Balmoral trainers

[traynor]

BmlP Pace PositiveTrainerChangeAll 144 5.56 % ROI 1.08
BmlP Pace PositiveTrainerChangeWinners 20 3 15.00 % IV 2.70

BmlP Pace NegativeTrainerChangeAll 144 11.81 % ROI 1.30
BmlP Pace NegativeTrainerChangeWinners 20 9 45.00 % IV 3.81

What the numbers mean: If you are betting at Balmoral, pay close attention to entries that have recently changed to what the crowd perceives to be a "lesser trainer" than previously. "Negative" trainer changes can be more profitable than "positive" trainer changes.

In the (small, current) sample above, flat betting "negative trainer changes" from the last race--no other criteria considered--kicked out an ROI of 1.30.

[LottaKash]

In the (small, current) sample above, flat betting "negative trainer changes" from the last race--no other criteria considered--kicked out an ROI of 1.30.

Traynor, I am a little confused....I hear you constantly talking about how "small" trends & samples indicate nothing....

Not sure what to think about this, then....:confused:

[lamboguy]

i like his angle, but a lot of times the negative trainer change means exactly that. bad trainer's are bad at lots of things including spotting their horses in wrong spots. other than that i like to play this angle you get better prices most of the time for the same horse.

[LottaKash]

i like his angle, but a lot of times the negative trainer change means exactly that. bad trainer's are bad at lots of things including spotting their horses in wrong spots. other than that i like to play this angle you get better prices most of the time for the same horse.

I guess if it works there, then ok....But, for me, I can't stand the trainers or the drivers there....Or, to put it another way my general handicapping just doesn't work well there ( @BmP), is all...

I follow trainers quite closely, especially off of Layoffs and Claims, so in my mind's eye I can't, except in isolated instances with certain trainers, see this angle as a positive way of making money at the tracks that I do well at....is all..

I see trainers taking horses off of the likes of the Burkes, etc, and do well in the subsequent start, but those are the isolated ones of which I have referred...I keep a book on some of them,,,,But long term at face value, not me...

I can't stand to lose, or long runouts....

[LottaKash]

handicapping just doesn't work well there ( @BmP), is all...


I see trainers taking horses off of the likes of the Burkes, etc, and do well in the subsequent start, but those are the isolated ones of which I have referred...I keep a book on some of them,,,,But long term at face value, not me...

I can't stand to lose, or long runouts....

About the Burkes, etc....I wanted and failed to mention it, but when a horse lands in a perceived lesser trainer's barn, often times this angle will work because the top trainers are almost always trying to score so they keep their horses in the best of shape most times....So, in essence, the losing or lesser trainer, if he doesn't tinker too much with his new charge, will most likely have a live one, at least for the next start or two, but after that, the lesser trainer's true talents will eventually show up again....And, it will be less, again...

The trick is to know who these guys are....For long term profits that is...

[wiffleball whizz]

The open lane makes the track very exiting to bet.....a lot of thieves/criminals driving there though

[LottaKash]

The open lane makes the track very exiting to bet.....a lot of thieves/criminals driving there though

You bet, on all the thieves Whizz....A good while back, after all the scandals came to light, and when Tim Tetrick and some other good trainers and drivers headed east, there was this newness that came over BmP for a while...I had stopped wagering there altogether for good while, but eventually as any other addicted-capper will, I came back and I found to be doing better than before I left, only to find, soon enough, that my handicapping stopped being so good there anymore, again....I quit it again about 6-mos ago, again...:D

The dismal purse structure, I believe, has much to do with all of this and that....

[wiffleball whizz]

Bad purses and big pools = lots of cheating....

Pools at bmlp are def not bad....why all the sudden sometimes little Mike O goes dead on horses?!?!?

[traynor]

Traynor, I am a little confused....I hear you constantly talking about how "small" trends & samples indicate nothing....

Not sure what to think about this, then....:confused:

The trend is from a much larger sample. The specifics are from the "current" segment of the same model. Specifically, whenever a factor is isolated for "further examination" it is continually compared with the larger model to detect fluctuations and anomalies. The specific process of comparison is called "bootstrapping." If the "current" segment differs substantially from the much larger sample, the process of applying bootstrapping indicates that fact by representing the "current" segment as a spike or valley in an otherwise relatively "smooth" representation. That is the easiest way I can explain it, without going into a more detailed explanation filled with techno-babble.

In plainer English, it is the current segment of a larger sample that contains the same generic trend. Repeated samplings from the larger sample (extracted with the bootstrapping algorithm) are (approximately) equivalent.

[traynor]

i like his angle, but a lot of times the negative trainer change means exactly that. bad trainer's are bad at lots of things including spotting their horses in wrong spots. other than that i like to play this angle you get better prices most of the time for the same horse.

Note this is not "all entries" of a bad trainer. It is specifically a horse that is changing barns for this race--from a "better trainer" in its last race to a "not as good" trainer in this race.

It is probably the equine equivalent of the Hawthorne Effect:

"The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity (/wiki/Reactivity_(research)) whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they know they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

That is, the change of trainers is what causes the changed performance, rather than something the trainer does. (Please take note, all those who cherish the idea that it is all the trainer's expertise.) The higher ROI from negative trainer changes is that the change is viewed as negative by the betting public, so they bet less. Same thing applies to "positive" trainer changes--the change is viewed as positive by the betting public, so they bet more.

