Eliminating Non-Contenders

[sealord]

Hi All,
Recently my handicapping took a small step forward. I have been able to do a better job eliminating the non-contenders in a race. I feel like I can now 'see' those horses who are outclassed, outsped, off form (still tricky), or just out for a workout. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, but doing better than ever with this. However, I'm still leaving a lot of horses 'in' who I think can contend. Some races I can rule out 60% and others just a third. And since I have so many contenders left, I can't decide how to bet. The good news is that finally my non-contenders are consistently not hitting the board. I know this is just the first step in a handicappers education, but it was a big deal for me being a hobby-capper, weekend warrior type.

My question is this: What do you guys think is a minimum percentage or number of horses to rule out in order to effectively bet a race?

Thanks as always,
Jeff

[mikeb]

Half the field works for me.

mb.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

Half the field works for me. mb.I have to agree. 50% field reduction is a decent rule of thumb. The beauty of contender analysis, in this day and age, is that Pik3 and Pik4 wagers lend themselves to this perspective. The perfect Pik4 ticket to my eye is 1x2x3x4=$24, as you usually don't have to narrow down your contenders past your comfort zone.

What you have accomplished in your contender analysis is what I perceive to be the foundational fundamental handicapping process. Now, if you are betting vertically, you will need to make some adjustments to this analysis, but if you are just trying to pick winners, you are starting at the right point.

Carry on, Carry on,

Hajck

[garyoz]

Dave Schwartz seems to use half the field plus one pretty successfully with some of HSH's analytics. Maybe he can weigh-in.

I think it has been established that top 5 horses account for about 88% (as I remember) of winners -- and that is used by some programs as the underlying assumption of oddslines (Synergism). Maybe someone has that data.

[Pell Mell]

Eliminating non contenders is dependent on how you bet. If you are a win bettor only, than getting rid of non contenders is a good idea. If however, you bet exotics, I don't think you can eliminate anyone. For instance: a couple days ago I had a horse as a spot play and found what looked like 3 other contenders. I bet some exotics with my horse on top and he won at 11/1. But, and this happens all the time, a 60/ shot ran 2nd and a 50/1 ran 4th. Lucky I made a win bet.

What actually happens is that the "Contenders" knock each other out with 1 of them ending up winning but the place and show are up for grabs.

So for my money, eliminating horses is the way to go if your betting win only. JMHO ;)

[garyoz]

So for my money, eliminating horses is the way to go if your betting win only. JMHO ;)

Or serial bets like Pick3-'s & 4's. Also can eliminate horses from single bet (vertical) wagers like Tri's if you think they will be out of the money--esp. if they are short prices. Process of elimination vs. process of inclusion -- it all comes down to value wagers, not necessarily winning bets.

[TravisVOX]

Big payoffs can come from a 60-1 shot who chugs up for third, but would have been eliminated on the win end as a non-contender. Depends on how you play.

[sealord]

Being that I'm a novice, I figured I better get proficient at winner picking before moving on to the exotics. But, then again, maybe I don't need to...

[Robert Fischer]

I try to eliminate all that I can from each bettable position. I allow for error and then make a low estimate of payout.

[bigmack]

Being that I'm a novice, I figured I better get proficient at winner picking before moving on to the exotics. But, then again, maybe I don't need to...
For novices I would recomend exotics over win wagers using their figured contenders. It's easier to cash tickets in keying/wheeling or boxing a handful than it is to pick a cold winner.

[GaryG]

Continue to work on your handicapping no matter how you bet. Don't just shoot from the hip and start going after a big score.

[SMOO]

Big payoffs can come from a 60-1 shot who chugs up for third, but would have been eliminated on the win end as a non-contender. Depends on how you play.

Yes, I've always believed that in most races "anything can run third". If you can solo one horse on top, 3 or 4 in the second spot and wheel the rest for 3rd you can hit some decent payoffs in the trifecta.

[ranchwest]

For me, elimination is the key.

Here's my most common strategy: I toss out the non-contenders, then I toss some more and some more and then I've got one horse left. I assume he's the winner.

[Overlay]

I don't advocate betting longshots indiscriminately in the hope of a high payoff, but I also think there's something to be said for keeping the full field in view when handicapping through the use of a ranking or odds-assignment process, rather than winnowing it down to a single selection (or even a group of "contenders") by elimination, where no further consideration is given to a horse at all once it's been determined that the horse falls outside the contending group. To me, the ideal state to work toward is the assignment of odds to a field of horses so that those that might otherwise be regarded as "non-contenders" will not warrant a bet unless there are truly significant, identifiable positive aspects of their records that have been undervalued in the betting, and the wagers on those horses will be of a size and frequency such that the potential return adequately compensates for the degree of risk. They aren't in the same tier with the "contenders", but all positive "wrinkles" of their records have been taken into account, and a determination has been made as to what level of possible payoff justifies supporting them, and to what degree.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

I don't advocate betting longshots indiscriminately in the hope of a high payoff, but I also think there's something to be said for keeping the full field in view when handicapping through the use of a ranking or odds-assignment process, rather than winnowing it down to a single selection (or even a group of "contenders") by elimination, where no further consideration is given to a horse at all once it's been determined that the horse falls outside the contending group. To me, the ideal state to work toward is the assignment of odds to a field of horses so that those that might otherwise be regarded as "non-contenders" will not warrant a bet unless there are truly significant, identifiable positive aspects of their records that have been undervalued in the betting, and the wagers on those horses will be of a size and frequency such that the potential return adequately compensates for the degree of risk. They aren't in the same tier with the "contenders", but all positive "wrinkles" of their records have been taken into account, and a determination has been made as to what level of possible payoff justifies supporting them, and to what degree.Good point. Probability is a key factor of contender analysis. As far a pool value, it is impossible to analyze in the horizontal pools outside of the opening leg, but if you deem a horse to have a 8% probability of winning a race, and he/she goes off at odds of, say 75-1, the horse would then be a contender. (i.e. CLOSING ARGUMENT in the 05' Derby)

I think contender analysis is paramount in the horizontal pools. That 88% platform isn't a bad one to perform from. Vertically speaking though, value assesment is a more useful perspective.

Carry on, Carry on,

Hajck

[Dave Schwartz]

As Gary O alluded to I have done quite a bit of research on this. It appears that just about any ordinal factor you choose to run an IV table on you get this "falling-off-the-table" graph at precisely 1/2 the field plus 1 horse. Note that this effect is only visible in a field-size specific sample.

As an example, here is a sample of the last 2,000 claiming sprints for older males in my database: (The factor is "Final Time, best-2-of-last-3.")


CS.m.o.
82-rFT05
-----------------
WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
--------------------------------------------------------
1 2,235 572 25.6 $1.77 2.03 1.05
2 2,112 375 17.8 $1.64 1.42 0.96
3 2,087 304 14.6 $1.65 1.16 0.95
4 1,943 219 11.3 $1.46 0.89 0.91
5 1,950 203 10.4 $1.64 0.83 1.03
6 1,839 112 6.1 $1.34 0.50 0.73
7 1,579 108 6.8 $1.65 0.59 1.01
8 1,165 43 3.7 $1.06 0.35 0.67
above 1,817 69 3.8 $1.15 0.40 0.92

Total 16,727 2,005 12.0 $1.51 1.00 0.96


As you can see, things flow reasonably smoothly, although there is a hiccup at rank 7. (This is generally caused by an unequally distributed field sizes, btw.)


