Is the "Intent" Handicapping Variable What's Driving Up Chalk Win Rates?

Handicapping horse racing would be pretty easy if the fastest horse won every race, but betting what horse is the fastest in this race, on this day, is our main goal. 

To find that horse we can use intent handicapping factors, and they can include basics like a rider or driver change, a drop in class, or an addition of lasix. 

Finding hidden intent factors - that is, things that aren't in the PP's - can be a holy grail for us. Long ago, bike changes in harness racing was one that could particularly yield fruit. 

Also in yesteryear, there would be information outside the form that we'd get while at the track. 

I, and I'm sure many of you, would hear that a horse was ready. The trainer got some vet work done, and the hock that was bugging him was on tip top shape. The horse in training blew away a top horse in the barn on Wednesday afternoon. 

Oftentimes we'd hear this and look up and the horse we figured was 10-1 was 7 or 8-1. It would close at 6 and win going away to pay $14. Many times you'd squeeze an exotic bet in that would pay, because every pool wasn't covered. 

These horses of course exist today just like they always have. But while I'd get this information at ten minutes to post, run over to a friend and whisper what I heard, dissemination is much, much different. 

In fact, these tidbits could've been texted 500 times over the previous two days. 

The horse that was 10-1 is not 6-1, but likely opens at 9-5. It may be chalk or second choice in the pick 3. And, in 2025, when the CAW live play algos catch this, they factor it in as well, driving down the price only as they can when you pay 5% win juice. 

One simple bit of "hidden" intent information in 2025, with cellphones, being able to easily bet multiple bets (exotics and otherwise) on your ADW, and in the age of so little public money in the pools, snowballs into a whole lot of hammered horses. #theyknew horses were #theyknews because #theyknew. 

It doesn't mean these horses always win; just like 25 years ago they didn't either. But I'd argue with some of these horses, it has become as obvious an intent factor in the pools as a driver change in 1994. 

There's a lot of reason for the sharper lines we see today and surely the computer wagering is a big part. But hidden intent factors that aren't as hidden in the modern game in my view are pouring a lot of gasoline on that fire. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Three Things Harness Racing Judges Can Learn from the Thoroughbreds

Judging in horse racing is subjective, imperfect, maddening, and many times an unenviable task. But it's a big part of this sport and I think, like with other sports, it should evolve and continually try to improve. 

In many ways I believe judging in the thoroughbreds has improved over time; they've added some logic, reason and guardrails to the imperfect. It's not perfect, but I believe it's getting better. 

Typing that I believe the thoroughbred stews aren't too bad at their jobs might get me blocked and reported on the twitter, but yes. I believe there are several things our harness racing judges can learn from them. I'll list a few here. 

Tic Tacs

Thoroughbred judging deals with an immutable truth about this sport we all play or participate in - with thousand pound animals going full speed around two turns in big fields, stuff is going to happen. 

There's variance, there's path adjustments and bumping and all the rest. It's just the way it is. And unless something is egregious, the horse is staying up. 

Nowhere is this more apparent than the start. The start is a particularly violent event, where fractious horses, ready to go at top speed immediately can hammer the hell out of each other. 99.9% of starts aren't even looked at because they're a part of the game. 

Harness racing could not be judged more in the exact opposite way. Every horse is expected to have wide berths. Every driver and horse are expected to keep perfect straight line paths. 

If a horse breaks in front of another horse and a driver pulls a horses head sideways costing him a foot, bye bye to the breaking horse, even if he wins by 25 and the offended horse loses by 50. A horse simply making another horse veer off a straight line course is considered a violation. 

Harness racing, because of race bikes and the threat of accident surely should be called closer than thir runner cousins. But, it's bonkers just how close the game is called. The judges leave nothing to be desired when it comes to the vagaries of the game. 

Angles are Imperfect, Hence it Better be Clear

In thoroughbred racing they are loathe to throw out a winner unless the evidence a foul occurred is pretty overwhelming. One of the reasons for this is the available angles on replay. 

