Contrarian Thought

[Secretariat]

46 spoke in another thread about contrarian thought which Sartin spoke of often as well.

What exactly distinguishes contrarian ideas from traditional ones beyond that of going against the crowd? What examples of contrarian handicapping have you employed outside of trainer/jockey specialties?

[46zilzal]

46 spoke in another thread about contrarian thought which Sartin spoke of often as well.

What exactly distinguishes contrarian ideas from traditional ones beyond that of going against the crowd? What examples of contrarian handicapping have you employed outside of trainer/jockey specialties?
in two words: ENERGY DISTRIBUTION as it can isolate biased race tracks and hidden form cycle changes.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Using DRF variant to detrmine track speed and posible speed bias. Considering a young horse may be put in a race that the trainers has a bad ROI in because that horse is training so well. Considering that a horse who faded badly was having its energy conserved for the next race, or that a horse who has seconditis may be avoiding the 100% winners' drug test!

[Overlay]

I don't know that the use of any one factor or set of factors could be classified as the definition of "contrarian". I think it's more of a race-to-race proposition where you have an opinion of a horse's chances of winning that differs from the public's opinion (however each was derived, and not necessarily using new performance measures that the public hasn't caught on to yet). If the winning percentages of the horses you bet are consistently higher than would be indicated by their odds, you're being successfully contrarian.

[44PACE]

I pay absolutely no attention whatsoever of Jockeys or Trainers. The last 5 years I never looked even one time who was riding my horse or who trained it. I never lost a dime not knowing this worthless ( my opinion, speaking only on my results) information.Everyone else it seems canno't bet a race without knowing this, so this must be a different way of looking at the races.

[skate]

bet against the odds

[Cesario!]

Wasn't I the one who mentioned it (with 46's second)? Oh, well...maybe when I get my 5,000th post, I'll get some respect. :D

As you mentioned, contrarian thought can be any thought that goes against the prevailing view. In this context, I typically view it as using different methods of selection to reach your decision than the "public" or "handicapping majority" -- don't forget you are always playing against the sharpies. If you are counter enough (but still successful), the odds will take care of themselves.

Being contrarian for contrarian's sake, however, is the quickest way to the poor house.

[The Judge]

Why ire-nvent the wheel. Sartin in what you are atfer .

[Handiman]

To ignore a winning jockey-trainer combo is at best foolishness. But to put too much importance on it, also cries out foolishness. Betting any single factor is also pure foolishness. Although one factor will be associated with some winners, it's strictly for my money, happenstance, as that factor will be shared by many horses, some of which will end up winning.

No matter how you arrive at: correct correlation between strike rate and avg mutual, it's the only way to make money betting winners. It's similar to a teeter-totter. As one end goes up, the other end may go down, or vice versa. But to be a winning win bettor, your betting teeter-totter has to equal out. Higher strike rate-lower mutual, or the other way around.

So to be a contrarian and be a winner, a race by race approach seems the only way to approach that level.

All just my opinion....as my wife says, " I'm always right", just before she throws a pan at me. :lol:

Handi

[Robert Fischer]

Raw Times


Years ago, raw times were thoroughly scrutinized, but with modern handicapping placing any value in raw times is almost contrarian.

Yes I love speed figures and pace figures.

but...
I like when the raw times AND the speed figures are telling me the same story.

[44PACE]

To ignore a winning jockey-trainer combo is at best foolishness. But to put too much importance on it, also cries out foolishness. Betting any single factor is also pure foolishness. Although one factor will be associated with some winners, it's strictly for my money, happenstance, as that factor will be shared by many horses, some of which will end up winning.

No matter how you arrive at: correct correlation between strike rate and avg mutual, it's the only way to make money betting winners. It's similar to a teeter-totter. As one end goes up, the other end may go down, or vice versa. But to be a winning win bettor, your betting teeter-totter has to equal out. Higher strike rate-lower mutual, or the other way around.

So to be a contrarian and be a winner, a race by race approach seems the only way to approach that level.

All just my opinion....as my wife says, " I'm always right", just before she throws a pan at me. :lol:

Handi

Handi.

Why is it foolish for me to ignore jockey/ trainer data?.

When I paid attention to it I lost money every year at the track. Now when I completely ignore it I make money every year at the track. I do incorporate other data so I am not saying that if everyone ignores jockeys/trainers that they will win. I am only testifying that you can indeed win at the track ignoring this data.