The table below is the same factor but drawn instead from the 8-horse fields in that sample:


CS.m.o-copy.
82-rFT05
----------------------
WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
--------------------------------------------------------
1 700 171 24.4 $1.64 1.95 1.03
2 641 117 18.3 $1.80 1.46 1.00
3 657 103 15.7 $1.79 1.25 1.04
4 582 69 11.9 $1.62 0.95 0.90
5 612 63 10.3 $1.53 0.82 0.96
6 603 35 5.8 $1.16 0.46 0.67
7 576 40 6.9 $1.53 0.56 1.01
8 573 21 3.7 $1.07 0.29 0.70

Total 4,944 619 12.5 $1.53 1.00 0.96


See how things just drop off at the 6th choice?

We have seen this in just about every table we run.


Hope this helps.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: I guess the 7th rank-thing was a real aberration.

[Kelso]

I have been able to do a better job eliminating the non-contenders in a race. I feel like I can now 'see' those horses who are outclassed, outsped, off form (still tricky), or just out for a workout.


What tipoffs to trainer-intent have you detected? To me, this is a bewildering subject.

Thank you.

[spilparc]

Being that I'm a novice, I figured I better get proficient at winner picking before moving on to the exotics. But, then again, maybe I don't need to...

You are on the right track just betting to win. Exotics will come later as you get better and better at win betting. Most horseplayers lose money betting the exotics (mostly exactas.) They wheel, and box, and throw in just one more combination. Master win betting first, and the exactas, doubles etc. will fall in line.

There are usually never more than four contenders in every race. Often, there are only two or three.

[Overlay]

Good point. Probability is a key factor of contender analysis....I think contender analysis is paramount in the horizontal pools. That 88% platform isn't a bad one to perform from.

Despite my preference for full-field handicapping, I don't take issue with those who limit consideration to contenders, and do so successfully on a consistent basis. But, as you say, I think even then that the degree of value offered by each remaining horse has to be part of the analysis, including (and perhaps especially) in those cases where the handicapper has narrowed a race down to a single horse.

[dav4463]

I eliminate it down to four horses on most races. No matter how much I like horse one or two as win contenders, I will still consider my third or fourth choice at 8-1 or higher for the win.

[DanG]

I went through a period where I eliminated runners as my first step through a race and after a few years I found it hurt my game.

Obviously whatever works for you, but it throws off my equilibrium if there are “unknowns” in the race that I can no longer see. At the very least it gives me a distorted picture of the positional set up. Even an animal with a 3% chance of winning can impact a contender by forcing them wide or breaking into their right shoulder for example.

Just my current two cents…

BTW: I mainly play pic-3, 4 and 6, so elimination takes on a different meaning when I’m seeking chaos as a reason to be involved. Having said that; if you’re playing high volume and multiple tracks, then I think a sound elimination strategy can be very helpful.

[garyoz]

Even an animal with a 3% chance of winning can impact a contender by forcing them wide or breaking into their right shoulder for example.

If you are doing any type of pace analysis, IMHO you can't eliminate any horses--for obvious reasons such as pace matchup, etc. That is one problem I always had with the original Sartin approach eliminating down to 8 (or whatever) contenders then trying to do a pace analysis.

[sealord]

Very good points regarding a NC having an impact on the race or even stealing it from a favorable pace setup. My major problem is being overwhelmed with all the horses. I just don't seem to have the prowess to assimilate opinions on all 8 (for example) horses yet. I've studied pace by reading MPH about 672 times, and have seen it change the race shapes on a daily basis, but I'm lightyears away from fulling understanding and using pace correctly. Therefore, I thought by starting with the top two or three horses and hopefully being able to pick winners a third or so the time, I could eventually move on to the rest of the field. However, I just read Crist's 'Exotic Betting' and his math certainly makes the case for exotics.

[ranchwest]

I think I should clarify my earlier post, as I can now see that my idea of "elimination" is different from what a lot of people are posting. In fact, I guess I don't fully eliminate at all.

Imagine you're playing dominos. So, you move the most useful ones in your hand to the front and put the less useful ones in the back. Now, maybe you didn't look at the whole picture, so now you have to scramble them around again. But, you don't turn any of them down. You just move different ones to the front. Then you put the very best ones in the very front.

That's sorta what I do with horses. I never turn one completely down. I just always know which ones I have in the front. Then I eventually get down to one and then I scan the odds to see if anything looks peculiar. Then I usually go through all the horses again, trying to look from a different perspective. Most of the time I stick with what I saw the first time through.

By continuing to have all of the horses available for review, I can still look at pace scenarios, etc.
Once I finally get locked in on a horse, I usually stick with it or pass. Unfortunately I don't get too many over 12/1, but I try to be open to longshots that I like.

[spilparc]

Very good points regarding a NC having an impact on the race or even stealing it from a favorable pace setup. My major problem is being overwhelmed with all the horses. I just don't seem to have the prowess to assimilate opinions on all 8 (for example) horses yet. I've studied pace by reading MPH about 672 times, and have seen it change the race shapes on a daily basis, but I'm lightyears away from fulling understanding and using pace correctly. Therefore, I thought by starting with the top two or three horses and hopefully being able to pick winners a third or so the time, I could eventually move on to the rest of the field. However, I just read Crist's 'Exotic Betting' and his math certainly makes the case for exotics.

I love the way Mark Cramer writes and analizes horse racing. Try looking for his book called "Value Handicapping." It's a real gem. Howard Sartin said it was the best book written on the subject--ever. He talks primarily about making a line, etc., but the way he dissects a horse race is very informative. His logical analysis of a horse race makes a lot off sense. He has a way of getting down to the real "meat" of a race. You can't help but learn from it. Here's a link to the cheapest price I could find.

http://www.highstakes.co.uk/shop/product.php/1192/0/

Also, both of Jim Bradshaw's MatchUp books are excellent.

After all when you get right down to it. It's all about the way the horses match up with each other in this particular race. Most of the horses in the race just don't make the cut. They're usually just too slow, or they are out classed, or a speed horse won't get the lead, or an off the pace horse is running in a paceless race. Most of the horses just don't match up and can be eliminated.

Once you've separated the wheat from the chaff, you're left with the contenders. That's usually no more than four horses, and sometimes it's only one. Then you match up the horses that are left.

It sounds easy, but it takes a lot of practice--just like anything else, but it's a good jumping off point.

Find the horses that don't belong--eliminate them--pick the winner from who is left.

[46zilzal]

The original Match Up book is not well written. Ideas are great but it takes a very long time to "get it" based upon such diffuse presentation of ideas.

Hopefully the fog has lifted off the second presentation.

[sealord]

What tipoffs to trainer-intent have you detected? To me, this is a bewildering subject.

Thank you.

