Sticky horses are the worse kind of horse to play. Chewing gum stuck to a horseshoe.
Sticky horses are those that want to mess or stick around horses they have already beaten, or handled, they just wait, and wait, before moving to the next target. The transition to move forward is delayed, and it causes them to lose races because their behavioral habit.
Horses in general have different habitual make up, some just go right by other horses, as they are not even there, picking one off after another, sticky horses wait, even after they have a horse beat, wait, for the next horse, especially when they inherit the lead, they wait.
This type of behavior is actually very hard on the horseplayer, because their horse have the measure of the field, but out of the blue, out of their horse's sight here comes a runner that just goes by horses and blows right by, the sticky horse is now caught with their pants down and cannot muster the acceleration.
Will Take Charge used to be a sticky horse, he would go after a horse, but he couldn't see the horse on the inside of his target, until he got his head in front of his targeted animal, and then it was too late.
Some horses pull themselves up, awaiting competition, those are the horses that never win by more than a head or neck, they want to fight all the way down the lane.
Handicappers can be sticky too.
Handicappers can be stuck on a number of things, stats, numbers, figures, and ratings.
"I don't have time to read a comment'' said one handicapper, as he relies strictly on ratings.
With those type of individuals 'why do I waste my time, hours on end, writing comments?' they just simply look at a rating as it their own whole handicapping life rests on that 2 or 3 star.
I have been asked why some horses have 2 stars and some 3 stars, the 2 stars are simply an average work, it is NOT a knock unless I editorially comment on why it is a poor work.
'Just looking at ratings is the laziest way to reationalize your handicapping of works."
I simply don't know how to categorize certain horses, as we analyze hundreds of horse off works.
He may have caught the eye but I still don't know where that horse belongs in the whole scheme of things.
There is also the barn in the mix of the comment, some barns like the Bill Mott, their horses all look like 'champions' in the flesh.
In 2010 I was training a clocker, we will call him 'Jeff', a made up name, Jeff had worked as an assistant for a California trainer, he knew horse appearance, and we were at Churchill Downs training for the fall.
He marveled how good the Bill Mott horses looked in the flesh, and he got stuck on one horse. He loved him, and made a few comments he was going to unload his bankroll next out.
I cautioned him, but he was stuck on the horse being a 'champion'. I warned him that Bill Mott was a superb horseman and all of his horses were grand looking in the flesh.
He asked me to hold back the comments as he wanted to bet. I warned him, if he ever held something back for personal use, he would be fired.
We don't hold back info and again, cautioned to temper his enthiusiasm.
The horse is entered, he is certifiably cuckoo over this horse. A 'champion!
The horse ran a bad 4th. Jeff was scratching his head, he couldn't wrap his noggin' around 'how can something look so good in the flesh and work so well, run so poorly'.
I had warned him, that everything in Mott's barn looks like a 'champion'. He takes superb care of his horses, and there are a lot of barns that their horses look amazing every day.
Jeff got sucked in to physical appearance of the horse and failed to properly assess who the horse was.
He was stuck on sole aspect, of what we do, the visual perception.
Speaking for myself, it is hard to get excited about a Bill Mott horse, he or she, may have caught the eye, but from my experience 'I have seen this movie before'. I need to get more info than just visual.
Of course there are exceptions, and those can be frustrating. I am not advocating fading Mott's horses, I am, however, advocating being judicious.
Horseplayers can be really tough on clocking reports, bitching and complaining about a rating, a 2 star or a c+ rating, but most of them do it without every reading the comments or note that is associated with the work.
80% of the works are neutral or maintenance, simply the horse went around the track for exercise, but handicappers stake the wallet on every rating, if a horse had a big work, a 3 or 4 star work and then comes back, like Steve Asmussen horse 7 days out in 38 or 52, what am I suppose to do? He did nothing in the work, just got some exercise, easily.
You have seen my comments: "did nothing this morning, by design on own'' 2 star, if you view that as negative, there is something wrong with you, not understanding that it was design and the 2 star is an average rating for a horse doing nothing is bad for your bankroll.
Handicappers are smart, but some are just stuck that they need to see positive ratings every time out, rain or shine.
I have chronicled horses going strongly in all their works and those horses amount to be nothing, you have to have a shut off button, you have to have time when they don't lay their body down, but horseplayers need validation upon validation, upon validation of a good work.
I love a good work being followed by a maintenance or a work, the horse being allowed to 'let his hair down' and relax.
Handicappers can be as sticky as horses, and the more you realize you are chewing gum stuck to a shoe the bettor.