An old timer who played the races every day for 20 years enlightened me to what really is happening in a horse race and why races are run in the manner they are.All of a sudden horse racing made sence, that it is not a random game.


For the rest , play the game the way you see fit. What is right for 1 person may not work for another. Since we are playing against each other I do not mind if people bet jockeys/ trainers, I just hate it when they interrupt my handicapping asking who my jockey is? becouse I never know.

[Tom]

Sartin advocated keeping it simple - use the best of last three, similar surface and distance, to make it simple, and then rate the horses.

[46zilzal]

Sartin advocated keeping it simple - use the best of last three, similar surface and distance, to make it simple, and then rate the horses.
unfortunately that doesn't work

[bigmack]

Well, let's look at what most cover:

Conditions of the race (many ignore this, big mistake)
Trainer/Jock - Yeah sure why not
Pace/speed figs - All of em. Early/Late Quirin/Cramers TPG's - The works
Layoff - Makes sense
Distance/Condition of track
Trainer intent - Why this race for this horse?
Class - Less important these days but gotta look
Track/PP bias - Not easy sometimes but staying abreast is a must

Now what do many overlook?

Current form - How well poised are they for this effort?
Pedigree - Not easy but with work it can be done
Appearance - Post parade looksee
Equipment Changes - Many players miss these clues

In conclusion I've found that most of the sharpies can figure out the top list. I've been working on the bottom list and finding value where others don't and it's made a big difference in my roi

[DaveP]

What exactly distinguishes contrarian ideas from traditional ones beyond that of going against the crowd? What examples of contrarian handicapping have you employed outside of trainer/jockey specialties?
.. I analysed horses by 'name' type which was quite interesting.

Is 'Contrarian Ideas' a pysco-babble word for normal people describing people with a natural talent for coming up with new ideas, a bit like folk who paint houses for a living, describing Picasso as a Contrarian house painter?

Wasn't Howard an unemployed US communist who couldn't get a job because of his political convictions and turned to horse racing out of desparation?

[raybo]

I pay absolutely no attention whatsoever of Jockeys or Trainers. The last 5 years I never looked even one time who was riding my horse or who trained it. I never lost a dime not knowing this worthless ( my opinion, speaking only on my results) information.Everyone else it seems canno't bet a race without knowing this, so this must be a different way of looking at the races.


Noting jockey or trainer "switches" might be an indication that the previous one was not performing properly regarding the horse's positive/negative qualities. I don't track jockeys/trainers but I do look for changes that might signal a successful trip for the horse in relation to recent unsuccessful ones under former jockeys/trainers.

[raybo]

Sartin advocated keeping it simple - use the best of last three, similar surface and distance, to make it simple, and then rate the horses.


Tom, are you saying that by choosing the best race of the last 3, at similar distance and surface, you are assuming that each horse in the race, or rather, the horses you are considering as contenders, are in good enough form to run back to that best? I'm not questioning your handicapping abilities, just asking a question.

[raybo]

unfortunately that doesn't work


Well, obviously it doesn't work for you, anyway. Maybe it does work for someone else.

[Handiman]

44,

I'm not saying that you can't make money. I'm just saying that it's an important part of racing. What alot of people don't realize is that winning jockeys and trainers recieve that moniker because they win more than other jockeys and trainers.
That happens because they are given the better horses. And as a result, better jockeys with better trainers and better horses tend to win more than other combinations.
Again it's not the be all to end all. But I have found some races that should be skipped because the connections couldn't be beat ....at least the risk wasn't worth betting. Now you may have some way of determining that those races should be skipped, without considering the connections involved.

This was not meant to be a slam against anyone personally, just my belief that ignoring the connections is a foolish act in relation to horseracing.

Regards,
Handi

[Tom]

Raybo, I was just stating what Doc taught.
(And 46, whn used properly, not literally, it has worked for many)
You would use common sense, say hthe horse ran three races at $10,000 Clmg, the third back, it finished 2nd earning a SR of 88.
Two back, it finished 5th, eraning a 81, and last out it, finished last, earning a 74. You would not use this horse.

But the idea, when used with a sensibly, can let you forgive a last out even race in favor of the better two back - say last out, 3rd by 7 , earning a 83, but two back, ran 3rd by 2 earning a 87, you would use the 87.