I'm far from an expert but have had some of success recognizing TI as of late at Arlington, which is the only track I play regularly.
Basically, according to Ainsle's Compleat Guide to Tbred Racing, a horse has to have recency of action to be considered as a contender. ROA is described by him as having two or more works (races or workouts) in the previous month for sprints and three or more for routes. In my limited studies last year and this, almost no winners came without ROA. ITM horses yes, but winners pretty much no. Exceptions are usually older horses who show back speed or class and that might be too gimpy to train alot. They seem to compete nicely without ROA.
Another thing I look at for trainer intent is if the horse is entered at a class at which is he seems to be competive. That would be loosely defined as beating roughly half the field, coming in within a few lengths, or running hard around the second call in a recent effort at a similiar class level. I think I ripped this off from Quinn but can't remember exactly. If the horse is entered over his head, he might win, but I've found it is safe to view him more as an also ran, perhaps for exotics play.
Lastly, is a positive jock switch. I have seen this recently at AP to good effect. A horse was entered back at a class level he recently competed fairly in, but had Douglas or Emigh up on him instead of a lesser jock. The horses finished up ITM if I remeber; an improvement on previous performance.
I'm sure there are many exceptions to these rules, and I don't use them as hard and fast automatics, but as general guidelines. It has helped quite a bit though.

[46zilzal]

Ainsle's book was written at a time when thorougbreds were running seasonally and layoffs had a great impact. With year round racing, many of the horses are getting very stale and the layoffs (other than sprints) have just as much chance.

Look at the horse, not the trainer, not the rider, not the groom, not the breeding since all that extraneous stuff is purely theoretical. The horse runs, no one else.

[garyoz]

My major problem is being overwhelmed with all the horses. I just don't seem to have the prowess to assimilate opinions on all 8 (for example) horses yet.

I would suggest getting into good habits early. Why not start focusing on races that have favorites or shorter price horses that you don't like? You are starting from a position of identifying a potential value play. Identifying overbet horses is probably the most valuable tool in handicapping. Profitable playing is more about identifying where the public may be wrong than picking winners. Remember that you a betting into a 18% or so house take. You may cash less often, but you will cash more money. There can almost be as much gratification from throwing out bad favorites as from picking winners.

[ranchwest]

Ainsle's book was written at a time when thorougbreds were running seasonally and layoffs had a great impact. With year round racing, many of the horses are getting very stale and the layoffs (other than sprints) have just as much chance.

Look at the horse, not the trainer, not the rider, not the groom, not the breeding since all that extraneous stuff is purely theoretical. The horse runs, no one else.

I'm sure you must be successful with your approach, but it is VERY different from mine.

The horse doesn't set up training schedules or vet appointments or arrange mounts or select his feed. I go with the connections quite a bit.

As for recency of action, not all works and other preparations are published.

[46zilzal]

I

The horse doesn't set up training schedules or vet appointments or arrange mounts or select his feed. I go with the connections quite a bit.


Still that is all peripheral to the horse, as it will not change it's intrinsic character.

Trainer's don't run. If the horse's record says it had a chance it will.

[ranchwest]

Still that is all peripheral to the horse, as it will not change it's intrinsic character.

Trainer's don't run. If the horse's record says it had a chance it will.

Well, I'm of the opinion that the intrinsic character of a horse is built through bloodlines and training.

There's a reason why some trainers/jockeys seldom win in certain circumstances or seldom win at all.

It's a fact that some bloodlines are more effective than others for turf and mud while other bloodlines are effective on fast tracks.

I guess you ignore all those things. I don't.

[46zilzal]

Bloodlines are nice, but THEORETICAL as I can name horse after horse with great breeding who could not beat a fat man down a hill. Full siblings to other good ones: meiosis is at work, cross over etc.

QUOTE:It's a fact that some bloodlines are more effective than others for turf and mud while other bloodlines are effective on fast tracks.

Yes, but the horses would SHOW those characterisitics if they had them. The breeding is exclusive as the number of genetic variables are almost as countless as the phenotypic expressions.

[DanG]

Bloodlines are nice, but THEORETICAL as I can name horse after horse with great breeding who could not beat a fat man down a hill. Full siblings to other good ones: meiosis is at work, cross over etc.

QUOTE:It's a fact that some bloodlines are more effective than others for turf and mud while other bloodlines are effective on fast tracks.

Yes, but the horses would SHOW those characterisitics if they had them. The breeding is exclusive as the number of genetic variables are almost as countless as the phenotypic expressions.
I thought the same way 46 until I purchased quality pedigree information. I’ll gladly admit I was wrong, but thankfully it’s not widely practiced and when it is…it’s often applied incorrectly. My current pedigree data from HTR produces a perfectly linear table which obviously defies any claims of “randomness”.

Ok…back on topic…

I can feel it coming where this poor gentleman’s “contender” thread becomes WWIII concerning the merits of riders and breeding. :eek: :D

[ranchwest]

Bloodlines are nice, but THEORETICAL as I can name horse after horse with great breeding who could not beat a fat man down a hill. Full siblings to other good ones: meiosis is at work, cross over etc.

QUOTE:It's a fact that some bloodlines are more effective than others for turf and mud while other bloodlines are effective on fast tracks.

Yes, but the horses would SHOW those characterisitics if they had them. The breeding is exclusive as the number of genetic variables are almost as countless as the phenotypic expressions.

Certainly there are horses with "good" bloodlines that are born with poor conformation, have health/fitness problems and otherwise don't pan out.

However, the great majority of top horses come from top bloodlines and a high percentage of obscure bloodlines horses are at the bottom rung of racing.

[46zilzal]

Forli- Lady Golcanda produced Forego but Foredale as well.

Nearctic - Natalma produced Northern Dancer but also Arcitic Dancer, Northern Native, Northern Ace and Trasatlantic.

Exclusive Native- Wont You Tell produced Affirmed but also Silent Fox, She Won't Tell

Bold Ruler - Somethingroyal produced The Bride and Syrian Sea as well as Secretariat..


The individual, not the breeding, tends to show through the theoretical

I didn't take genetics as a undergraduate and fall asleep. THEORETICAL at best. The individual is what to look at.

[Robert Fischer]

a good example is Sun Boat in the Californian

Mike Mitchell gets a claimer who had big problems. He gives the horse fine nutrition and training methods. Wins an allowance race on the cushion track going 8.5 in probably somewhere between 1:41 and 143.5. Enters the Graded Stake Californian with about 10 or 12 horses and probably 8 competitive runners.
Pedigree is a superior european polytrack pedigree. He has good wins at Gulfstream and Belmont previous to his injuries.
I watch the replay twenty five times because I know Mitchell was moving up his horses and this guy has the pedigree and his ugly stride (previous tendon injury?) just doesn't look any better, and I keep hoping it does but I don't go to the window to bet a TRAINER when the animal has had/has obvious problems in form and physicallity in graded stakes right?

No.


there are 10 million ways to win and lose but do not dismiss trainers and pedigree - especially with todays multiple racing surfaces playing a major factor.

[46zilzal]

The individual wins a race. Not the trainer, not the breeding, not the man in the moon.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You can ruin a good one, but you can't create one. NO one can.

That is not to say people do not discover talent that was mis-used: i.e. Cigar from turf to dirt, Seabiscuit, Stymie but they are rare indeed.

[ranchwest]

The individual wins a race. Not the trainer, not the breeding, not the man in the moon.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You can ruin a good one, but you can't create one. NO one can.

