BC 20-20 results

[Kennedy]

For years now I have used statistical profiles as a way to handicap the Breeders' Cup. I've called this project the 20-20.

Profiling horses for specific races is not always effective and the main reason is because in any given race nearly all of the horses are entered with different goals. Some are coming back from a layoff. Some are at the end of their form cycle. Some are being raised in class, others dropped in class. A specific race may have been the target of a particular horse while another might be using it as a prep. With so many different types of intentions from the connections it is impossible to build a successful profile. However the Breeders Cup doesn’t have those same variables. All horses who enter it are pointed specifically for it. No one uses it as a prep and it is almost never an after thought. Everyone comes up to the race in the manner that they feel gives them the best chance for success. Consequently we are able to identify and isolate those patterns and combine them into a profile.

None of the factors included are jinx or myth. There is no quantifiable reason why a certain horse would not be able to win a Breeders Cup race simply because he won a certain “jinxed” prep race, or because his name starts with a certain letter. Every single factor must be aimed at identifying six key ingredients to winning: Speed, Fitness, Current Form, Class, Experience and Suitability to the conditions.

The factors for each Breeders Cup race are unique to that race. As you might expect one requires different qualifications from a possible Breeders Cup Turf winner than one would a Juvenile winner. However some of the factors do overlap.

Most handicappers will tell you that value is the only way to have long term success. But the Profile of a Winner does not seek to identify value. It seeks to identify the winner. Having the winner in every race is actually your best chance for success. The trick is getting the winner. Most people consider a 30% win rate to be good, at that percentage one still needs to aid of value to be profitable, however this system identifies winners are more than twice that percentage. The starting price has nothing to do with the winners profiles because you don’t need to look for value when you are successful that often.

Anyway I have run through the PP's and come up with the horses that fit the profiles for their respective BC races this year and they are listed below.

Juvenile Fillies
Tell a Kelly
Theyskens' Theory

FM Turf
Midday
Hot Cha Cha

Ladies Classic
Havre de Grace
Malibu Prayer
Life At Ten

Sprint
Big Drama
Girolamo
Atta Boy Roy

Mile
Goldikova
Proviso

Juvenile
Uncle Mo

Turf
Workforce
Behkabad

Classic
Zenyatta
Quality Road
Haynesfield

18 horses from 8 races as there are no profiles available for any of the new BC races. It will be interesting to see how they do this year.

[raven]

good job!

[peeptoad]

Thanks for posting Kennedy... I always like reviewing the 20-20.

Are the horses listed the "perfect qualifiers" only? (i.e. no "red boxes"?)

[Kennedy]

Thanks for posting Kennedy... I always like reviewing the 20-20.

Are the horses listed the "perfect qualifiers" only? (i.e. no "red boxes"?)

Yeah, just the perfect qualifiers.

[peeptoad]

Yeah, just the perfect qualifiers.

Thanks. Good to see that Proviso qualifies... I'm going to use her and I think she's one of the few who may actually be able to beat Goldi. All reports say she's training like gangbusters too.

[MonmouthGuy]

thanks. i always enjoy reading.

[gravano]

I'm also not a big fan of value capping. Even if the proportions are skewed maybe in an illogical way, you still have to pick the winner. Perhaps there's an elaborate hedging system out there that knows when to hunt and when not to, but just picking winners is enough of a tax on my mental skills.

[Jeff]

K, your 20-20 analysis is always worth serious consideration. Thanks.

[Kennedy]

Juvenile Fillies
Tell a Kelly - 6th
Theyskens' Theory - 7th

FM Turf
Midday - 2nd $3.20 $2.20
Hot Cha Cha - 5th

Ladies Classic
Havre de Grace - 3rd $4.00
Malibu Prayer - 10th
Life At Ten - DNF

Sprint
Big Drama - 1st $12.40 $7.00 $5.00
Girolamo - 11th
Atta Boy Roy - 10th

Mile
Goldikova - 1st $4.60 $3.20 $2.40
Proviso - 7th

Juvenile
Uncle Mo - 1st $4.80 $3.40 $2.60

Turf
Workforce - scratched
Behkabad - 3rd $2.40

Classic
Zenyatta - 2nd $3.60 $2.80
Quality Road - 12th
Haynesfield - 11th

17-3-2-2 -$12.20 (-35.88%)

It wound up being the worst Breeders' Cup on record for the 20-20. Just 3 winners from 17 qualifiers in 8 races. The only other negative year was in 2008 where it was just -$2.20. Overall it still shows a 127% profitability but it is a worrying trend that it has now lost money twice in the last 3 years after having always been positive since 1996.