There is a two part article by the Doc on the ATM website in the articles sectin - it is well worth a few minutes looking for it to get it. It is written around usinng the Ray Talbout PC.....I'll see if I can grab it today, too.
It was a method I used - successfully for over 5 years.
He told me once that it was the idea tha people were either tie dto the last race no matter what, and others were just flying blindly getting lines.
remeberm, Doc was doing things as prescriptions for people to start winning, so not everything he offered was for everyone. Just like asprin for headaches, but not too good for broken arms. ( tough to swallow when yer arm's a dangling!:eek:)

[Tom]

Raybo....here it is:

http://www.americanturf.com/pace/sartinarticle.cfm

[PriceAnProbability]

Again it's not the be all to end all. But I have found some races that should be skipped because the connections couldn't be beat ....at least the risk wasn't worth betting. \

By definition, the connections would offer value in that situation, even at 3-5, and especially in the exotics.

[PriceAnProbability]

Raybo, I was just stating what Doc taught.
(And 46, whn used properly, not literally, it has worked for many)
You would use common sense, say hthe horse ran three races at $10,000 Clmg, the third back, it finished 2nd earning a SR of 88.
Two back, it finished 5th, eraning a 81, and last out it, finished last, earning a 74. You would not use this horse.

But the idea, when used with a sensibly, can let you forgive a last out even race in favor of the better two back - say last out, 3rd by 7 , earning a 83, but two back, ran 3rd by 2 earning a 87, you would use the 87.

I don't like this approach because it ignores the last two races, which obviously shouldn't be ignored. Wish I could say more without destroying my advantage.

[bigmack]

Wish I could say more without destroying my advantage.
We probably wouldn't get the higher math you incorporate anywho

http://www.getsmileyface.com/sm/crazy/1088.gif

[Tom]

I don't like this approach because it ignores the last two races, which obviously shouldn't be ignored. Wish I could say more without destroying my advantage.

Oh go ahead, enlighten us.
Fear not - I promise NEVER to bet anything you like.
:lol:

[46zilzal]

Raybo, I was just stating what Doc taught.
(And 46, whn used properly, not literally, it has worked for many)
You would use common sense, say hthe horse ran three races at $10,000 Clmg, the third back, it finished 2nd earning a SR of 88.
Two back, it finished 5th, eraning a 81, and last out it, finished last, earning a 74. You would not use this horse.



I used to think that too and there was a great example of WHY not to do that yesterday at Aqueduct in the 5th 6th? named Hoosick Falls. Nothing about this front runner said that it was disabled, but this one had ran against several extremely quick opening halves and exhausted itself to the point that in the last two, he finished back so far that HIS final time was declining. This one's ability to go to the front, on the front running track yesterday, AS THE ONLY SPEED, allowed him to go unmolested on the front and pay over $20.00. THERE ARE NO HARD and FAST RULES on this best of last three thing: they have to be taken in the context of the horse's NORMAL energy distribution, what NORMAL pace this one can deal with (THE ESSENCE OF THE MATCH UP) and what the pace structure of today's race will be.

That one got the front all alone, and on the AQU inner just sailed.

[JohnGalt1]

There are two kinds of contrarian ways.

Handicapping and Betting.

We all handicap differently. Proof is that if we did do it same, every race would have a 1-9 horse. Some are better pace figure cappers, others class, and others physicality cappers. And that's just 3 factors of dozens.

M. Scott McMannus in his Horse Player articles says one way of being a contrarian is to have info not available or used by most. I like that definition of contrary handicapping.

In betting, the favorite is the consensus. If you like any other horse and bet on it, that is contrarian betting.

And that's my $.02.

[46zilzal]

John, how are things at the Twentieth Century Motor Company?

[JohnGalt1]

John, how are things at the Twentieth Century Motor Company?


Don't know. I've been hanging out at the race track.


A good book on contrarian betting is The Zen of Handicapping by Wayne Allen Root. It's mostly about sports betting, but he advocates going against the crowd to make money gambling.

An example of not contrarian handicapping is using Beyer figs. Unless there is a way to use them that others don't.

[Show Me the Wire]

46zilzal:

How is using energy distribution contrarian handicapping. It is a well established method and a commonly accepted idea that energy expenditure is important?

[Show Me the Wire]

There are two kinds of contrarian ways.

Handicapping and Betting.

We all handicap differently. Proof is that if we did do it same, every race would have a 1-9 horse. Some are better pace figure cappers, others class, and others physicality cappers. And that's just 3 factors of dozens.

