- This topic has 81 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
As i understand it, Razogin is saying a horse is a possible "bounce" candidate after a big effort, big move forward in numbers that goes off a short price next time and if it gets beat under performing , bounce has took place
You can say Cesare "bounced" in Celebration mile using Razogin’s theory and Topspeed figs, as he ran his best figure in Summer Mile, went off short fav next time, but got stuffed , running a far lower speedfigure than the Celebration Mile
You can apply the same theory to Twist Magic too using OR’s, Topspeed and RPR’s, big move forward in numbers in Tingle, short price next time and stuffed.
Tamarinbleu could probably qualify as a possible bounce candidate if going off at short odds next time, though you can argue, he, like Twist Magic in Tingle Creek and Cesare in Summer Mile didn’t overexert themselves
Razogins term bounce would apply to horses like Fondness, but the term seems a general description for horses he identified and his Sheet users identify as what most in the UK would probably call good lays, or false favourites after race analysis has took place
Bounce occurs pretty regular if my interpretation of what Razogin terms bounce or a bounce candidate is correct
In other words if a horse runs poorly next time, for one of the 101 possible reasons that a horse can run poorly, that is "bounce"? Which is good enough for this particularly brand of bounce devotee. Notwithstanding the fact that these horses may be outnumbered by horses that don’t bounce. Maybe whoever is judging these things just may have got the numbers wrong? John Whitley’s ratings (end of season) showed Cesare running to exactly the same rating 116 in the Summer Mile and the Celebration Mile.
My understanding of the term "bounce" is as last explained by LetsGetRacing. As expected not a shred of useful evidence has been put forward. Robnorth’s Adrian Massey stats are about the interval between coming 1st or 2nd and the degree of success in the next race, and are nothing to do with return after a long lay-off.
Blackheath
That’s not true! My stats involve horses which have had one run within the last 90 days. The key figures involve those who have had are returning swiftly for a second run quickly after a lay-off. I used horses first and second because they are likely to have run at or near their best, and particularly in the case of handicappers to have improved on their best. If one of these horses has run within the last 14 days then by inference it must ahve had a lay-off of 76 days plus. I included figures for all periods since last run as a comparison.
Being the one who made some effort to measure the effect I resent the fact that you see fit to dismiss this is one sentence.
Rob
Blackheath
You need to think like Razogin or a US handicapper betting into pools
Had Razogin or one of his theory followers analyzed 2007 BC turf they may have had Dylan Thomas as a bounce candidate even though he was best horse in race
In Arc, he ran a big number, had a tough race and probably overexerted himself, and runs 20 days later as a 4-5 favourite
This makes him what the US handicappers call a throw out, so they look elsewhere in race and say land on next best horse English Channel
English Channel wins, DT is deemed to have bounced – the bounce theory at work
Bounce is just one of the excuses that I use when a particularly heavy bet I have placed heads south.
It usually occurs after the horse has run a blinder first time out and when in my analysis i didn’t even look at it and I wasn’t on it, it then proceeds to piss up. I put the offending beast into the mental notebook as everyone on the telly was going on about what a great training performance it was to bring it back after a layoff for ages and ages.
Next time I am all over it like a rash. When said beast fails, I always need a rational explanation to cover any inadequacies in my evaluation technique. I first discovered it (bounce) when another guy I was with had backed the same horse as me- I was angry and full of frustration, but he knew about bounce and explained it all to me – I felt better almost immediately.Other good excuses I keep close and at my disposal are ;
They have harrowed the sand to deep/not deep enough – delete as appropriate
They were not even trying then, todays not the day
He whipped it too much/not enough – delete as appropriate.
Trainers a bent baasterd.
That fecking jockey is useless he could find a pocket in his underpants
My grandma could have rode that ****** better, he never moved an inch.I find that these reasons (broadly)cover most of my losing bets. I have a name for it, O’Malleys LAW.
Blackheath
That’s not true! My stats involve horses which have had one run within the last 90 days. The key figures involve those who have had are returning swiftly for a second run quickly after a lay-off. I used horses first and second because they are likely to have run at or near their best, and particularly in the case of handicappers to have improved on their best. If one of these horses has run within the last 14 days then by inference it must ahve had a lay-off of 76 days plus. I included figures for all periods since last run as a comparison.
Being the one who made some effort to measure the effect I resent the fact that you see fit to dismiss this is one sentence.
Rob
Sorry Rob. Up to 90 days is not a long layoff though.
But if the figures are used as a test of the widest definition of bounce, then as you have pointed out they tend to disprove it. The winning percentage climbs the faster the horses are brought back after finishing 1st or 2nd following a short layoff. There are so many questions left unanswered though that one would doubt if this is evidence of anything other than fit horses run best.
- Total Posts 17716
Cesare didn’t ‘bounce’, the Goodwood mile simply wasn’t a stiff enough test.It’s no coincidence that he often ran, and indeed put up all his best performances, over a stiffer 1m. Even then, he often needed every yard to assert.
Neither did Twist Magic, in his case for the opposite reason. Although he lasted home at Sandown (just), all of his form points to his being better given a lesser test, and the strong Ascot pace set by Tamarinbleu saw him palpably weaken in the closing stages.
