Valuing Trainers

[classhandicapper]

I'm looking for any and all insights into "valuing" and "explaining" the trainer's impact on race results.

My own observation is that given two horses with similar "figures", if one is trained by a very high percentage trainer and another is trained by an average/below average trainer, the one trained by high percentage guy is much more likely to win.

For example, in NY, where I primarily operate, horses trained by Bruce Levine, Michael Hushion, Todd Pletcher, Steven Jerkens, Richard Dutrow and a few others will often get bet heavily based on their horses figures compared to the opposition. However, horses with similar PPs trained by other trainers don't win as often. So the public is really not making any major errors much of the time by betting these horses more strongly than their figures indicate.

The same thing seems to happen in reverse with the very low percentage trainers.

One explanation for this seems to be that horses trained by the top guys actually fire the race you expect a higher percentage of the time. That in turns leads to a higher win percentage because they go in with a good chance nore often. Another explanation is that they often have better stock that improves.

The problem for me is actually valuing this kind of thing. I can measure a horse's recent performances and know that the one trained by trainer "X" is more likely to either improve or run back to his recent races, but I can't build it into an odds line (even a very rough estimate) very well.

Another curious phenomenon is the hot trainer.

Gary Contessa was firing on all cylinders this past winter at AQU. His horses were getting bet like crazy because he was hot, but they WERE running fairly close to in line with the heavy betting.

How do you build "hot trainer" into the betting line? It's very difficult to tell the difference between a random distribution of good/bad luck and something else positive/negative going on in the barn.

I know a lot of people are going to point to drugs. I'm not so much looking for the reason why certain trainers are getting these results as I am a way of "valuing" it in my betting and understanding what leads to the better results.

Any and all insights appreciated.

[cj]

One thing you are leaving out is that the top trainers get the top jockeys. Given two evenly matched horses, the better jockey is apt to win more often. I'm not much on betting jockeys, I rarely even notice who is riding. But, there are obviously some better than others, and some are really, really bad.

[Valuist]

I think it depends on the type of race. If I see a Pletcher, Frankel or Dutrow layoff horse, I'll have no problem betting it. There's enough bettors who believe you can't win off a layoff so these types usually have some value. I also like these barns when a horse makes it first start for them. Too many bettors are only looking at the speed figures and don't adjust upward for the anticipated improvement.

I do think there's plenty of times to go against them, however. In an everyday race, say one of them has a horse coming back in 14 days off a decent race but was aided by a good trip. I'll take a stand against them. For Asmussen, I'll go against him when he comes off a layoff. Pletcher may win 20% w/first timers but he's better w/2nd timers and his maidens usually score going a mile or further so I'll bet against his 3 and 4YO maiden firsters in sprints.

I started another thread about trainer data and BRIS will give more detailed data w/bigger sample sizes than the DRF.

[classhandicapper]

One thing you are leaving out is that the top trainers get the top jockeys. Given two evenly matched horses, the better jockey is apt to win more often. I'm not much on betting jockeys, I rarely even notice who is riding. But, there are obviously some better than others, and some are really, really bad.

Yea, I agree. I don't pay much attention to jockeys except when I see a stable favorite riding another horse or when a jockey had a choice and went with one over the other. Then it could sway a marginal decision one way or the other. You have to be careful with that though because sometimes the jockey is making a long term political/economic decision in riding an inferior horse just to keep the relationship with the better barn.

Jockey is certainly another thing that is difficult for me to value.

[Valuist]

I don't pay much attention to jockeys except when I see a stable favorite riding another horse or when a jockey had a choice and went with one over the other.

Like Ashkal Way yesterday. Pletcher brought Gomez to NY to ride for him but GG took the ship in instead of Pletcher's Morning Raider. He (or his agent) made the right choice.

[Bathless]

... I'm not so much looking for the reason why certain trainers are getting these results as I am a way of "valuing" it in my betting and understanding what leads to the better results.

With a trainer like Scott Lake, I'm not surprised when one of his new acquisitions puts another 10 speed points on an existing top.

For me, it's feel; it's 'fly by the seat of my pants', based upon experience with that trainer, of course; it's an artform.

It wouldn't surprise me if some guys here had an algorithm to evaluate these situations....Sans Lavage

[blind squirrel]

One thing you are leaving out is that the top trainers get the top jockeys. Given two evenly matched horses, the better jockey is apt to win more often. I'm not much on betting jockeys, I rarely even notice who is riding. But, there are obviously some better than others, and some are really, really bad.


one of my favorite angles:high % jockey riding for a low
profile trainer...example:CHRIS EMIGH,CHICAGO circuit.
when i see he's taken a ride in a maiden race with a
low % barn at least you can expect that the horse is
"live".....have cashed on this "quite often".