M. Scott McMannus in his Horse Player articles says one way of being a contrarian is to have info not available or used by most. I like that definition of contrary handicapping.

In betting, the favorite is the consensus. If you like any other horse and bet on it, that is contrarian betting.

And that's my $.02.

Scott is a good guy. some info not available to most if you play the Chicago circuit is his race ratings and meet summary reports. Good info. Right StatMan.

[46zilzal]

46zilzal:

How is using energy distribution contrarian handicapping. It is a well established method and a commonly accepted idea that energy expenditure is important?
I don't elucidate all the factors involved with energy distribution evaluation......there are some NOT SHOWN here.

If you visited the Sartin Yahoo sites AND had the programs we use, then you'e be privy to that aspect of it.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't elucidate all the factors involved with energy distribution evaluation......there are some NOT SHOWN here.

If you visited the Sartin Yahoo sites AND had the programs we use, then you'e be privy to that aspect of it.

Oh, so you are only contrarian in the area of energy expenditure. Now I understand.

BTW I am too contrairian to visit that site or use a program many people use. So I guess you won't be seeing me there.

[46zilzal]

Oh, so you are only contrarian in the area of energy expenditure. Now I understand.


you certainly have a bad habit of thinking you are telling ME what I think......You should open a clairvoyant salon and read Tarot cards...you are just as competent as they are.

[Show Me the Wire]

you certainly have a bad habit of thinking you are telling ME what I think......You should open a clairvoyant salon and read Tarot cards...you are just as competent as they are.


Actually, it is reading what you post. If you are communicating incorrectly you can not fault me.

contrarian means to be opposite. In this fact situation, using Energy Distribution as a handicapping tool is well accepted common thinking. Nothing contrarian about using energy distribution as a main factor in handicapping, at least now a days.

So I asked the legitimate question what is contrarian about using enregy distribution. your response is you do not use all the factors involved with energy distribution.

Therefore, according to you, you are using energy distribution in a contrarian way. Is that not what you said?

However, using energy distribution, the general theory is not contrarian.

If you believe what you stated meant anything else or should be interpreted in a different manner, you are right I am going to need some sort of divination to understand your points.

[Tom]

I used to think that too and there was a great example of WHY not to do that yesterday at Aqueduct in the 5th 6th? named Hoosick Falls. Nothing about this front runner said that it was disabled, but this one had ran against several extremely quick opening halves and exhausted itself to the point that in the last two, he finished back so far that HIS final time was declining. This one's ability to go to the front, on the front running track yesterday, AS THE ONLY SPEED, allowed him to go unmolested on the front and pay over $20.00. THERE ARE NO HARD and FAST RULES on this best of last three thing: they have to be taken in the context of the horse's NORMAL energy distribution, what NORMAL pace this one can deal with (THE ESSENCE OF THE MATCH UP) and what the pace structure of today's race will be.

That one got the front all alone, and on the AQU inner just sailed.

Yes, I know - I had him. As I did several times at FL. I know enough that fast paced races can be excuses to go back. So this one would not have been picked using the method, many more would have. As I said, this was Doc's prescription to help people who were having trouble. And, as any fool should know, nothing works on every race. What you get using your method and what someone else gets using other methods will be different horses, but nothing says both cannot be winners. Using your parameters for this one race, I could find a score of horses who will lose.

[Binder]

I feel Mr Sartins methodology guidelines
of betting in a way he called waggercapping were
very different. Not only betting two horses but also
hiding or ignoring any horse that would pay less than
a minimum amount _ Doc's guidelines were over 5/2
as your first bet and for your second bet betting
often you 3rd or sometimes 4th ranked horse
He developed a 20 race cycle sheet
that his clients were asked to filling one of 4 boxes
each box was to represent the rank of the horse on his advanced programs
Doc then asked us to study the patterns of were our winners
were coming from and to show us how often looking at those 3rd and 4th
rated horses after hiding the low odds favorites were winning
and paying very well
I feel that was a very different teaching method

Bill

[Steve 'StatMan']

Scott is a good guy. some info not available to most if you play the Chicago circuit is his race ratings and meet summary reports. Good info. Right StatMan.

Yes, SMTM, thanks, he sure is! Good info - trip notes & speed figs specific to the circuit (Chicago only) , by someone observing the races and knowing the contacts at the track to ask about anomalies. Trainer Data that is track and meet specific.