That is not to say people do not discover talent that was mis-used: i.e. Cigar from turf to dirt, Seabiscuit, Stymie but they are rare indeed.

I hope everyone follows your suggestions.

[46zilzal]

I hope everyone follows your suggestions.
not looking for disciples as I doubt any one will wake up to the facts.

[46zilzal]

Well, I'm of the opinion that the intrinsic character of a horse is built through bloodlines and training.


I recall hearing the Wolfson's commenting on Affirmed. They knew when he was a baby that he was special, this INDIVIDUAL, as he was always first to the fed tub, outran all the other yearlings. The individual is the only real expression of the breeding, fashionable or not (Ole Bob Bowers - Once Double).....

The EXPRESSION of the genes is what they have to work with, the combination of them is a crap shoot, always has been. The individual is there before a single trainer or rider interacts and it is what shows up later, potential reached or not.

[Dave Schwartz]

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Actually, that is precisely what Mike Mitchell has made a career doing.

[46zilzal]

Actually, that is precisely what Mike Mitchell has made a career doing.
I'm glad someone sees potential in other's outcasts. As I never play the west coast, I will have to take your word on that. This fellow is on the S. Cal circuit?

[46zilzal]

Pedigree is a superior european polytrack pedigree.
There is no such thing as a polytrack pedigree. NONE of them (the artificials) are interchangeable at all. Keeneland is no where the same as Woodbine which is nothing like Hollywood.

[ranchwest]

I recall hearing the Wolfson's commenting on Affirmed. They knew when he was a baby that he was special, this INDIVIDUAL, as he was always first to the fed tub, outran all the other yearlings. The individual is the only real expression of the breeding, fashionable or not (Ole Bob Bowers - Once Double).....

The EXPRESSION of the genes is what they have to work with, the combination of them is a crap shoot, always has been. The individual is there before a single trainer or rider interacts and it is what shows up later, potential reached or not.

I'm really surprised that you've studied genetics and don't acknowledge that positive traits come from positive traits far more often than not. I've never known of a Kentucky Derby winner with bad bloodlines. Genetics is not such a crap shoot that it could be deemed random. There ARE tendancies.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes... Mitchell is famous for taking horses that just failed miserably and miraculously they rise a level and win. Coincidence, I am told. :lol:

[ranchwest]

I'm glad someone sees potential in other's outcasts. As I never play the west coast, I will have to take your word on that. This fellow is on the S. Cal circuit?

There's a lot of trainers who get big turnarounds from horses on a frequent basis. And, it isn't all from drugs.

A lot of horses need veterinary care. Some need a change of surroundings. Some need better feed and nutrition. A good claiming trainer knows which horses he can improve. That's why there are some trainers who are good off the claim and some are not.

There are a number of trainers winning anywhere from 20% on up off the claim. MANY of those horses show marked improvement from their previous race.

[46zilzal]

Breed the best to the best and HOPE for the best. Crossover alone leads to all sorts of random genetic transfer and recombination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

[ranchwest]

Breed the best to the best and HOPE for the best. Crossover alone leads to all sorts of random genetic transfer and recombination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

And breed to the worst and anticipate the worst. Tendancies. Doesn't always work out, but it works out often enough to be a factor worthy of consideration.

[46zilzal]

And breed to the worst and anticipate the worst. Tendancies. Doesn't always work out, but it works out often enough to be a factor worthy of consideration.
ALL theoretical unless there is some clown trying to sell you a KEY to this.....The individual is the runner not the theoretical breeding. Knowing the breeding biases one's evaluation of that individual.

Dark Hawk out of Polly Bashaw by Pasha. A grade one stakes horse..Not fashionably bred just a good individual.

ON PAPER, Hard Spun looked very good. The individual is limited by distance and running style.

[ranchwest]

ALL theoretical unless there is some clown trying to sell you a KEY to this.....The individual is the runner not the theoretical breeding. Knowing the breeding biases one's evaluation of that individual.

Dark Hawk out of Polly Bashaw by Pasha. A grade one stakes horse..Not fashionably bred just a good individual.

So, you would suggest that a prospective buyer at auction should only consider conformation and works. Bloodlines is just a bunch of hoodoo?

[ranchwest]

ALL theoretical unless there is some clown trying to sell you a KEY to this.....The individual is the runner not the theoretical breeding. Knowing the breeding biases one's evaluation of that individual.

Dark Hawk out of Polly Bashaw by Pasha. A grade one stakes horse..Not fashionably bred just a good individual.

ON PAPER, Hard Spun looked very good. The individual is limited by distance and running style.

Hard Spun is strong on the early side, ON PAPER. EXCELLENT breeding, but nothing to suggest that he would be spectacular at the classic distance and beyond.

[46zilzal]

So, you would suggest that a prospective buyer at auction should only consider conformation and works. Bloodlines is just a bunch of hoodoo?
I was under the assumption that we are talking about the realm this board falls within: performance.

Breeder's do what they like to keep the genes alive. Heavy reliance on the bias of theoretical breedings takes away from the information right in front of you: past performances. If a colt from nondescript breeding lines has a better pace profile in today's race over a Strom Cat, those connections are totally irrelevant to today's race.

PERFORMANCE is not breeding.
The INDIVIDUAL's performance is what we evaluate 9 or 10 times per race card. WHO they are related to is extraneous unnecessary trivia.

[ranchwest]

I was under the assumption that we are talking about the realm this board falls within: performance.

Breeder's do what they like to keep the genes alive. Heavy reliance on the bias of theoretical breedings takes away from the information right in front of you: past performances. If a colt from nondescript breeding lines has a better pace profile in today's race over a Strom Cat, those connections are totally irrelevant to today's race.

PERFORMANCE is not breeding.
The INDIVIDUAL's performance is what we evaluate 9 or 10 times per race card. WHO they are related to is extraneous unnecessary trivia.

I take it you don't bet many maidens or turf.

[46zilzal]

I take it you don't bet many maidens or turf.
never on turf. But then again I look at maidens totally different than most as well having learned what it takes to get one to run in company. They "tell you" when they are ready. Two of the top three all time prices were maidens.

[Robert Fischer]

There is no such thing as a polytrack pedigree. NONE of them (the artificials) are interchangeable at all. Keeneland is no where the same as Woodbine which is nothing like Hollywood.

Without being argumentative, I would say that I agree with you on the differences in the artificials - while I also believe in and incorporate a good deal of pedigree handicapping on these individual surfaces.

For example at the Hollywood cushion track, the first horse that comes to mind would be Frankel's Cantabria. This is a horse I was able to lay (bet against as a win candidate) on a betting exchange when she ran as a favorite in a 5 or 6 horse field in a minor dirt stakes at Santa Anita. She was coming off the fastes 1m1/16 of the Hollywood meet. Her pedigree is about as good as it gets for Cushion track and I have found that type of pedigree to suit Keeneland and Arlington surfaces as well.
I admit I would have little confidence of identifying a pedigree advantage at Turfway or Woodbine.

[Robert Fischer]

I see the logic in sticking with the horse (form?) over all other factors, and I am not knocking that approach, I just don't see it as a handicapping absolute.

