Forums

Horse Racing

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
THE-FEENIX
04 Feb 11 19:47
Joined:
Date Joined: 23 Jan 11
| Topic/replies: 958 | Blogger: THE-FEENIX's blog
Keep hearing this and not sure what it means.

TY
Share |
Pause Switch to Standard View What does "Bounce Factor" mean
Show More
Loading...
Report TINnotaTON February 4, 2011 8:52 PM GMT
usuall term for horses that run well after a long absence, then may not repeat the form on its next run
Report Zsa_Zsa_Gabors_Leg February 4, 2011 8:52 PM GMT
Are you 'The Grimster'??
Report Leroy Jethro Gibbs February 4, 2011 8:54 PM GMT
its the main pre requisite of a wet t shirt competition
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 8:59 PM GMT
Nothing its a myth with no scientific basis, and can be used by trainers as a convenient excuse as to why their horse ran deplorably, because the dopes they call stewards will except any old bull as an excuse.

Its suppose to mean something like this, when a horse comes back after an extended break and wins (often gambled) or runs well and then in his next race he runs poorly, they say he bounced, when in fact the real truth is the trainer more than likely totally eased off the training of the horse because they bagged the money after landing mighty gamble from his comeback run, hypothetical of course.

How come many horses have won the guineas on their first run back after been rested for long periods over the winter months and keep their form right through the season?.
Bounce is yet another one of racings many myths with no basis on fact.
Report ILOVEJOKER February 4, 2011 8:59 PM GMT
when a horse has not run for a year or more. after having his first run back if he runs again within a month of that run the horse is likely to bounce.
Report pete_de February 4, 2011 9:13 PM GMT
I think leroy has the best answer so farCool
Report THE-FEENIX February 4, 2011 9:14 PM GMT
THX !

Who the hell is The Grimster ?
@ Zsa_Zsa_Gabors_Leg Confused
Report TheHonestScouser February 4, 2011 9:17 PM GMT
Take no notice of the above

It's the fatties version of the X Factor
Report pete_de February 4, 2011 9:18 PM GMT
FEENIX  you must have plenty of cards to keep coming back like you do Laugh
Report THE-FEENIX February 4, 2011 9:19 PM GMT
who the feck are do Pete ?
Report pete_de February 4, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
?
Report Sunset Cristo February 4, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
Nothing its a myth with no scientific basis, and can be used by trainers as a convenient excuse as to why their horse ran deplorably, because the dopes they call stewards will except any old bull as an excuse.

Its suppose to mean something like this, when a horse comes back after an extended break and wins (often gambled) or runs well and then in his next race he runs poorly, they say he bounced, when in fact the real truth is the trainer more than likely totally eased off the training of the horse because they bagged the money after landing mighty gamble from his comeback run, hypothetical of course.

How come many horses have won the guineas on their first run back after been rested for long periods over the winter months and keep their form right through the season?.
Bounce is yet another one of racings many myths with no basis on fact
.


It's not a myth. There is statistical evidence that backs it up. I also know from my own experience of exercising at the gym. If I don't go for a few weeks the first time back I'm ok ,but if I then go the next day I'm aching and I can't perform the same degree. Just common sense if you think about it.
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
No sunset, these horses were been trained constantly at home on the lead up to their first run after a break, thats why they were fit enough to win first time after that break, so its just a matter of keeping them ticking over after that.
Think about it?
Report Sunset Cristo February 4, 2011 9:35 PM GMT
Some horses run better after a break. Each horse is an individual.A proper race will always take more out of a horse than they any training they they do at home.
Report MAXEYCAGE February 4, 2011 9:42 PM GMT
THE RACE LEROY WAS ON ABOUT,WHAT TIME AM THEY OFF ?
Report blackbarn February 4, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
silvergreaser - the bane of any pub trivia team - the archetypal authoritative guesser. The world is full of them!!.  "Bounce" factor is surprisingly well reported and documented for your average "myth".  Check it out.
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
Too much evidence to the contrary for me to take the bounce "excuse" as fact, and neither should the authorities, because as it stands it has no scientific basis because there is none, and believe me they've tried and failed to prove its existence, and yet its still excepted in many quarters as fact which has me tearing my hair out.

Take Rock of Gibraltor for instance, he's rested over the winter after a hefty 2yr old campaign, and then re-appears about 7 months later in a proper race called the guineas, wins, then turns out a couple of weeks later and absolutely hoses up in the Irish equivalent and goes on to win many more Group 1's, Simple really he was got fit at home and was kept ticking over at that level of fitness for the rest of the season, and of course it helped to have a little bit of class.
The guineas offers you  many more examples similar to Rock of Gibraltor, or are Group 1 horses different? as they never seem to bounce.