I wish I'd met Scott and taken racing and handicapping seriously a lot sooner than I did (1991-1993).

There was a time, based on a lot of older literature, when Speed Figures WERE a contrarian approach. Pace figs were also contrarian at one time. Now most of us would likely consider either or both to be the norm, rather than the exception. Still, having a better local speed figure, a more accurate 'ruler' to measure with, is a plus, and sometimes a big plus. And notes about why horses performed the way they did, are also quite important. Have to have them in order to better understand figures (and even to generate more accurate figures.)

Personally, I am torn between going to the live track every day to learn and make body language assements (quite contraian, plus I already have Scott's figs and notes so I could focus on something 'extra'), vs. spending more time with what I already have, vs. computerizing my analysis & betting from home via computer, and perhaps adding 1 more circuit (and obtaining private figs & notes for that one as well).

Either way, there is so much work I could and 'should' be doing, that I'm currently not doing. Plus, since I'd rather not give up the 'security' of my 'dream' job to do it, it is unlikely I'll find the time to accomplish either to the degree I'd need to prove to myself I could make the complete switch to full time bettor and data collector/retriever. At least not in the short term, anyway.

[raybo]

Raybo, I was just stating what Doc taught.
(And 46, whn used properly, not literally, it has worked for many)
You would use common sense, say hthe horse ran three races at $10,000 Clmg, the third back, it finished 2nd earning a SR of 88.
Two back, it finished 5th, eraning a 81, and last out it, finished last, earning a 74. You would not use this horse.

But the idea, when used with a sensibly, can let you forgive a last out even race in favor of the better two back - say last out, 3rd by 7 , earning a 83, but two back, ran 3rd by 2 earning a 87, you would use the 87.

There is a two part article by the Doc on the ATM website in the articles sectin - it is well worth a few minutes looking for it to get it. It is written around usinng the Ray Talbout PC.....I'll see if I can grab it today, too.
It was a method I used - successfully for over 5 years.
He told me once that it was the idea tha people were either tie dto the last race no matter what, and others were just flying blindly getting lines.
remeberm, Doc was doing things as prescriptions for people to start winning, so not everything he offered was for everyone. Just like asprin for headaches, but not too good for broken arms. ( tough to swallow when yer arm's a dangling!:eek:)

Tom,

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I didn't think you adhered to "set" running line selection methods. Current form/running line selection has historically been the weakest part of my game and the portion that I have spent the vast majority of my time, in the last 10 years or so, trying to improve.

I've made some great leaps forward since that time in this regard but still have problems when a representative race can't be found in a horse's recent history, say the last 3 or 4 races. Thus, my current emphasis on ability to assess current form in longer/shorter distances as it relates to today's distance. I concentrate the majority of my handicapping/wagering in shorter distances at medium to smaller tracks because there are so many more short races and, therefore, more wagering opportunities. Hopefully, this will eventually enable me to go further back in a horse's running lines for a representative race with more confidence that both his current form and ability at today's distance is represented there. Any suggestions in this pursuit would be welcomed, as I have been impressed by your knowledge and that you appear to be well grounded in time proven handicapping fundamentals.

Because I wager only on superfectas I am forced to evaluate every horse in the field which means that in almost every race there are horses that do not have a representative running line in the recent past, if at all. I can't simply look for the winner, as many here do. I wish it was that easy.

[46zilzal]

Actually, it is reading what you post. If you are communicating incorrectly you can not fault me.


congrats you have moved into the finalists category for this years Norris Pannell award. You are in good company.

[Handiman]

Price,


You never cease to amaze me. The things you say sometimes, actually many times makes me think you do it just to antagonize people. Just because a good horse with great connections is going off at 3/5 and seems to be unbeatable, does not make it a value play. If that were true, then there would be no such thing as 'racing luck.'

Many times, in fact almost every race there is one horse that the crowd thinks is unbeatable and bets down to even or less. Then a 15 to 1 wipes up the course with the fav.

There is no such thing as a sure thing, regardless of the odds. Or the connections. But to ignore the connections IMHO is foolhearty.

Handi

[Show Me the Wire]

congrats you have moved into the finalists category for this years Norris Pannell award. You are in good company.

How about responding to the substance of my post and not just the introduction?

My aplologizes to the other posters as I do not want to lead this thread totally off-topic. This will be my last to 46zilzal about his contrarian ways in this thread.