[Kelso]

I'm far from an expert but have had some of success recognizing TI as of late

<snip>

It has helped quite a bit


Perhaps not expert, but you're a heck of a lot better informed than I on this subject. Recency, Competitiveness, Rider ... all very logical ways of relating familiar information to trainer-intent. Thank you for the insights.

[Tom]

not looking for disciples as I doubt any one will wake up to the facts.

No, hardly facts at all. YOU do not use something or understand it, but that has no bearing on the REAL facts - a lot the stuff you poo poo is actually demonstrable and even better yet - profitable. There are more roads to winning than the one you travel. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Many others on this board are making money off many of the things you claim do not exist.

[46zilzal]

Many others on this board are making money off many of the things you claim do not exist.
good

[DanG]

good
Does that officially count as a “full” post? :confused:

I think we need to bring in the judges on this one.:p

[46zilzal]

Does that officially count as a “full” post? :confused:

I think we need to bring in the judges on this one.
No that is the acceptance that there is not one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

[betchatoo]

Back on topic, my database (400,000+ races) shows that trainers who win 5% or less return about $.684 on a dollar. Betting them to win, unless they have just an outstanding horse (which will then probably be over bet) is, IMHO, throwing away money

[ranchwest]

Back on topic, my database (400,000+ races) shows that trainers who win 5% or less return about $.684 on a dollar. Betting them to win, unless they have just an outstanding horse (which will then probably be over bet) is, IMHO, throwing away money

I suspect that the return is buoyed by a relatively few high payoffs.

[betchatoo]

I suspect that the return is buoyed by a relatively few high payoffs.
The average mutual was about $12, with several over the $100 mark. And a correction, my post should have said over 400,000 starters, not races.

[how cliche]

a good example is Sun Boat in the Californian

Mike Mitchell gets a claimer who had big problems. He gives the horse fine nutrition and training methods. Wins an allowance race on the cushion track going 8.5 in probably somewhere between 1:41 and 143.5. Enters the Graded Stake Californian with about 10 or 12 horses and probably 8 competitive runners.
Pedigree is a superior european polytrack pedigree. He has good wins at Gulfstream and Belmont previous to his injuries.
I watch the replay twenty five times because I know Mitchell was moving up his horses and this guy has the pedigree and his ugly stride (previous tendon injury?) just doesn't look any better, and I keep hoping it does but I don't go to the window to bet a TRAINER when the animal has had/has obvious problems in form and physicallity in graded stakes right?

No.


there are 10 million ways to win and lose but do not dismiss trainers and pedigree - especially with todays multiple racing surfaces playing a major factor.

I think I should interject here even though what I have to say is off topic. This horse stood a chance because he was juiced. Plain and simple. The end. I know a couple of owners who had more than a couple of runners claimed away from them by Mitchell. Their horses had some quality, but would get tired time and again, race after race. Suddenly under Mitchell's tutelage they can stay. Believe me when I tell you I've bet and cashed many a Mitchell 1st and 2nd off the claim runner on the class hike. But also believe me when I tell you there's a moral dilemma that runs through this handicapper's mind when I see that m.o. in place.

[GaryG]

I think I should interject here even though what I have to say is off topic. This horse stood a chance because he was juiced. Plain and simple. The end. I know a couple of owners who had more than a couple of runners claimed away from them by Mitchell. Their horses had some quality, but would get tired time and again, race after race. Suddenly under Mitchell's tutelage they can stay. Believe me when I tell you I've bet and cashed many a Mitchell 1st and 2nd off the claim runner on the class hike. But also believe me when I tell you there's a moral dilemma that runs through this handicapper's mind when I see that m.o. in place.Yes, and it isn't just Mitchell. I keep records of horses claimed away from certain barns and many of these can safely be bet against, especially those that are claimed by trainers who aren't too sharp anyway.

[Bill Olmsted]

No matter what the argument, you can't win by betting on (or against) the trainer. In the end, it's the horse that counts.

[DanG]

No matter what the argument, you can't win by betting on (or against) the trainer. In the end, it's the horse that counts.
As a stand alone method I would agree…

As a non-factor in a comprehensive approach…I disagree completely.

How can you view the animal in the same context when they move from a killer move up barn to a complete incompetent?...Or vice a versa?

Let me restate that…You can as I know a VERY successful player who literally does not know who is training / riding or cleaning the stall for that matter. For myself it is a factor and on some circuits it’s a significant factor IMHO.

[GaryG]

As a stand alone method I would agree…

As a non-factor in a comprehensive approach…I disagree completely.

How can you view the animal in the same context when they move from a killer move up barn to a complete incompetent?...Or vice a versa?I use it mainly as an elimination but it adds confidence when the horse with the best figures also is making a positive barn change.

[ryesteve]

No matter what the argument, you can't win by betting on (or against) the trainer.
If Ed Bain wasn't busy getting sued, we could've seen quite an entertaining debate...

[Bill Olmsted]

If Ed Bain wasn't busy getting sued, we could've seen quite an entertaining debate...

I remember Ed and Susan from Waaaaaaaaaay Back....during the good ole days of the C&O Report.

[Tom]

I think I should interject here even though what I have to say is off topic. This horse stood a chance because he was juiced. Plain and simple. The end. I know a couple of owners who had more than a couple of runners claimed away from them by Mitchell. Their horses had some quality, but would get tired time and again, race after race. Suddenly under Mitchell's tutelage they can stay. Believe me when I tell you I've bet and cashed many a Mitchell 1st and 2nd off the claim runner on the class hike. But also believe me when I tell you there's a moral dilemma that runs through this handicapper's mind when I see that m.o. in place.

And it couldn't have been to to worming the horses, correcting shoes, or breathing surgery, or gelding, or any number of other things that trainers do to improve horses they get from others who do not see the "key?" Not saying drug improvement is not a reality, but you have to be careful throwing out accusations you cannot prove. Did Mitchel drug the horses to stay longers, or did he correct something the other trainers were not doing
right?

[ranchwest]

And it couldn't have been to to worming the horses, correcting shoes, or breathing surgery, or gelding, or any number of other things that trainers do to improve horses they get from others who do not see the "key?" Not saying drug improvement is not a reality, but you have to be careful throwing out accusations you cannot prove. Did Mitchel drug the horses to stay longers, or did he correct something the other trainers were not doing
right?

You have a good point. I wouldn't doubt that there's a lot of drug improvements. But I don't believe all improvements, even the sudden ones, are solely based on drugs.

Why do I believe this? If the trainers were only looking to drug horses, they'd be claiming more horses that were already good, winners. They claim the horse they think they can improve. That's why you see horses finish mid-pack and get claimed and win.

Again, I'm not ignoring drugs. I'm just saying that I don't believe all form reversals are drug related.

[ranchwest]

No matter what the argument, you can't win by betting on (or against) the trainer. In the end, it's the horse that counts.

If you understand the trainer moves and physicality, that's all some people need to win.

I agree with Dan that trainers can be an important part of a successful comprehensive handicapping process.

[GaryG]

Again, I'm not ignoring drugs. I'm just saying that I don't believe all form reversals are drug related.Nor do I, it could be anything, likely a combination of things. It goes with being a horseman. But, when these animals are claimed away by Joe Two-percenter he dosn't have a clue what to do. Results is results though as somebody once said. Maybe it was me.

