• Current Issue
• April Issue
• March Issue
• February Issue
• January Issue
• December Issue

The initial Breeders’ Cup was run in 1984 at Hollywood Park and featured large purses and a chance to see the best thoroughbred horses all in one event.  It was a bold experiment and to a great extent it has succeeded. From the beginning, the races have been televised on a major network, beginning with NBC and moving to ESPN in the last few years. The rise of simulcasting and then advance deposit wagering outlets has ensured there are plenty of betting options for anyone inclined to play.

For the regular player, the Breeders’ Cup offers both an intriguing puzzle and the chance to try to take advantage of the fact there will be a large pool of recreational handicappers taking part. Since 2007, the event has been greatly expanded and now takes place over two days and encompasses some 15 races.

I thought it might be interesting to look at some aspects and trends related to the Breeders’ Cup in recent years. To do so I compiled data for eight of the last nine Breeders’ Cups (I did not have statistics for the 2004 Lone Star running). While this is a small sample, I have employed Graded Stakes results over the period 2002-2011 to examine the results in a larger context. 

Longshots

While the early era of the Breeders’ Cup was often marked by standouts winning at short odds like Chief’s Crown, Lady’s Secret and Princess Rooney; longshots have also been a part of the story since day one. The first event featured bombs like Lashkari ($108.80 Turf) and Wild Again ($64.40 Classic), who won a roughly run finale that added some suspense to the event’s final minutes.  In the last decade, betting long odds has been a strategy that has paid off in the Breeders’ Cup.  Horses such as Shared Account ($94.00 2010 Filly and Mare Turf, Volponi ($89.00 2002 Classic), and Desert Code (2008 Turf Sprint) have short circuited the toteboard.  If you look at the table below, which tracks 8 of the last 9 renewals; a bet on every horse going off at 20-1 or higher resulted in a flat bet profit.

Breeders’ Cup 2002-2010 (Omitting 2004) Odds 20-1 or higher

Total	Wins	WPCT	PPCT	SPCT	$2 WNET	$2 PNET	$2 SNET
341	13	3.81%	6.74%	10.56%	2.49	1.72	1.33

Now clearly betting on every longshot you find cannot be termed a strategy, but focusing on that sector of the odds spectrum might not be such a bad idea. There are a lot of reasons why results may surprise. The Breeders Cup features very large fields coming from different circuits and even countries. Often there are not a lot of comparable races on which to make a decision. The two year old races feature developing horses whose form is often being judged at distances much shorter than today. Add in the rather recent new variable of synthetic racetracks and you have a lot of factors that could cause confusion.

That said, looking to bet long in high class races is a strategy that generally works.  Below you will find another table; this one reflecting Grade 1 races from late 2002 through 2011 at major thoroughbred tracks I have followed. The list includes the NYRA circuit, Northern and Southern California, Keeneland and Churchill Downs in Kentucky, Gulfstream in Florida, as well as Woodbine in Ontario. It also shows that betting on every horse at odds of 20-1 was successful. So, clearly searching for bargains at higher odds might have some merit. The key is separating the good from the bad. In the past, I have mentioned using factors such as par times and power figures to do the job. As the Breeders’ Cup features a disparate group of animals, both foreign and domestic, it requires more tools. These include valid information on European horses, race replays, and workout information. Fortunately, much of this is available on the internet and through the major data providers.

Grade 1 stakes, Major Tracks 2002-2011

Total	Wins	WPCT	PPCT	SPCT	$2 WNET	$2 PNET	$2 SNET
2011	68	3.38%	7.51%	13.63%	2.29	1.63	1.30

Favorites

If betting on high priced horses has been successful over the years, does it mean that logic gets tossed out the window in these races? Not necessarily. The table below looks at betting favorites for the same period that showed profitability with entries going off at 20-1 or greater.

Breeders’ Cup Favorites 2002-2010 (Omitting 2004)

Surface	Total	Wins	WPCT	PPCT	SPCT	$2 WNET	$2 PNET	$2 SNET
Dirt/Syn	57	17	29.82%	50.88%	61.40%	1.99	2.12	1.86
Turf	35	9	25.71%	48.57%	62.86%	1.45	2.05	1.95
ALL	92	26	28.26%	50.00%	61.96%	1.79	2.09	1.89

The profitability in this table is generated by favorites going off at over 2-1 and overstates the viability of betting choices but shows that form isn’t useless in evaluating Cup contenders.  Simple strategies like demanding a favorite rank in the top 3 via speed figures, class ratings, or power numbers produced profitable results in non-turf races.  As is the case in the broader spectrum of stakes races, objective metrics are useful in evaluation. It is also helpful to examine prices in light of the circumstances faced. In retrospect, situations like the 2008 Classic, where Curlin was bet to 9/10 on a synthetic surface look like obvious chances to bet against, but things often look different before a race is run.