[46zilzal]

horse has no idea who his connections are: The horse just performs independently

[46zilzal]

I feel Mr Sartins methodology guidelines
of betting in a way he called waggercapping were
very different.
When did Howard get demoted to Mr.? Even when one does not practice any longer they are still entitled to the degree they worked hard in getting.

[Show Me the Wire]

Price,


You never cease to amaze me. The things you say sometimes, actually many times makes me think you do it just to antagonize people. Just because a good horse with great connections is going off at 3/5 and seems to be unbeatable, does not make it a value play. If that were true, then there would be no such thing as 'racing luck.'

Many times, in fact almost every race there is one horse that the crowd thinks is unbeatable and bets down to even or less. Then a 15 to 1 wipes up the course with the fav.

There is no such thing as a sure thing, regardless of the odds. Or the connections. But to ignore the connections IMHO is foolhearty.
Handi

Easy to say ignore the connections, but in truth how many here ignore a horse 1st off the claim by Lake, Assmussen, Catalano, Mullins, and a few others. Apparently not many as many of the capper's that populate this board complain about certain trainer and thier uncanny ability to improve a horse.

The horse may not know who is connections are, but the horse knows when he is feeling good.

[46zilzal]

a pitcher is much different when he is on the Yankees or Red Sox....of course he is not. Implicit nature of an athlete does not change by environment.

Different barn, he must be better.....Balderdash!

[Greyfox]

When did Howard get demoted to Mr.? Even when one does not practice any longer they are still entitled to the degree they worked hard in getting.

Sartin may have had good stuff, but according to a Barry Meadows Newletter
Mr. Sartin's Ph.D. came via mail order. The newsletter is at
http://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm

[44PACE]

44,

I'm not saying that you can't make money. I'm just saying that it's an important part of racing. What alot of people don't realize is that winning jockeys and trainers recieve that moniker because they win more than other jockeys and trainers.
That happens because they are given the better horses. And as a result, better jockeys with better trainers and better horses tend to win more than other combinations.
Again it's not the be all to end all. But I have found some races that should be skipped because the connections couldn't be beat ....at least the risk wasn't worth betting. Now you may have some way of determining that those races should be skipped, without considering the connections involved.

This was not meant to be a slam against anyone personally, just my belief that ignoring the connections is a foolish act in relation to horseracing.

Regards,
Handi

Handi, I didn't take it as a slam, everyone has their way of doing things which is why this game is soo much fun.
I come from the Sartin era , very little was talked about jockeys, like you said better jockeys get the better horses. The horses with the lower odds will mostly be ridden by jockeys with higher win %.

The subject heading is contrarian handicapping, this is the only reason I brought up jockeys, becouse almost everyone looks at the jockeys, this is one of the things I do that is contrarian.

Note. Never change what works for you, if you make money looking at jockey/trainer connections it would be foolish to change. I just found that for me ignoring this info has not stopped me from making profits. I set my goals very high i am not happy hitting 25 % winners with low odds. The only way to get good odds ( 3-1 and above ) with a win % in the mid 30's is to look at things different than the crowd and to have a method that is superior to what is out there. I have found this method all I can say is it works for me.


Good luck.

[46zilzal]

one only believes in SUBSTANTIATED information from more than one source. I know horticulturists who call themselves tree doctors and Johnny Carson's band leader was a DOC as well. He is quoted in many psych texts so you'd better inform them right away to retract his research!!!

[46zilzal]

8th race - Aqueduct - January 06, 2007
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
1 Pink Viper 18.40 5.70 3.70
4 Johannesburg Star 3.00 2.30
3 Sir Whimsey 3.30

$2 Exacta 1-4 58.50
$2 Trifecta 1-4-3 218.00

A contrarian thought gift as the speed does what it does on the Aqueduct inner. All based on a imbalance favoring the earlier energy distributions that are king there. Same logic prevailed in the stake yesterday when Jazil ran second.

[Tom]

a pitcher is much different when he is on the Yankees or Red Sox....of course he is not. Implicit nature of an athlete does not change by environment.

Different barn, he must be better.....Balderdash!