[ranchwest]

Nor do I, it could be anything, likely a combination of things. It goes with being a horseman. But, when these animals are claimed away by Joe Two-percenter he dosn't have a clue what to do. Results is results though as somebody once said. Maybe it was me.

Yeah, from a moral perspective, I'd like for horse racing to be a clean, honest sport.

From a handicapping perspective, I don't care why Joe Two-percenter doesn't get the same results as Sam TheMan, I only care that he doesn't. Whether the difference is legitimate or not, Joe doesn't produce.

[Bill Olmsted]

If you understand the trainer moves and physicality, that's all some people need to win.

I agree with Dan that trainers can be an important part of a successful comprehensive handicapping process.

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.

[ranchwest]

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.

I stand by my statement. I've known people who have made significant money on trainer moves and physicality.

[Bill Olmsted]

I stand by my statement. I've known people who have made significant money on trainer moves and physicality.

Well then. Pleae E-mail me their phone numbers.

[ranchwest]

Well then. Pleae E-mail me their phone numbers.

I will relay your interest. I won't invade their privacy.

[46zilzal]

I stand by my statement. I've known people who have made significant money on trainer moves and physicality.
I recall several horses that looked bad on post parade almost everytime they went to the post. Zilal was a great example of that: sweating profusely everytime.

It is more the CHANGE in look that is appropriate.

[ranchwest]

I recall several horses that looked bad on post parade almost everytime they went to the post. Zilal was a great example of that: sweating profusely everytime.

It is more the CHANGE in look that is appropriate.

I didn't say they didn't note changes.

[keilan]

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.


Well then. Pleae E-mail me their phone numbers.


I haven't written any books on the subject but common sense tells you that "betting on the trainer is a losing proposition"

[DanG]

Well then. Pleae E-mail me their phone numbers.
I haven't written any books on the subject but common sense tells you that "betting on the trainer is a losing proposition"
Originally Posted by Bill Olmsted
I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.
Wires are getting crossed as phone numbers are being exchanged. :)




“Only” playing trainer angles and making significant money?
I’ve never met someone doing it, but to say it doesn’t exist is a bit presumptuous IMO.


Ignoring the trainer completely and winning significantly?
I’m close to a person who has done exactly that most of his adult life.


Use the trainer as a piece of the puzzle and applying it in various degrees or often not at all?
If I read it correctly it’s what Bill was posting and it’s an approach I use.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Bill Olmsted
I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

I must respectfully disagree.

I have a current professional client who does exactly that... no other handicapping.

Now, admittedly, his approach is a bit different than most people would expect but it is entirely based on trainer stats.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[spilparc]

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.

I agree with this. Stick with the horse.

I had a friend, many decades ago, whose primary method of handicaping was to follow the trainers to the window.

"It's not only IF they bet," he would tell me, "but HOW MUCH they bet. If so and so bets 10 dollars on his horse, that sucker's gonna run!"

My friend was a big loser at the track.

As far as Michell is concerned, when I used to play the SoCal circuit there were many, many instances where Michell would claim a horse for 12.5, wait 30 days, and run'em back for 10. He won a FEW like that but mostly he lost--at very short prices, and was obviously just trying to dump the horse back.

I was not that impressed by the way Mitchell trained at all.

[DanG]

I had a friend, many decades ago, whose primary method of handicaping was to follow the trainers to the window.

"It's not only IF they bet," he would tell me, "but HOW MUCH they bet. If so and so bets 10 dollars on his horse, that sucker's gonna run!"

My friend was a big loser at the track.

I hear ya loud and clear “Spilparc”… (Please, talk to your girlfriend about an ‘internet name change!) :)

For the record though this has nothing to do with someone really applying themselves and getting under the hood of a trainer. It takes serious work and one thing I’ve learned in 45 years is never to say it can’t be done.

To your point…

When we first purchased a restaurant in S Florida one of our chefs told me when he found out I played the horses… “Every time Freddy Warren wears a suit he wins.” Al…I love you like a brother, but he couldn’t pick Adolph Hitler out of a lineup.

There are some very smart / clever people who come at this game from many different angles. To think because we can’t crunch “traditional” racing data to show a net gain in one discipline and therefore that ‘angle is viewed as a failure?…Those of us over 40 know better than that…don’t we? ;)

[spilparc]

There are some very smart / clever people who come at this game from many different angles. To think because we can’t crunch “traditional” racing data to show a net gain in one discipline and therefore that ‘angle is viewed as a failure?…Those of us over 40 know better than that…don’t we? ;)

Just to set the record straight. MY primary method of handicaping many years ago was trainer/jockey/equipment changes/recency/body language. I loved jockey switches, and I knew who could train and who couldn't. And of those who couldn't, I had a very good idea when they could. And as far as body language is concerned that's where I made my biggest and most consistent scores--in those cases it didn't matter who was training or riding.

I loved horses running three days back. Twice I made very nice hits on horses that ran two days in a row.

I made more money when it rained than any other time.

But that was back in the day when the horses were very cheap, the purses were very small, and some of the tracks were very crooked. Different ideas applied.

[hcap]

You just have to find a few standouts
Graph is using 2 percent of bank.
For example Starting bank is $1000
Plays go back 1 1/2 years

Here is one trainer.

STARTBANK WIN PLACE SHOW
$1,000 $641 $406 $328

ENDBANK PLAYS WINS PLS SHOWS
$21,563 140 50 64 79

AVG MUT BET WIN% PL% SHW%
$12.82 $280 35.7% 45.7% 56.4%

MAX MUT ROI ROI ROI
$48.80 128.9% 45.1% 17.3%

Last 20 bets

Win Place Show
7.6 3.6 2.6
......................
6.4 3.8 3
3.2 2.8 2.6
32 9 5.2
......................
12 5 3.4
......................
......................
.....................
9.2 4.8 3.2
7.8 4.2 3.4
6.4 3.6 3.4
3.4 2.2 2.2
5.2 3 2.4
3.4 3.2 2.4
......................
......................
7.6 3.6 2.8

[hcap]

Same Trainer broken down by various moves.

.............. Move ....... Starts ......Win%....ROI.....NumWins
31-90daysAway 60 33.3% 69.3% 20
No class chg 32 43.8% 171.3% 14
Wnr last race 34 47.1% 125.0% 16
90+ days away 9 33.3% 40.0% 3
1st after clm 7 42.9% 251.4% 3
Allowance 31 48.4% 290.3% 15
Down one class 18 27.8% -12.8% 5
Down 2+ classes 10 30.0% 119.0% 3
Up one class 11 27.3% 125.5% 3
2nd career race 4 50.0% 20.0% 2
Maiden Sp Wt 12 25.0% 74.2% 3
NonGraded Stk 4 25.0% -35.0% 1
Claiming 73 37.0% 117.8% 27
Maiden Clming 14 28.6% 20.7% 4
Btn favorite 9 55.6% 124.4% 5

[GaryG]

Dan, speaking of Freddy Warren....I'll bet he would like for his horses to find something to do at night. That is one hyper-aggressive trainer, just run em every 5 days and they will win eventually. Bill White just claimed Lauralises Sister. Bet she will appreciate the change.