If we look at favorites coming from overseas tracks, we find they have not been profitable in the win pool, but have run well enough to show profits in the place and show pools. The Breeders’ Cup has been the scene of near misses for some horses that should have been obvious winners. Dayjur jumping a shadow near the finish immediately comes to mind. Rock Of Gibraltar missing in the 2002 Mile was another heartbreaking second. Of the 25 foreign favorites in turf races in my database, 17 have hit the board.  Over the entire 27 runnings of the event, excellence exhibited by horses like Miesque, Goldikova, Oujia Board, and High Chaparral has been balanced by disappointments such as Dancing Brave, who failed as a 1 to 2 favorite in 1987. Obviously though, foreign favorites are to be respected and included in exotic plays.

Deep Pools

There have always been arbitrage strategies available in horse racing between pools.  Players schooled on books by Ziemba and Hausch or who have read Barry Meadow’s Money Secrets at the Racetrack were easily able to find anomalies in the place, show, or exacta pools.  Before simulcasting these type of strategies were fairly straightforward, and if you were betting at a large track like Belmont or Santa Anita, you could be fairly sure that the prices you saw shortly before post time would be close to what you eventually received. These days seeming bargains are erased in the final flash of the tote as a flood of money comes in from betting sites around the country. There are, however, a few days where the pools are deep and stable. The Triple Crown and Breeders’ Cup are the most notable of these.  

As most advanced deposit wagering sites offer pool percentages and exotic prices, keeping one eye on these as you are watching the races on television is often a good idea. For straight pools it can be as simple as looking at the percentages option on your betting screen and seeing if one of your standouts is severely underbet in a pool. A word of advice for those calculating fair value in exotic pools such as the exacta pool: demand an extra margin of safety to account for any slippage you might encounter. (Change in price after your bet is made.)

Strong Speed Figures and Early Speed

It has often been said that the universal track bias on North American tracks is early speed. There are times when all you need is competitive figures and a running style that puts you at the front of the field. The nice thing about the Breeders’ Cup is that the major purveyors of speed figures often offer packages for the event and it is a nice way to get a feel for different products. As for me I like to see if there are discrepancies in the figures given for a race among the different providers. Track bias information is also helpful in determining just how amenable the track is to certain running styles.

Examining the non-turf races at the Breeders’ Cup in recent years, you find that competitive figures and early speed has been a good combination. For this analysis, I used BRIS running style and speed figure information.  As you can see from the table below, the combination of a strong last out speed figure and an early speed running style has been profitable. The table shows animals whose last out speed figure ranked in the top three of their field and who exhibited an early speed running style (E or E/P) in non-turf events. Interestingly, the strategy was also profitable on synthetic tracks.

Non-Turf, Last Speed Figure Rank3 or Higher, Early Speed Running Style, 2002-2010 (Omitting 2004)

Total	Wins	WPCT	PPCT	SPCT	$2 WNET	$2 PNET	$2 SNET
121	19	15.70%	28.93%	41.32%	2.72	2.37	2.06

Source for Speed Figures, Running Style: BRISNET (www.brisnet.com)

If we examine this result in the context of the larger pool of graded stakes events, we find that while the strategy is useful, the results are overstated. In the Breeders’ Cup sample, all the profitability comes at odds of 5-1 or higher. A similar filter for graded stakes produces an above average result over a much larger sample but is not profitable without further handicapping.  As a result, these horses probably make a nice opening filter to focus on, but blind betting would not make sense.

Conclusion

In this article I examined some trends and characteristics of the Breeders’ Cup, an event that offers bettors some of the largest pools and deepest fields they will encounter during the racing year. In recent years, the event has been amenable to large payoffs, a tendency it has shared with Grade One events in general. It is also one of the few days where arbitrage is easily executed in a variety of wagers. The combination of two year olds and older horses, grass and dirt events, as well as an influx of horses from overseas, makes it an interesting betting challenge.  This year the event returns to Churchill Downs, a track where legends such as Alysheba, Personal Ensign, and Tiznow saw some of their greatest triumphs.