Actually, thus is exactly what happens. Different teams have better trainers, better metods of practice(better drugs), etc. These winning teams are far more than a bunch of good ahtletes who come together. Same for horses. To say the rainer makes no differnce is the upmost in ignorance about how this game works. Horeses - not even Secretariat, train themselves. They do not feed themselves, call the vet when they need worming, whatever. The horse's condition is a direct result of the trainer and how he manages his stables. A good horse with a great trainer will be in better shape than a great horse in the hands of a poor trainer. Secretariat would surely loose races in the hands of many trainers.

[Tom]

A contrarian thought gift as the speed does what it does on the Aqueduct inner. All based on a imbalance favoring the earlier energy distributions that are king there. Same logic prevailed in the stake yesterday when Jazil ran second.

You arae telling me that early horses have an edge on the inner track is CONTRARIAN?????? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I remember knowing that back in the days of Trumpeter Swan - me and everyone else at the OTB. And at the track, And in Austrailia , And in India.

And even one of Nostrademas's predictions was "Speed on the inside track will never look back. ":p

[46zilzal]

the way it is elucidated is and there are more factors than just that one

[bigmack]

And even one of Nostrademas's predictions was "Speed on the inside track will never look back. "
I know some German but his thoughts were clear on that.

Mit dem Namen Nostradamus verbindet sich ein Mythos, der auch nach über 400 Jahren nichts von seiner Aktualität verloren hat. Denn nach Ansicht seiner Anhänger speed on the inside track will never look back sah er nicht nur Dinge voraus.

http://www.sternwarte-ueberlingen.de/vortraege/nostradamus/nostradamus.gif

[Milleruszk]

a pitcher is much different when he is on the Yankees or Red Sox....of course he is not. Implicit nature of an athlete does not change by environment.

Different barn, he must be better.....Balderdash!


Ask Ed Whitson if he would agree with your statement.

[RBrowning]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46zilzal

A contrarian thought gift as the speed does what it does on the Aqueduct inner. All based on a imbalance favoring the earlier energy distributions that are king there. Same logic prevailed in the stake yesterday when Jazil ran second.





Oh on the contrary,sir.







I........



....oh skip it.

I don't think I can do this.

[Robert Fischer]

Owner John Oxley was on a hunting trip in Nairobi, and one of the guides asked him if early speed was still favoring on the Aqueduct inner....;)

[Show Me the Wire]

Owner John Oxley was on a hunting trip in Nairobi, and one of the guides asked him if early speed was still favoring on the Aqueduct inner....;)
:lol:

[44PACE]

A good horse with a great trainer will be in better shape than a great horse in the hands of a poor trainer. Secretariat would surely loose races in the hands of many trainers.

Tom.

Isn't this all in the Past Performances, what difference does it matter WHY a horse has his good or bad form? AS long as you see that the horse you are betting on is in position to win becouse of his superior ability or some matchup advantage, who cares if so and so does this or that to him. You are not going to get any more $ becouse of the reason why he won.

Tonight I sat next to a group of players at the track I play at, they all based their bets on trainers/ jockeys , they all lost all night long.

[Tom]

Why, it's sacreligious not to go for the lead on the inner!

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom.

Isn't this all in the Past Performances, what difference does it matter WHY a horse has his good or bad form? AS long as you see that the horse you are betting on is in position to win becouse of his superior ability or some matchup advantage, who cares if so and so does this or that to him. You are not going to get any more $ becouse of the reason why he won.

Tonight I sat next to a group of players at the track I play at, they all based their bets on trainers/ jockeys , they all lost all night long.

Goes to show what works for some don't work for others. Today and yesterday my friend hit well paying exactas due to trainer/ jock combos. So if you ask me it works.

[Overlay]

I think trainers and jockeys can have their place in handicapping if (like any other factor) you view their influence or effect on race outcomes in terms of probabilities rather than absolutes. I wouldn't bet on any horse solely because it's ridden or trained by any particular individual or jockey/trainer combination, nor would I completely rule it out and say it had no chance. But it's hard for me to overlook the disproportionate share of races that are won at almost any race meeting by just a few members of the local jockey colony. And, to me, focusing on the jockey also has the benefit of tangentially factoring in trainer intent, since I would think that a trainer with a horse that's ready to win would try to assure that it was suitably mounted (if not by one of the top jockeys at the meeting, than at least by one that's had success with it in the past). It's just a matter of going with established probabilities rather than betting against them. (I know that this thread is about being contrarian, but this is one area where I believe it pays to go with the percentages.)

[Binder]

When did Howard get demoted to Mr.? Even when one does not practice any longer they are still entitled to the degree they worked hard in getting.

