenario (Derby prospects) vague factors like maturity and stamina come into play, so it's not a clear-cut situation of a frontrunner suddenly "taking back".

Try not to make references to Redding Collery.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Before I get into any of that Rollo - look at a horse like Haynesfield - he's been untouchable his entire career when he makes the lead ...blowing everything out.

He's nothing special when he doesn't make a lead...he's an undefeated monster when he does.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Before I get into any of that Rollo - look at a horse like Haynesfield - he's been untouchable his entire career when he makes the lead ...blowing everything out.

He's nothing special when he doesn't make a lead...he's an undefeated monster when he does.

I agree with you. Regal Ransom is pretty much like that, too. I think Left Bank was like that early in his career.

The situation with To Honor And Serve is probably different, as he's lightly raced and his style isn't exactly established (though in his maiden win, it appeared as though his jock had his "feet on the dashboard" to get him to settle 3rd early).

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The situation with To Honor And Serve is probably different, as he's lightly raced and his style isn't exactly established

You could say the same about Uncle Mo as well.

The point is that no horse 'gets better' or even 'runs exactly as well' from off the pace than they would do on an unpressured lead going the same rate of speed.

Uncle Mo did show the ability to track a pace setter from his outside in the BC Juvie - but he switched off kindly and was a clear 2nd with no one even close to putting pressure on his outside.

To me - Uncle Mo and To Honor and Serve are both excellent 2-year-olds and are both running fast enough right now to contend for several recent KY Derby editions .. but each did it with a breathtakingly easy trip in their most recent start.

[Betsy]

I get that any horse on an easy lead will be at his best, but I don't get how taking him off the pace will make him a worse horse. For 3 year olds and up, they'd really better be able to rate if they are going to win big distance races. Also, Drug, if we concede your point, then that would be true for all horses, so they are all going to get "worse" coming off the pace; therefore, THAS or Uncle Mo or whomever wouldn't be at a disadvantage, correct?

Rollo, you're correct about THAS' style not having been established. Mott admitted he would have preferred a target to run at. I suspect that in his comeback in 2011, be it in an allowance race or a minor stakes, Mott will have his new jock take THAS back (not strangle him, but keep him a few lengths off the lead) no matter what the pace is........I mean, he's not going to care about winning that race, but he clearly cared about winning this one.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Before I get into any of that Rollo - look at a horse like Haynesfield - he's been untouchable his entire career when he makes the lead ...blowing everything out.

He's nothing special when he doesn't make a lead...he's an undefeated monster when he does.

Doesn't that just mean he's a horse who can't handle adversity?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I get that any horse on an easy lead will be at his best, but I don't get how taking him off the pace will make him a worse horse.

It won't make him a worse horse - it will just make his performance that day worse.

Let's say they tried to wrangle him back today and the Macho Uno horse that ran a strong 2nd was left on an uncontested lead. It wouldn't have been smart at all.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Doesn't that just mean he's a horse who can't handle adversity?

Those are the kind of horses that help make betting profitable. The kind that people on message boards don't like because they fold up in unfavorable situations...and aren't as effective when they don't get it their own way.

And when they do get it their own way and run huge - they often become overrated until their next clunker or series of clunkers.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Betsy

THAS has nothing to do with them, though- they are all different individuals.

He's a free-running horse, just like the others listed. Most of those listed are classic winners, too.

So you ought to hope he has something in common with them.

He broke his maiden from off the pace...and today Mott admitted he would have preferred a target to run at.

He was less than a length back on a very snug hold (as I said, the jock had the proverbial "feet on the dashboard").

I suspect that in his comeback in 2011, be it in an allowance race or a minor stakes, Mott will have his new jock take THAS back (not strangle him, but keep him a few lengths off the lead) no matter what the pace is........I mean, he's not going to care about winning that race, but he clearly cared about winning this one.

It would be very foolish to try and alter this horse's running style dramatically. If anything, they should be looking to give him some competition as he blew away his rivals in the maiden and Nashua, then curiously kind of meandered down the lane today.

By the way, I highly doubt, in this day and age of light campaigning, that they won't be trying to win every prep race. I would have to think his debut will be in the Fountain Of Youth if recent history is any indication.

I get that any horse on an easy lead will be at his best, but I don't get how taking him off the pace will make him a worse horse. For 3 year olds and up, they'd really better be able to rate if they are going to win big distance races.

You just opened the floor to Redding Collery references. Thanks.

[Indian Charlie]

If a very high quality horse is at basically a gallop, it doesn't matter if there is a horse in front of him or not, as far as whether or not his performance is affected.

Like Uncle Mo. Or going way further back, Akinemod in her La Brea.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

If a very high quality horse is at basically a gallop, it doesn't matter if there is a horse in front of him or not, as far as whether or not his performance is affected.

Like Uncle Mo. Or going way further back, Akinemod in her La Brea.

A lot of horses at all levels have turned in career best tops with the trip of laying 2nd in a similar spot Uncle Mo was in. Basically - rating off of a pace setter - while clear of the next horse and getting no outside pressure.

If the horse relaxes - and no one comes up from 3rd to force the pace - it's pretty close to being the same thing as being loose on an uncontested lead.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Those are the kind of horses that help make betting profitable. The kind that people on message boards don't like because they fold up in unfavorable situations...and aren't as effective when they don't get it their own way.

And when they do get it their own way and run huge - they often become overrated until their next clunker or series of clunkers.

Hopefully ordinary racetrack goers don't read the message boards so they continue to bet these horses, lol.

On the other hand, people also get impressed with horses that close a ton of ground..........even if those races were handed to them on a silver platter (the winner of that 2 year old 7 furlong race today, for example).

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

In a sample of 201,268 North American dirt races on file ...

A total of 1,470,616 starters failed to make the lead at the 1st call. They yielded an ROI of $1.32 .. meaning if you bet $100 on each one you'd be down over $50 million.

The 201,268 horses who led at the first call yielded an ROI of $3.12. Meaning that if you bet $100 on each of them - you'd be ahead by over $11.27 million dollars.

I know you know this is a skewed stat to the point where it's meaningless.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I know you know this is a skewed stat to the point where it's meaningless.

skewed by what?

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

He's a free-running horse, just like the others listed. Most of those listed are classic winners, too.

So you ought to hope he has something in common with them.



He was less than a length back on a very snug hold (as I said, the jock had the proverbial "feet on the dashboard").




It would be very foolish to try and alter this horse's running style dramatically. If anything, they should be looking to give him some competition as he blew away his rivals in the maiden and Nashua, then curiously kind of meandered down the lane today.

By the way, I highly doubt, in this day and age of light campaigning, that they won't be trying to win every prep race. I would have to think his debut will be in the Fountain Of Youth if recent history is any indication.



You just opened the floor to Redding Collery references. Thanks.

I'll have to look at his maiden win again, but I remember thinking that the jock had a ton of horse.

I don't think they should change his style drastically - no dropping back 5, 6, 7 lengths for him - but if he could run from about 2 or 3 lengths off the pace, I think that would be ideal. I have to watch the replay of today's race; I didn't see him gawking, but both Johnny V and Mott said he was looking around....it wasn't that obvious to me. Having a target may settle him down some more; then again, maturity may do the same.

I can't see Mott bringing this colt back in a major stakes for his seasonal debut, but of course I could be wrong. I'm sure he wants to win every race, but my point was that he considered the Remsen a big race for THAS, where he wasn't going to fool around. He can afford to fool around in a prep race, even if it means he loses.