Dylan Thomas simply wasn’t the same horse on a soft surface.
As with most cases of assumed ‘bounce’, there is usually a solid and logical explanation in the formbook, though it’s often easier to assume illogical phenomena at work but, if it defies logic as imo the ‘bounce theory’ does, then it almost certainly isn’t the truth.reet
though you can argue, he, like Twist Magic in Tingle Creek and Cesare in Summer Mile didn’t overexert themselves
Dylan Thomas was a prime candidate for Razogins Bounce theory, the ground on BC night made him an even bigger "bounce" candidate
There was a chap on here a while back who had studied the training of athletes and made some interesting comparisons between that and training horses. Perhaps he (or she) might read this and join the discussion.
I have come to this thread rather late, so I don’t think that I can add very much to the wealth of what has already been said, but here is my pennyworth!
The problem with terms like ‘the bounce’ is that they can be used as catch alls, meaning that irrespective of the actual reason for a lack of consistency between two recent performances, we can call it ‘the bounce’ and that is that. If we could reach a consensus about the scope and meaning of the term, we could then look to the stats to arbitrate.
After any race there is a risk of injury, whether for horse or human. It is always going to be more likely that we will know if a human athlete is feeling ok, because we can ask. Even so, there remains some uncertainty. On the other side of the coin there is often a sharpness that only comes from competition and that sharpness can be an important factor in subsequent performances.
I don’t have the numbers to hand but I am pretty sure that track athletes, at least at the top level, are frequently highly consistent in their performances, long winning/placed runs are not uncommon. There is of course a bias at play, in that the human athlete may choose not to compete when he or she feels they are likely to under-perform. There is also another opposite bias, not always obvious to the casual TV viewer, which is that the media often hypes the chances of an athlete to levels well beyond what they are capable of. When they subsequently fail to perform to the ‘expected’ level there is disappointment, at least amongst the ranks of the badly informed. Some of the regular BBC athletics experts are particularly ‘good’ at over-hyping British athletes.
Hi
I’m with Blackheath on this for bounce interpretation. Rob’s figures are not for a big enough layoff and will include a lot early season horses not ones returning from a long injury lay offWell, I’m out now.
We’ll get nowhere with this, imo.
In Charlie D’s quote about Ragozin, the inventor of the term "bounce", I can find no mention of a long lay-off, never mind a quantification of how many days.
However, I assumed all along that a lay-off was the prerequisite of peaking and bouncing. Perhaps it isn’t.
Personally, whenever I hear of a "peak" being reached, I expect a bit of downhill to follow; not a plateau; not another "peak" on top of a "peak".
Good luck to any who make the theory pay. As far as I can tell, theory is all it is, but if it helps, then fair enough.
I’ll leave it for those who understand.
I, too, have come to this thread very late in the day. For what it’s worth, this was my pennyworth on the Bounce Theory a couple of weeks ago:
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing … 60108.html
Strictly speaking, I should be a "Yes" the bounce factor exists. But I am sceptical about the utility of that knowledge to punters and racing professionals, most of whom seem incapable of converting it into a credible theory.
So I will abstain.
You beat me to it, Prufrock. I was going to post your piece last night but got turfed off the computer!
The comparison with athletes is an interesting one. I’ve coached athletes at county level and also competed and still compete myself. I want to stress that I’m a Class 6 type, rather than bold type but I’ll carry on…
If after a lay off I return to training, or indeed racing, there’s a rush of adrenalin and excitement that can sometimes get you through a session/race. When I look at the figures, I sometimes try and work out where I should be in a few weeks/months time. However, the second session back is often very, very difficult. The anticipated improvement after the initial session doesn’t often materialise. Now, maybe this is simply because of two races/sessions in a short space of time after a long lay off.
Planning your training sensibly should take this into account – but it’s hard working it out. I think it’s something to do with "expected" improvement. If you take a longer term view of things, maybe the improvement will come. However, a horse running after, let’s say, 400 days and then running again three weeks later has a great stress placed upon it. The pervious 399 days – no racing, just training. The next 21, training, probably intensively, and two races should take a lot out of the horse. Maybe it’s worthwhile looking at how a horse performs in the next three/four runs rather than the one after the comeback.
There’s a whole other discussion available about how horses are trained and, in my opinion, the lack of science behind the training, but that’s another thread.
Sorry, I’ve not really helped in this discussion!
2nd run back does it exist doesn’t it exist?…….only way you could say it did or if it didn’t if all horses had exactly the same make up and had the same frame of mind. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.
Horse A. is a fairly excitable animal and can wait to go racing again…blood pumping fit as a fiddle adrenalin going he runs a super race and wins. A few weeks later he’s back racing but hey "I done this before stuff it" not the same excitement for him and runs a flat one…………Horse B doesn’t think the same as horse A, he’s a calmer more collective type who does it all as it comes………horses are like people some are 100% genuine and always try their best others do it when it comes up their hump……..really don’t see anything complicated about that………..so the answer is:-
Does it exist? Yes
Does it exist? No
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.