Just like in hockey replay (before the camera was placed directly on the goal line, it was pretty impossible to tell if a puck crossed the goal line), in racing we're dealing with a pan shot that might be at a 15 or 40 degree angle to an infraction, and the head on doesn't show depth.  

Was the hole there? Did this horse crowd another? Unless you have a drone shot directly over an infraction, you might never know for sure. In harness racing, judges seem to happily guess, and then revert to the tic tac point above. 

Thoroughbred Stews let the Jocks Jock

Racing is (or should be) a tactical game, and it's ruthless. 

When Fierceness had the rail recently at Saratoga everyone thought he'd have trouble being pinned in. Right on cue (the jocks read Marcus Hersh or read Tinky posts) not one but two jocks race-rode him into the rail. They knew they had a job to do to win that race, and they also knew they weren't getting pitched for a tic tac for a tactical ride. 

Jocks show a lane, then close it. They drift to show a horse an oncoming one. They're allowed to, well, be jockeys with a functioning brain. The best at it get paid millions. 

In harness racing if a driver briefly and tactically shows a hole and the following driver is dumb enough to try and take it and it gets shut, you're likely tossed. If he (rare at Mohawk that's for sure) swings three high early because they're walking and a horse behind him tosses his head, (because that horse's driver doesn't have a clock in his head) it's a tic tac toss. 

In thoroughbred racing, riding brilliance is respected, in harness racing, driving brilliance can get you suspended. 

I remember a bunch of years ago now it was Breeders Cup Saturday and I bet a horse in a turf race where (it mighta been Goldikova) the rider forced his way out, because a horse beside her was dying and wouldn't get out of the way. The judges didn't even look at it. 

Later that evening I made a bet at the Meadowlands on a horse that I thought was super-talented but completely wonky. He was being driven for the first time by Yannick Gingras, who even then showed no fear with such horses. The horse was 5-2 and Yannick set sail. Leading at the half by six he went offstride and immediately pulled right. The driver of the horse six back in second, veered out, not because he had to, but because he got scared. 

Yannick, with the driving brilliance we see nightly with him now, got back on stride, swooped the field and won by five in a completely remarkable performance. 

The Meadowlands judges tossed him, because of the actions of the driver six lengths behind him who got scared. 

Harness racing and thoroughbred racing has to be judged differently. But to me anyway, the gap is too large. And harness racing has to move more towards the thoroughbreds, not the other way around. 

Have a great Monday everyone

Saratoga & Economic Realism

Happy Monday everyone.

There's quite a bit of twitter chatter about Saratoga this past weekend; about both its meagre attendance numbers, and its stout YoY handle for the Belmont (at Saratoga, which isn't usually at Saratoga) racing festival. 

I, like everyone, loved the Saratoga meet of years past. Six days a week, very, very good horses, riders and trainers plying their trade, even on a Wednesday; and strong attendance numbers, with happy racegoers wanting to be a part of the spectacle. 

I also, like most of you, enjoyed Sunday afternoon football, the specialness of Thanksgiving Day football games; Wild card weekend over my Christmas holidays, ending the season before January 15th. 

I enjoyed the pennant run; a sport where for a bazillion years 162 games were enough to decide who the four best teams were. And baseball ending before my birthday each year, so much so, that I could go outside and practice my Kent Tekulve throwing motion in my backyard in the tundra during the playoffs; where remarkably there was no snow on the ground yet. 

I enjoyed the NHL playoffs where the Stanley Cup Final ended while there was still ice on the lakes, Saturday at 8PM puck drops were the staple; March Madness when I actually knew what time the games were going to be played and what network they were on. 

Watered down Saratoga is, as they say, just the way it is. It's just how things are done. 

Saratoga is not about the past, the tradition, the fans, the horses, the events or making it special. It's CAW and handle per entry; it's CAC and ROE and P and L and all the other neat acronyms they teach us in business school. And it's just catching up to everyone else. 

Have a great Monday everyone.