If you ease off on a horses training and run them a few weeks later then expect them to not run the same race twice.
Report wizards_sleeve February 4, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
got to say never trusted the "bounce factor" if a horse comes back after a long lay off and wins then next time out runs abysmally i don't see why. but in saying that some pundits must believe in such a thing to mention it time and again. would be interesting to see a table of stats though.
Report Mr Mischief February 4, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
You could argue that MIKAEL D´HAGUENET is a good example of a horse who many believe 'bounced' lto. After a long absence, he was all set to stroll home on his reappearance at Fairyhouse, easily accounting for the likes of Jessys dream and Realt Dubh only to slip on landing the final fence. He then followed that run with a stinker back at Leopordstown
He's running again at Leopordstown on Sunday(hot fav) so worth a look as regards the theory imho
Report Tiger Tiger February 4, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
The 'bounce' factor is a term that came from the racing fraternity in the USA and regards horses running a second time, within 15 days, following a period of long lay off.  There is and always has been evidence that horses were liable to 'bounce' under theses circumstances although it does not apply to every horse. In this day and age you find that most trainers give their horse a break of more than 15 days following the horses first run back.
Report blackbarn February 4, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
Stats easily available, wizards. Just look. Also silvergreaser has some evidence evidently.
Report blackbarn February 4, 2011 10:29 PM GMT
Tiger. respectfully STFU - introducing fact-based opinion is damaging on certain freds
on here.
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
All we have is anecdotal evidence and not one bit of statistical evidence, unless someone produces statistical evidence it should remain what it currently is a Myth"
Report Sunset Cristo February 4, 2011 10:44 PM GMT
Too much evidence to the contrary for me to take the bounce "excuse" as fact, and neither should the authorities, because as it stands it has no scientific basis because there is none, and believe me they've tried and failed to prove its existence, and yet its still excepted in many quarters as fact which has me tearing my hair out.

Take Rock of Gibraltor for instance, he's rested over the winter after a hefty 2yr old campaign, and then re-appears about 7 months later in a proper race called the guineas, wins, then turns out a couple of weeks later and absolutely hoses up in the Irish equivalent



Of course there are exceptions. there are exceptions to every rule. Like I say every horse is different, but as a general rule of thumb it holds true.

and goes on to win many more Group 1's, Simple really he was got fit at home and was kept ticking over at that level of fitness for the rest of the season, and of course it helped to have a little bit of class.
The guineas offers you  many more examples similar to Rock of Gibraltor, or are Group 1 horses different? as they never seem to bounce.

If you ease off on a horses training and run them a few weeks later then expect them to not run the same race twice.
Report Sunset Cristo February 4, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
got to say never trusted the "bounce factor" if a horse comes back after a long lay off and wins then next time out runs abysmally i don't see why


read my posts.
Report lordnoise February 4, 2011 10:47 PM GMT
Wots Pitsburgh Phil and Flatstats have to say on this ? Anyone know ?
Report harcon February 4, 2011 10:56 PM GMT
I think that when originally coined in the US, it was a term that meant a horse would recoil and perform badly if it ran again soon after a career-best effort, regardless of whether that career-best run came off an absence. Si it could have five runs in ten weeks, say, then on the sixth start run a huge career-best, and 'bounce' on its next start. In Britain, the term has evolved somewhat to mean that when a horse runs big off a long absence, it performs well below that run on its second start back.
Report J0KER February 4, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
The real term "bounce factor" was derived from when you are "tubbing" a fat tart.

If you are knocking her back doors in on all fours you have to time your thrusts between her belly rolling back and forth ...if you get the timing wrong you "bounce" right of and then have to start the "docking" process all over again.

If she is a 20 stone + salad dodger then docking is not that easy hence the term " watch out for the bounce factor "

HTH

Report blackbarn February 4, 2011 11:01 PM GMT
silver - To quote you earlier - "Think about it".

silver - The believers either buy into the myth and/or have the statistics they need to profitably leverage this ridiculously irrational phenomenon.

Lots of folks have differing views on this subject....You are a perfect example...
at 22.06 tonight your view was - "too much evidence to the contrary for me" followed 37 minutes later by "all we have is anecdotal evidence, not one bit of statistical evidence"

Are you going to be posting any statistical evidence to support your "myth" assertion?
Report Sunset Cristo February 4, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
PP said this. Don't know if he ever got round to doing the research.


I'd say it would depend on the breeding and the trainers methods. Some horses may be more resilient than others, some trainers may over work a lay off runner more than others.

Before I generate a report some terms need to be defined.

1. How long a lay off? 3 months, 6 months, a year?
2. What is a good run? The standard Flatstats definition of a good run, or a win by 5 lengths?