[CryingForTheHorses]

With a trainer like Scott Lake, I'm not surprised when one of his new acquisitions puts another 10 speed points on an existing top.

For me, it's feel; it's 'fly by the seat of my pants', based upon experience with that trainer, of course; it's an artform.

It wouldn't surprise me if some guys here had an algorithm to evaluate these situations....Sans Lavage


The bottom line is, You must know your horse..Trainers that do know a horse can spot problems before they become major . Fix them existing problems and the problems to be and you have a horse giving you 10 points better races. You dont have to be a cheat to make them run faster..I have run 5 horses at the Calder meet and ALL of them have givin a 10 point higher or more race.I guess the biggest thing is to ask yourself this question before you bet...Is the trainer a horseman?

[cj]

...I guess the biggest thing is to ask yourself this question before you bet...Is the trainer a horseman?

I'd rather ask if the trainer is a good chemist than a horseman today. Sad, but true.

[andicap]

When I have time I like to keep track of which trainers are doing well and lousy on layoffs and shippers. And if any are losing on more than their share of low priced horses.
I note the winning layoff/shipper trainers and those who lose at about 4-1 or under. I also try to note any special moves they made (class drop, eqiupment, works)
Time is such a big problem -- sure wish I knew Access although I'm now trying to keep some info in Excel via HTR's download capabilities.

A big factor I want to keep more on top of are trainers who drop their horses after a win or solid race. Always low odds, always considered a negative drop yet many trainers do it with impunity especially older horses because other conditioners are afraid to claim from them.

[the_fat_man]

I can make sense of the Humean thing (it's in our nature, easy, and, in most cases, the way to go)
but why the need to quantify?

If I'm following a particular circuit, I certainly have at least a sense of trainer angles, and can identify hot trainers when they're sizzling, but aren't there more important factors to consider? Like the horse itself.

When I was playing in the late '80's, we were all cashing with Pete Ferraiola 1st timers off the claim. The angle was always the same: Pete claims; Pete runs back; the horse is bet heavily ---opening as the chalk and drifting to 5/2 or so.

Hey, I took the money with the rest but it was ancillary to my normal method of play. I actually had an opinion then.

When I first started in the game (late '70's) I cashed on a number of longshots betting the Marco Castenda, Laz Barrera combo. WTF did I know; I had no opinion. But I wasn't lazy and actually put some effort into learning the game. So much for ideals.


Back to the point:

a race is an individual event
a horse is an individual
a horse has a history

the aim by most is

to predict how a single entity, the horse, will perform in the future
given the history of MANY HORSES (a consensus).

So, a horse (any horse) has a xx% chance of winning if he satisfies criteria A,b,c...

What is Tbred racing all about, mommy?

why not rate a horse based on ITS history? its tendencies; how it performed its past few races.

the answer is simple: TOO MUCH WORK

in other sports, the most successful coaches are those watching the most tape, and putting in the most time around the game and the players --that's why pro coaches put in 80+ hour work weeks and sleep in their offices

in thoroughbred racing, apparently, the most successful horseplayers are those analyzing the most data.

hey, imagine a coach analyzing the boxcores without (or barely) watching the game or being around the players --talk about antiseptic

it's absurd

it seems as if every post, in general, is about the same thing:

how do I take shortcuts
how do I win without actually learning the game

how do I generalize?

ahhhhhhhhhh

the search for the universal quantifier in the land of ignorance

I respect your comments in general, Class. And given your comments in other areas, I assumed you knew better.

there's no secret formula to winning in this game: it's GRUNT WORK

I can make sense of and find patterns within just about any collection of data

why would I want to? there's actually a living game out there

[bellsbendboy]

on the sport of handicapping I have seen in months. I am a $30, pick 4 player. I play twice a week or so, almost always on the best midwest track running.

Although a forty year handicapper I am having a great year averaging a profit of a couple grand a month. The reason is twofold. First, I have found excellent data such as; Bris,DRF, forums, beat writers, and web sites up the yingyang. These websites include: farms, auction firms, owners and even horses themselves, and, secondly I spend, on average, one hour per race, or perhaps five to six hours on the pick 4 sequence.

It is grunt work indeed Fat Man!