[ryesteve]

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.
So was that the running theme of these 5 books? That'd be pretty disappointing for the folks who bought them...

[DanG]

Same Trainer broken down by various moves.

.............. Move ....... Starts ......Win%....ROI.....NumWins
31-90daysAway 60 33.3% 69.3% 20
No class chg 32 43.8% 171.3% 14
Wnr last race 34 47.1% 125.0% 16
90+ days away 9 33.3% 40.0% 3
1st after clm 7 42.9% 251.4% 3
Allowance 31 48.4% 290.3% 15
Down one class 18 27.8% -12.8% 5
Down 2+ classes 10 30.0% 119.0% 3
Up one class 11 27.3% 125.5% 3
2nd career race 4 50.0% 20.0% 2
Maiden Sp Wt 12 25.0% 74.2% 3
NonGraded Stk 4 25.0% -35.0% 1
Claiming 73 37.0% 117.8% 27
Maiden Clming 14 28.6% 20.7% 4
Btn favorite 9 55.6% 124.4% 5


Hcap,

Have you found it profitable going forward with trainer patterns? I did a brief study in real time using data that showed a tremendous net, and it was very disappointing to tell the truth.

I’ve found severe negative information to be much more effective in ‘real time than positive information oddly enough.

[john del riccio]

Hcap,

Have you found it profitable going forward with trainer patterns? I did a brief study in real time using data that showed a tremendous net, and it was very disappointing to tell the truth.

I’ve found severe negative information to be much more effective in ‘real time than positive information oddly enough.

Dan,

You hit it on the head. There are always certain moves by certain guys that scream "stay away", but the moves that we hope would scream (come & get me) have to keep changing; especially on claimers or else they'd lose their good stock. For example, if you see Breen in NJ claim a horse and he doesn't list his A or B rider, stay away, its that simple. The flip side of that is NOT always a sign you should bet, if he gets a bad one, and he names his A or B jock, rival barns would not shy away from taking him via the claim box because they think its live.

John

[njcurveball]

I wrote 5 books on trainer patterns/handicapping in the 1990's so I have some experience with the subject. All I know is, you can't win by betting on the trainer. It is totally impossible.

The trainer is just another picce of the grand puzzle.

If you get a chance Bill can you start on a thread on any other books you wrote that give the reader no chance of winning.

As someone who owns lots of copies of the C and O report, I have had my confidence shattered knowing you spent time writing books with methods that make it impossible to win.

I hope this doesn't mean I have to give back all of the money I won using trainer patterns now.

I think Jim Mazur and a few others are also treading on our wallets now. :bang:

[DanG]

Dan, speaking of Freddy Warren....I'll bet he would like for his horses to find something to do at night. That is one hyper-aggressive trainer, just run em every 5 days and they will win eventually. Bill White just claimed Lauralises Sister. Bet she will appreciate the change.
Gary,

You weren’t kidding…I haven’t followed Calder for years, but Freddy does like to run them back before they catch their breath! :eek:




Layoff >0 and <10 days…11 / 154 W%: 07% ROI: $0.60 cents High $52.00 [Total sample size = 617 runners]
To run 25% of your stock back this quickly is certainly a high ratio. Especially considering Calder’s avg temperature. I guess that explains why more than half his runners don’t have published works between starts.

BTW: It reminds me of an interview with Hollywood’s racing secretary Martin Panza I heard a couple years ago. When asked to explain the horse shortage at the time he said…”Sometimes I think our trainers feel we pay purse money for running hard in the morning.” It has always amazed me how so many So California trainers run faster / harder in the am. than many circuits do in the afternoon. (Note: I’m NOT comparing Fred Warren to the excellent trainers out west…believe me!)

[DanG]

Dan,

You hit it on the head. There are always certain moves by certain guys that scream "stay away", but the moves that we hope would scream (come & get me) have to keep changing; especially on claimers or else they'd lose their good stock. For example, if you see Breen in NJ claim a horse and he doesn't list his A or B rider, stay away, its that simple. The flip side of that is NOT always a sign you should bet, if he gets a bad one, and he names his A or B jock, rival barns would not shy away from taking him via the claim box because they think its live. John
John,

This is an excellent point. It’s much more of a poker game amoung good claiming trainers then I think many of us realize.

The claiming population at a given track is known inside out by the good trainers / owners / agents (and should be known by good handicappers). As you said, when a high profile barn plays their hole card, it sends off alarms amoung the people who should be paying attention. It can pay to apply multiple criteria to many trainer moves. Single criteria trainer data can be very misleading.

[keilan]

“Only” playing trainer angles and making significant money?
I’ve never met someone doing it, but to say it doesn’t exist is a bit presumptuous IMO.




I think anyone that claims they use nothing but "trainer angles" and are making significant money are a bit……………….

This is akin to picking numbers at the track – how I’m sure someone will post that they know a professional player that boxes the 1-3-7 in exactors and tri’s lives quite comfortably. Yep just because I can’t do doesn’t mean it can’t be done. :sleeping:

[Light]

I think anyone that claims they use nothing but "trainer angles" and are making significant money are a bit……………….


More affluent? Personaly know 1 guy that hit a 60k pk6 on an $8 ticket using trainers as his primary factor. Also am aware of a guy who plays in contests quite successfully using favorable trainers percentages at a price. Of course there are days this angle doesnt work at all but overall they are way ahead.But this doesnt make me want to copy them.Its personal preference.

[keilan]

More affluent? Personaly know 1 guy that hit a 60k pk6 on an $8 ticket using trainers as his primary factor. Also am aware of a guy who plays in contests quite successfully using favorable trainers percentages at a price. Of course there are days this angle doesnt work at all but overall they are way ahead.But this doesnt make me want to copy them.Its personal preference.


Well I know someone who won a lottery playing numbers but I wouldn't recommend that anyone take out a second mortgage on their home. You guys kill me :liar:

[Robert Fischer]

It is good to be aware of the trainers even when you aren't using trainer data to select your horses.
I recently hit a little 10cent superfecta at Arlington. The sole reason for playing the race was that the Pletcher horse was suspect. I spent 5 minutes looking at that horse before I commited to handicapping the race.
- I knew the public would see the horse with rose colored glasses and create an underlay.

[keilan]

Robert -- of course most everyone is aware of trainers but for anyone to claim they use nothing but “trainer angles” without regard for anything else is kind of funny imnho.

Every single time stuff like this appears in a thread no one ever steps forward and shows us their brilliance. All we’ve ever heard is yada yada yada.

When I state something I back it up – shouldn’t be difficult to do if the player claims to be a winner!!

Who’s the guy that wagers huge sums of money either real or imaginary and claims to do well betting the “tote board”. Has he ever had a winning day?

[Jeff P]

posted by Dave Schwartz: I must respectfully disagree.

I have a current professional client who does exactly that... no other handicapping.

Now, admittedly, his approach is a bit different than most people would expect but it is entirely based on trainer stats.Betting on trainer patterns is not my cup of tea. But I have to agree with what Dave posted here. Five years ago I wouldn't have believed a trainer pattern based approach could have possibly worked if I hadn't been shown otherwise. I too have a number of clients whose work primarily centers around trainer patterns. I know of two who specialize in doing their own research and uncovering areas where certain trainers consistently excel. At the same time they also avoid areas where certain trainers are consistently weak. Aside from being surprisingly successful (to me) at the windows, both of these clients have something else in common. Both focus on specific meets and both know the trainers at their chosen meets inside and out. I have to admit that teaching them how to use software to model some of their own trainer patterns - and actually listening to what they were trying to tell me - was eye opening to say the least.