You are correct.
I guess I let my own feelings show. To me these days he is not Doc
he is a friend and since he is older then me and out of respect I called him
Mr. Sartin.

Good Skill
Bill

[Greyfox]

You are correct.
I guess I let my own feelings show. To me these days he is not Doc
he is a friend and since he is older then me and out of respect I called him
Mr. Sartin.

Good Skill
Bill

I repeat. In spite of his handicapping contributions, the man got his Ph.D.
by mail order. You can get yours too. That doesn't mean I'll call you "Doc."
Was he ever licensed by a state to practice? Did any "psych" books besides
Gambling Times ever publish him. If so, what ones. Once again, I suggest that you read Barry Meadows Racing Monthly at http://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm

[PaceAdvantage]

Does it really matter what he's called?

For those who are so concerned with why or even if he should be called "Doc" I'm sure they've done their due diligence and formed their own opinion (just as you yourself have done). As for others, such as myself, it's not a factor, especially at this point in time.

[Boris]

Quote:

....oh skip it.

I don't think I can do this.


When you stop beating your head against a tree, it feels better.

[RXB]

a pitcher is much different when he is on the Yankees or Red Sox....of course he is not. Implicit nature of an athlete does not change by environment.

Different barn, he must be better.....Balderdash!

Watch what happens when Scott Craigmyle claims a horse from Bill Spawr or Doug O'Neill... then tell me that the horse is "independent" from the trainer.

The relationship between a baseball pitcher and his environment is not analogous to a racehorse's relationship with its trainer.

[ryesteve]

I repeat. In spite of his handicapping contributions, the man got his Ph.D.
by mail order. You can get yours too. That doesn't mean I'll call you "Doc."
Was he ever licensed by a state to practice?
I hate to break it to you, but not only did Julius Erving and Dwight Gooden never attend graduate school, they never even bothered getting a mail order PhD either.

Is there no end to the these scandals?

[BIG49010]

Getting back on topic, I use trainer stat angles first, then I look at the works of the horse, followed by speed and pace to see if the horse fits in the race.

Does this make me Contrarian ?

P.S. I only bet to win

[ryesteve]

Getting back on topic, I use trainer stat angles first, then I look at the works of the horse, followed by speed and pace to see if the horse fits in the race.

Does this make me Contrarian ?
I'm going to say "no", because in my mind, "contrarian" implies using something that seems intuitively wrong as your starting point. Good trainer stats and workouts would strike most people as being perfectly logical.

[Greyfox]

I only responded earlier as some guy said that some guy worked hard to get his degree. Yeah he put a stamp on a letter and sent it to mail order. Enough.

The start of this thread asked:

"What examples of contrarian handicapping have you employed outside of trainer/jockey specialties?"

Secretariat, that turns out to be an excellent question. Very few examples have been cited so far as a lot of "contrarian" stuff willl come back to the trainer and the jockey.
Of course there are people who play their house number, their phone number or the last license plate that they've read in a race. I consider them to be a subset of the group of "contrarian" thinkers.
I suspect that when you see a really big hit at the track someone in the latter group has made it.
Knowledgeable handicappers "know better" and don't get the score.
The problem though with the license plate and phone number players is that
usually their hits are once in a life time ventures. They spend the rest of their
lives giving back more and more.
As I said above, the original question was an excellent one and hard to answer. Hence, I'm also enjoying posts that include contrarian angles about
Jockeys and trainers.

[46zilzal]

Ihttp://www.trpublishing.com/p0000443.htm

couldn't read it. Quote the part about the mail order degree

[44PACE]

Watch what happens when Scott Craigmyle claims a horse from Bill Spawr or Doug O'Neill... then tell me that the horse is "independent" from the trainer.

. Well then bet it.

[befuddlem]

Watch what happens when Scott Craigmyle claims a horse from Bill Spawr or Doug O'Neill... then tell me that the horse is "independent" from the trainer.

The relationship between a baseball pitcher and his environment is not analogous to a racehorse's relationship with its trainer.

Even when Craigmyle wins at Fairplex his horses pay nothing!
He's 2 for his last 88.

[RXB]

Well then bet it.

????????

Try re-reading my initial post and see if you can grasp the context this time.

[befuddlem]

Cool man cool!

[befuddlem]

Sorry RXB

I thought you were talking to me.:cool: