7 Days Rest

[TheSpyder]

Belmont's second race had three horses coming off 7 days rest and they ran 1-2-3. In fact for two of them it was their third race in 18 days and they were the winer and second place horse.

How often do you see that?

Spyder

[jwkniska]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Belmont's second race had three horses coming off 7 days rest and they ran 1-2-3. In fact for two of them it was their third race in 18 days and they were the winer and second place horse.

How often do you see that?

Spyder

A few years ago, Biancone/Stevens won the G1 Beverly D at AP, on Angara, a horse that ran a graded stakes at the Spa 7 days earlier.
I tossed the horse due to running a week earlier... dumb move, as it cost me the special pick 4.

[Thunder Gulch]

Twenty years ago if a horse didn't run for two weeks it was an indicator that something was wrong. Racing back on four or five days was considered a sign of sharpness at the claiming levels.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Belmont's second race had three horses coming off 7 days rest and they ran 1-2-3. In fact for two of them it was their third race in 18 days and they were the winer and second place horse.

How often do you see that?

Spyder

Some more info: The 2nd and 3rd place horse were the the 6th and 7th-longest odds in the 8-horse field. The top 3 finished almost 5 lengths ahead of the rest of the field.

--Dunbar

[King Glorious]

It's very rare these days in the stakes ranks but in the claiming ranks, it's not. It used to be not so rare in the stakes ranks either. Horses used to be able to run in the Derby Trial and then the Derby the next week. Conquistador Cielo and Gulch both ran in the Met Mile and the Belmont. In fact, I know Gulch ran in all three TC races AND the Met Mile. Go for Wand won the grade one Test at 7f in 1:21 and then came back nine days later to win the grade one Alabama at 10f in 2:00 4/5, setting stakes records in both.

[ArlJim78]

this thread made me curious so I ran a query on my database for days since last start. this database contains about 8000 races. below are the impact values for the days 3-20. Above a value of 8, the impact values all seem to be centered about 1, with few exceptions. Impact values greater than 1 mean that the value resulted in more than its fair share of wins, less than 1 means that value underperformed compared to the whole.
with that said I found the results interesting.

days since
last race-----Impact value
___3__________2.38
___4__________1.62
___5__________1.38
___6__________0.58
___7__________0.81
___8__________0.95
___9__________0.95
__10__________1.12
__11__________0.88
__12__________0.98
__13__________1.03
__14__________1.00
__15__________1.01
__16__________0.91
__17__________0.94
__18__________1.07
__19__________0.93
__20__________1.12

starts in the 3-5 day range while rare offer solid returns.

6 and 7 days between starts noticeably underperformed, particularily 6 days.

I have my own theory as to why this is, a drop off going down to six days and then an upswing again below that point. I'd be interested to know what others think about that.

another point of interest, although probably not significant, are that the two highest days are 10 and 20. I have no clue why that would be, probably just coincidence.

[TheSpyder]

Jim,

Interesting stuff. 8000 races! What software do you use? The Jimonator 2000 or one off brisnet or something? How long did it take you to run that info?

I wish I had the time...and the brains to look into races that much.

Thanks,

Spyder

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

this thread made me curious so I ran a query on my database for days since last start. this database contains about 8000 races. below are the impact values for the days 3-20. Above a value of 8, the impact values all seem to be centered about 1, with few exceptions. Impact values greater than 1 mean that the value resulted in more than its fair share of wins, less than 1 means that value underperformed compared to the whole.
with that said I found the results interesting.

days since
last race-----Impact value
___3__________2.38
___4__________1.62
___5__________1.38
___6__________0.58
___7__________0.81
___8__________0.95
___9__________0.95
__10__________1.12
__11__________0.88
__12__________0.98
__13__________1.03
__14__________1.00
__15__________1.01
__16__________0.91
__17__________0.94
__18__________1.07
__19__________0.93
__20__________1.12

starts in the 3-5 day range while rare offer solid returns.

6 and 7 days between starts noticeably underperformed, particularily 6 days.

I have my own theory as to why this is, a drop off going down to six days and then an upswing again below that point. I'd be interested to know what others think about that.

another point of interest, although probably not significant, are that the two highest days are 10 and 20. I have no clue why that would be, probably just coincidence.

[Scav]

Isn't the data from this information a bit skewed in that there is many more instances for horses returning in 10 days and up, and less instances of 9 and down? I would have to guess that maybe out of those 8k races, maybe 200 of them had starters within the race off less then 6 days rest.....

[TheSpyder]

That's true and someone that knows statistics (too long ago for me) should be able to tell from the data points how many are needed to be statistically significant. Much like a trainer who is averaging 50% wins and has one out of two winners. Got a feeling Jim's all over it...we'll see.

Originally Posted by Scav

Isn't the data from this information a bit skewed in that there is many more instances for horses returning in 10 days and up, and less instances of 9 and down? I would have to guess that maybe out of those 8k races, maybe 200 of them had starters within the race off less then 6 days rest.....

[hailrazer]

Originally Posted by Scav

Isn't the data from this information a bit skewed in that there is many more instances for horses returning in 10 days and up, and less instances of 9 and down? I would have to guess that maybe out of those 8k races, maybe 200 of them had starters within the race off less then 6 days rest.....

My take is that if a trainer is confident enough to run his horse back in 3 or 4 days, the horse is likely sitting on a big effort and he wants to take advantage while he can. Tough to toss a horse running back so quickly when the trainer shows the confidence and takes the risk of garnering criticism in the case the horse runs poorly or worse....

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Scav

Isn't the data from this information a bit skewed in that there is many more instances for horses returning in 10 days and up, and less instances of 9 and down? I would have to guess that maybe out of those 8k races, maybe 200 of them had starters within the race off less then 6 days rest.....

you were close, in my sample there were only 164 starters running on five days or less rest out of a total of 65,928 runners, so its really not significant. but to answer your question its not skewed either, those horses won at a significantly higher percentage than the whole. i think its like hailrazer said, when someone runs back that fast its for a good reason hence the higher win percent.

the lower numbers for 6 (259 runners) and 7(569 runners) day turnarounds I think are just from trainers trying to push the envelope when perhaps they shouldn't.

14 days is one of the more common time frames, 2970 runners.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Jim,

Interesting stuff. 8000 races! What software do you use? The Jimonator 2000 or one off brisnet or something? How long did it take you to run that info?

I wish I had the time...and the brains to look into races that much.

Thanks,

Spyder

not my software, i don't have the brains for that. its called jcapper and it works off of bris datafiles which i download daily.

funny you should ask about the time because to run a query against the entire database takes only about 1-2 minutes. but anytime I want to compile or rebuild the entire database it can take a long time. the last time I did it it took about 3 hours.

to make it manageable i break down the data by track so I can deal with only one track at a time which is usually the best way to look at the data anyhow.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by jwkniska

A few years ago, Biancone/Stevens won the G1 Beverly D at AP, on Angara, a horse that ran a graded stakes at the Spa 7 days earlier.
I tossed the horse due to running a week earlier... dumb move, as it cost me the special pick 4.

Angara was actually coming back off a 2 week layoff and she had run some races spaced together quite closely that year. After winning an allowance race in fine fashion she came back and won the Bewitch less than two weeks later at Keeneland. She then ran about three weeks after that in the Sheepshead Bay at Belmont and came flying late to run 2nd. Three weeks later she faced the boys in the Manhattan and came up empty in the stretch but finished 5th. The Diana was the race she exited at Saratoga prior to winning the Beverly D and she ran an exceptional race to run 3rd behind Sand Springs, who got away with murder on the front end.

I was a big Angara fan- mostly to my own detriment. There was only one happy moment in 2005- the Beverly D.

NT

[Scav]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Angara was actually coming back off a 2 week layoff and she had run some races spaced together quite closely that year. After winning an allowance race in fine fashion she came back and won the Bewitch less than two weeks later at Keeneland. She then ran about three weeks after that in the Sheepshead Bay at Belmont and came flying late to run 2nd. Three weeks later she faced the boys in the Manhattan and came up empty in the stretch but finished 5th. The Diana was the race she exited at Saratoga prior to winning the Beverly D and she ran an exceptional race to run 3rd behind Sand Springs, who got away with murder on the front end.

I was a big Angara fan- mostly to my own detriment. There was only one happy moment in 2005- the Beverly D.

NT

I absolutely CRUSHED that race, and the sequence with Powerscourt in the next....

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

you were close, in my sample there were only 164 starters running on five days or less rest out of a total of 65,928 runners, so its really not significant. but to answer your question its not skewed either, those horses won at a significantly higher percentage than the whole. i think its like hailrazer said, when someone runs back that fast its for a good reason hence the higher win percent.

the lower numbers for 6 (259 runners) and 7(569 runners) day turnarounds I think are just from trainers trying to push the envelope when perhaps they shouldn't.

14 days is one of the more common time frames, 2970 runners.

Might as well break down the 164 into 3,4,5. How many 3's?

--Dunbar

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Might as well break down the 164 into 3,4,5. How many 3's?

--Dunbar

going by memory because the data is at home. it was roughly like this
5 days - 120 runners
4 days - 30 runners
3 days - 14 runners (i do remember there were 4 winners out of 14 attempts)

I did a little more breakdown on this last night by various tracks and not too surprisingly the large majority of these quick turnarounds occurred at Aqueduct. its very rare at most other tracks.

[horseofcourse]

On The Bill Daily won race 8 on 7 days rest 6/1 at Pocatello Downs. I'm sure you're all extremely thrilled by that fact. I lost that one as I bet on the fact that t-breds aren't supposed to run well on that short of rest. I do much better on the Quarter Horses! I will still sleep well quite confident in the fact that I am likely the all time leading better on this board at Pocatello Downs!.

[NoLuvForPletch]

I'm guessing that if a horse runs back in 3, 4 or 5 days it very well could have been the plan to do so. 6, 7 or 8 days gives the trainer just enough time to think about the bad trip, lack of pace in the race for his closer, poor break, etc...and wrongly determine the horse is no worse for wear, and enter him/her to less than desirable results.

[SniperSB23]

Not sure if your database can do this Jim but it would be interesting to also look at how many days it is to the following start based on how many days it was between your previous starts. Coming back in three days might have a good success rate but if it then takes on average of 60 days to make your next start it might not be so good of an idea.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Not sure if your database can do this Jim but it would be interesting to also look at how many days it is to the following start based on how many days it was between your previous starts. Coming back in three days might have a good success rate but if it then takes on average of 60 days to make your next start it might not be so good of an idea.

yeah I've thought about that and agree it would be interesting to follow patterns like that. however at the moment I don't know of any way to track the days for a horse over multiple starts. I'm sure there's a way to do it if you spend enough time on it.