There will be different results depending on the above criteria and this I think is also a reason why the 'bounce factor exists' / 'bounce factor does not exist'. There is no consistency with the values and thus it is easier for media pundits to say A Horse bounced after a race is run.


http://www.flatstats.co.uk/ppp/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12226
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
Blackbarn I think I did as regards 2000 guineas winners coming back from a long winter hibernation and then going straight to the race without any prep, and then running again at the Curragh a few weeks later and doubling up, obviously not suffering any side effects from two quick runs back.
Report silvergreaser February 4, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
Did anyone stop to think why a horse runs deplorably after bolting up after the long layoff, that it might just have something to do with the trainer?, because his horse got a hefty 10lb rise in the weights, the bounce factor can then be used as a convenient tool to explain away the horses atrocious run.
Report blackbarn February 4, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
Silver - Bounce is not usually used for the usual seasonal gap between 2 and 3, but I'll go (for now) with your theory.

I missed your stats on the 2000 guineas winners that do not support the "bounce" theory. Which ones were they again?. Do you have the data for the ones that did "bounce" or are your stats limited to those that support your rejection of the "myth".

Any data you have gratefully received. Thanks
Report EastLower Gooner February 5, 2011 12:04 AM GMT
In my experience the bounce factor is genuine and significant handicap that horses must face. The only ones I've known to have defied it ie won after a massive layoff then showed up within 2 to 3 weeks to attempt to win again and did have been horses who have had a clear and substantial class superiority of the field and the more often than not went on to bigger and better races.

I could cite plenty of examples to back up my claim but cant be bothered. you'll just have to trust me and take note of horses defying the bounce as class race horses next time.
Report silvergreaser February 5, 2011 12:05 AM GMT
Blacbarn, regardless whether its a seasonal gap (be it 3yr olds or older horses) or just an enforced sabbatical, they're all coming back from long lay offs, I can't see the difference?.
All you have to do is look at how top class horses who win or perform well in the guineas or other big races on their racecourse return hold their form remarkably well.
Just wikipedia the 2000 guineas, English and Irish and see how many horses have won both or won one of them and placed in the other, or placed in both etc, might sound simplistic but I believe its hard evidence to disprove the myth that is the "bounce factor".

The ones most likely to "so call" bounce are the less talented horses who go the handicap route because the trainer decides I'd rather shed a few of those pounds the handicapper decided to lump on my beasts back after winning first time out coming back from that long lay off, but yet there are many examples of less talented horses extremely well handicapped coming back from long lay offs and running up a sequence, until the handicapper eventually catches up with them, these horses often running every second week?.
Report TheHonestScouser February 5, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
What a thread.  Sure the guy that put this up was looking for a bit of fun & somehow it's turned in to a nerd's paradise. 

Some folk on here need to have a good look at themselves. Reading some responses I bet their wives are having a belting night
Report silvergreaser February 5, 2011 12:33 AM GMT
I see you're having a belting night with your wife scouser, posting on the Betfair forum?.

As for nerds?, the OP asked about the bounce factor and the thread turned into a debate about it, can't see the problem?
Report blackbarn February 5, 2011 12:39 AM GMT
honest _ I am up your wife as we speak and will be responding to silver as soon as I have finished>

nb My post above is of course a very silly and irrational thread but it has the benefit of far more relevance to the subject in question that yours> Go to bed!!
Report Sunset Cristo February 5, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
Blackbarn I think I did as regards 2000 guineas winners coming back from a long winter hibernation and then going straight to the race without any prep, and then running again at the Curragh a few weeks later and doubling up, obviously not suffering any side effects from two quick runs back.


This is known as anecdotal evidence, not statistical evidence.
Report Sunset Cristo February 5, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
Did anyone stop to think why a horse runs deplorably after bolting up after the long layoff, that it might just have something to do with the trainer?, because his horse got a hefty 10lb rise in the weights, the bounce factor can then be used as a convenient tool to explain away the horses atrocious run.

This is of course one possibility, there of course many others.
Report Sunset Cristo February 5, 2011 1:29 AM GMT
I see you're having a belting night with your wife scouser, posting on the Betfair forum?.

As for nerds?, the OP asked about the bounce factor and the thread turned into a debate about it, can't see the problem
?


This we do agree on.Whats your problem Honest Scouser? We are having a friendly debate.Happens all the time on here.
Report the lay preacher February 5, 2011 6:44 AM GMT
the bounce factor is no myth and i dont give a flying fukk if it can be proved or not.
there are 2 types of bounce .the first is when a horse comes back after a long layoff and runs well then flops next time out.
the 2nd and more common is if a horse runs a career best or has a really hard race and then runs again too soon i.e 2/3 weeks.
in these circumstances a lot of horses dont reproduce their true form.
also it is not just horses that bounce it is athletes in general.
just look at all the big football teams who have a hard champions
league match in midweek and flop at the weekends against inferior opposition.
the reason the bounce is hard to pin down is because all horses have different constituitons .
some very strong and some not so strong and it is not the easiest thing to identify straight away.
anyway thats my tuppence worth on the matter.
Report Sunset Cristo February 5, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
Yep thats cleared that one up.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com

New to Betfair?

You need to open an account before you can add content to the forum.

Opening an account only takes a few minutes.

register now