[precisionk]

Bad purses and big pools = lots of cheating....

Pools at bmlp are def not bad....why all the sudden sometimes little Mike O goes dead on horses?!?!?

It's because he is an alcoholic and depends on how much he has had to drink that evening. Some days are better then others. Usually want to watch a few of his drives to see how far in the bag he is.

[LottaKash]

Note this is not "all entries" of a bad trainer. It is specifically a horse that is changing barns for this race--from a "better trainer" in its last race to a "not as good" trainer in this race.

.

Thx Traynor, for the clarification...I understand...:ThmbUp:

[imofe]

I guess if it works there, then ok....But, for me, I can't stand the trainers or the drivers there....Or, to put it another way my general handicapping just doesn't work well there ( @BmP), is all...

I follow trainers quite closely, especially off of Layoffs and Claims, so in my mind's eye I can't, except in isolated instances with certain trainers, see this angle as a positive way of making money at the tracks that I do well at....is all..

I see trainers taking horses off of the likes of the Burkes, etc, and do well in the subsequent start, but those are the isolated ones of which I have referred...I keep a book on some of them,,,,But long term at face value, not me...

I can't stand to lose, or long runouts....

Lotta Kash

I know how you feel. The same happens to me at Woodbine/ Mohawk. My handicapping just does not work well there. Why fight it. We need to play at tracks that give us the best shot.

[imofe]

Bad purses and big pools = lots of cheating....

Pools at bmlp are def not bad....why all the sudden sometimes little Mike O goes dead on horses?!?!?

You hit the nail on the head. At Yonkers, why would a driver concern himself with playing into smaller pools when he can earn a good living with those purses. At Balmoral, the purses suck and the drivers and trainers can play into the pools. Still like it better than in years past. Rucker, Ledford, Joe Anderson racing at the same place at the same time. Makes Oosting look like a choir boy.

[wiffleball whizz]

You hit the nail on the head. At Yonkers, why would a driver concern himself with playing into smaller pools when he can earn a good living with those purses. At Balmoral, the purses suck and the drivers and trainers can play into the pools. Still like it better than in years past. Rucker, Ledford, Joe Anderson racing at the same place at the same time. Makes Oosting look like a choir boy.

Exactly......nobody here ever mentions the doomsday scenario for cheating....huge/decent Pools and piss purses is the perfect storm for cheating

[thaskalos]

The fields may be large, and the long stretch makes for more formful racing...but the exotic payoffs are just terrible...especially to a guy who is used to playing the thoroughbreds.

How can an exacta in a 10-horse field pay only $57 for $2...when the top two finishers are 12-1 and 5-2 respectively?

It's hard to take this game seriously.

[Ray2000]

......
That is, the change of trainers is what causes the changed performance, rather than something the trainer does. ..

excellent point traynor,.............new stall, new feed, new handler...

that is why I usually put "new barn?" with a question mark in my comments.

It applies to driver changes in a strange way also. I always look for how the animal responded to the scheduled driver in the past performance lines, even if switching to a "lesser" pilot today.

[traynor]

excellent point traynor,.............new stall, new feed, new handler...

that is why I usually put "new barn?" with a question mark in my comments.

It applies to driver changes in a strange way also. I always look for how the animal responded to the scheduled driver in the past performance lines, even if switching to a "lesser" pilot today.

You nailed that one tight. The research I am doing indicates a similar pattern regarding driver changes, but I have been reluctant to mention it because it seems so "counter-intuitive." The central point seems to be that many horses respond to the change--rather than to the different skill level of the new trainer (or driver). I am still working out the details of the parsing algorithms I am using to isolate and study that particular area, but it looks very promising.

Specifically, viewing results as caused by the change itself, rather than caused by the expertise or competence of the humans involved, uncovers a whole layer of related phenomena (with profit potential).

[traynor]

The fields may be large, and the long stretch makes for more formful racing...but the exotic payoffs are just terrible...especially to a guy who is used to playing the thoroughbreds.

How can an exacta in a 10-horse field pay only $57 for $2...when the top two finishers are 12-1 and 5-2 respectively?

It's hard to take this game seriously.

Not so unusual. I think many more bettors at harness tracks ignore win bets (because of routinely low mutuels) in favor of exotic wagers. Much more so than thoroughbreds, the exotic pools seem almost unrelated (in the structure and form of the wagering patterns) to the win pools. The equivalent might be the show pools at thoroughbred tracks--dismal returns diminish enthusiasm for that particualr wager.

Another factor is that some very serious bettors on harness favor dutched exactas. That has been going on (to my own personal knowledge) for more than 30 years. There used to be an app written for the Sharp 1260 and 1350 handhelds that was a pain to use (lots of last minute data entry) but that a number of people considered indispensable. A real-time app that runs on tote information and uses the same generic algorithms probably exists, and may account for at least part of the discrepancies in mutuel pools.

I think if I paid more attention to tote boards and wagered closer to post time in individual races, I would either find (and use) such an application, or write it myself.