Awesome Feather, Dangerous Midge and Blame all had just one statistical category against them. Unrivaled Belle had two against her and Shared Account had 3.

[Matt Converse]

17-3-2-2 -$12.20 (-35.88%)

It wound up being the worst Breeders' Cup on record for the 20-20. Just 3 winners from 17 qualifiers in 8 races. The only other negative year was in 2006 where it was just -$2.20. Overall it still shows a 127% profitability but it is a worrying trend that it has now lost money twice in the last 3 years after having always been positive since 1996.

Awesome Feather, Dangerous Midge and Blame all had just one statistical category against them. Unrivaled Belle had two against her and Shared Account had 3.

You had bad luck in two races. Who knows how well Life at Ten would have done, it definitely would have been a different race with her in there, she might have won or possibly helped Blind Luck's chances. The other bad luck could have really hurt you because he was a nice price, but is more of a question mark. That was Atta Boy Roy. I loved his chances, he was poised at the top of the stretch and I think would have been first or second. He bumped the horse to his inside and started to fall back after that. I still haven't heard if he had a cut or slight injury of some kind. But he was never the same after that bump. Tell a Kelly was a bit of bad luck too as she looked a very good play until she arrived in CD and didn't like the track.

[gravano]

Might not be enough data, but how far back can you go with your 20-20? I'd be interested in seeing if there is any type of race the 20-20 is better at predicting, e.g. turf vs. dirt, route vs. sprint.

[Kennedy]

Might not be enough data, but how far back can you go with your 20-20? I'd be interested in seeing if there is any type of race the 20-20 is better at predicting, e.g. turf vs. dirt, route vs. sprint.

I have complete data from 1996 to the present and partial data for 84', 85', 94' and 95'.

Using just the complete data I have 117 BC races on record. There were only perfect qualifiers in 114 of those races. Overall the perfect qualifiers have won 85 (74%) of those events and a $2 win wager on all 277 qualifiers would have made you 127.62% ROI.

As I mentioned prior there has only been two BC's where wagering equal amounts on the perfect qualifiers would have lost you money (2008 and 2010)

The least profitable race is the Juvenile Fillies. The profit margin is just 23% although it has still come up with the winner 11 out of 15 times (73%).

The Turf and the Sprint have the worst winning percentage at 10 for 15 (66%).

The most profitable race is the Mile with a 274% ROI and the most accurate races are the Mile, Juvenile with 13 winners from 15 runnings (86%)

[peeptoad]

17-3-2-2 -$12.20 (-35.88%)
The only other negative year was in 2006 where it was just -$2.20.

Interestingly (or maybe not), that year was also at Churchill...

[Kennedy]

Interestingly (or maybe not), that year was also at Churchill...

It was a mistype, the losing year was in 2008 at Santa Anita.

[gravano]

Well now we know why you're such a fan of the mile.

[peeptoad]

It was a mistype, the losing year was in 2008 at Santa Anita.

Ah... well, you can blame that on the synthetic then.

[Kennedy]

Ah... well, you can blame that on the synthetic then.

And I can almost blame this one on Blame

[second_glance]

You had bad luck in two races. Who knows how well Life at Ten would have done, it definitely would have been a different race with her in there, she might have won or possibly helped Blind Luck's chances. The other bad luck could have really hurt you because he was a nice price, but is more of a question mark. That was Atta Boy Roy. I loved his chances, he was poised at the top of the stretch and I think would have been first or second. He bumped the horse to his inside and started to fall back after that. I still haven't heard if he had a cut or slight injury of some kind. But he was never the same after that bump. Tell a Kelly was a bit of bad luck too as she looked a very good play until she arrived in CD and didn't like the track.

As per the vet later: “He has sustained a mild injury of the medial branch of the suspensory ligament.” A good bump very likely could have contributed to or caused that.

[Kennedy]

Well now we know why you're such a fan of the mile.

Cart before the horse. I loved the Mile the before the 20-20. I just think it's an exciting race and the perfect blend of speed and stamina. It's not a race for sprinters but they are really flying most of the way around. You see great acceleration often nifty moves and a ton of wonderful finishes. The BC Mile rocks!

[Kennedy]

As an aside I started working on the 20-20 in 2002 and it wasn't in it's final form until 2006. So in 5 live runnings the profile has had 2 losing years after having no losing years based on 10 years of back data. This is one of the problems with a system like this. It's always going to look great with the back data, it was developed using that data. The real test is once it goes live.

It's live record is 91 qualifiers in 39 races. The ROI is +49.12% and it has lost money in 2 of 5 runnings. The winning percentage is 58% (23 of 39). So clearly it has not done as well in real life but it's still an interesting project.