As a player I'm kind of set in my ways. I have my own approach that I KNOW works for me. So that's what I do when I play. But one thing has become very obvious to me. There are many different ways this game can be beaten. I'm not as quick as I used to be to dismiss someone else's approach just because it is different than my own.




-jp

.

[DanG]

But one thing has become very obvious to me. There are many different ways this game can be beaten. I'm not as quick as I used to be to dismiss someone else's approach just because it is different than my own.

That is what I was trying to say in a nut shell.

I met a gentleman this year that has made an annual 5 figure net betting to show on quarter horses since 2001. (After rebate) I’ve been around gamblers since I was a boy and he was the first I’ve met who made what I consider significant money betting to show. Another thing I’ve crossed off my list of “It can’t be done”.

[keilan]

Guys, you have my respect but until I see it ……….

I expect they do more than what any of you have described. There are literally dozens and dozens of variables and to simply ignore each one of them is unreasonable.

I realize each of you are well intended but doesn't it take more than someone's word?

[Tom]

Bottom line: who cares?
:lol:

[bigmack]

Bottom line: who cares?
:lol:
As Lennon once said: Whatever gets you through the night 'salright, 'salright

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/thfunny.jpg

[DanG]

I realize each of you are well intended but doesn't it take more than someone's word?
This is true…

In the show betters case he would have gone to great lengths to mislead me with nothing to gain from it. The guy has been in a quarter horse betting syndicate for 35 years and is friends with many of brightest minds in the game. Long story short…the man is legit.

The players “only” looking through the trainer’s window?

Can’t say as I’ve yet to meet one. I will say the most consistent winner in my group doesn’t use any speed figure what so ever. Many people look at me like I have 3 heads when I tell them this, but it’s true.

Also…

No computer…Hand written notes that his wife files and retrieves.

Let me revise that. I make him positional reports, so he is using a computer…mine! :D


PS: Maybe trainer stats aren’t all their cracked up to be…I just witnessed John Candlin winning a race in NY. Party in the Candlin barn tonight…long time between drinks my friend!:jump::jump:

[Tom]

I know a couple guys here that do not use any speed or pace figures at all. Class and form - nothing else. I only know they never have hit me up for cash, like so many speed guys have before! :eek::rolleyes:

[DanG]

I realize I’m contributing to poor Sealords good thread is drifting away, but one thought while were waiting for the 5th in NY…

To Keilan’s legitimate point concerning until he sees someone do it he remains…lets say skeptical.

I have a group of friends from New Jersey I have known since we were children. For the last 6 years or so since I’ve been in Tampa they come down as a group once a year and we have a great time celebrating for a week.

The core group is 5 people and only one has any real idea of what I actually do to support myself. (That’s no exaggeration). The one who does Rich… (BTW: Rich if you’re reading this you’re cracking up right now) :D I showed Rich how to read the form when we were teenagers and he picked it up remarkably fast because he has great mind for math.

The remaining four have very little grasp of what I’m doing. With my hand on a stack of bibles this conversation took place. My good friend John in NJ is very good friends with Pat Dinizo of the Smithereens. Pat throws parties at his house and it’s attended by people from all over NJ / NY. I met a guy that I hadn’t seen since Jr. High school. After the initial hellos he gets off this blast…”So, John tells me you’re a bookie”!!! :eek: After I picked up my drink and stopped laughing I tried to explain what I do…in vain BTW.

It’s a very isolated trade to be in for many obvious reasons. I have no clue what some math professor is doing out of his computer workshop is Bismarck, North Dakota…or… Düsseldorf, Germany for that matter. I do know there are many people much smarter than me analyzing this game inside and out. As you said Keilan…while we can’t prove certain claims, it certainly doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Short…somewhat related story…

I get the occasional phone call that I talk too much. (Concerning this and the HTR board that I enjoy writing on…) The founding partner in my group is a very conservative, dignified man who is very private concerning his affairs. I hope he lives to 350yo, but when it’s his time all his incredible wisdom will go with him. I’m not passing judgment on this at all. It’s completely his choice and I have great respect for him.

I’ve only “chatted” via the internet for a few years. I find it very therapeutic, because as much as I love my dog he just not that interested in large animals running in circles unless he is chasing them. Without this outlet and the people it has exposed to me, my career path would be completely anonymous to the world. This isn’t a bad thing, but including sleep or work consumes 2/3rd of our lives. I get a kick out of sharing experiences with people who share my love for this sport.

5 minutes to post and I lost my train of thought!!!

In closing…I hear you on wanting physical evidence. Part of my brain thinks we can’t be alone in the universe…but, until Aliens beam into my living room I remain skeptical…

I’ve got to go…I just heard a lamp knocked over in the living room!!! ;)

[the_fat_man]

PS: Maybe trainer stats aren’t all their cracked up to be…I just witnessed John Candlin winning a race in NY. Party in the Candlin barn tonight…long time between drinks my friend!:jump::jump:

Come on Dan; Candlin's horse won 'cause Cornelio TYPICALLY moved too soon. As TFM has pointed out on many occasions, Cornelio just can't help himself: he needs to be in front even when there's no gain and great loss as a result of it. Jock handicapping.

[DanG]

Come on Dan; Candlin's horse won 'cause Cornelio TYPICALLY moved too soon. As TFM has pointed out on many occasions, Cornelio just can't help himself: he needs to be in front even when there's no gain and great loss as a result of it. Jock handicapping.
Have a heart Fats,

Let Candlin enjoy the moment!!! 0 – 48 at Belmont going in…:eek:

It was brilliant training that won that race!...Right? ;) :D

[keilan]

In closing…I hear you on wanting physical evidence. Part of my brain thinks we can’t be alone in the universe…but, until Aliens beam into my living room I remain skeptical…

I’ve got to go…I just heard a lamp knocked over in the living room!!! ;)


Hmmm I was gonna comment on the people who believe in ghosts, reincarnation, aliens, and Santa Claus but you beat me to it. ;)

Let me say this, then I'm done -- very few wagering trainers that I've known over the years or heard of have ever made money in a year let alone made enough money over an extended period to be considered significant.

Now let’s use some reason – if a trainer has shown predictable enough patterns that someone can make a living from those trainers wagering only on his patterns wouldn’t you think that the trainer himself would recognize the opportunity and thus be wagering on himself /pattern? (yeah I know – clear like mud, but you get the point. Trainers aren’t that dependable –u think?)

Now take that presumed model and extrapolate it over the hundreds of trainers who run horses all over the country. I think some here are giving trainers much more credit than they rightfully deserve. The good and juice trainers get bet because they are recognized as such. Who are these trainer angles players wagering on ……… Candlin.

[DanG]

Now let’s use some reason – if a trainer has shown predictable enough patterns that someone can make a living from those trainers wagering only on his patterns wouldn’t you think that the trainer himself would recognize the opportunity and thus be wagering on himself /pattern? (yeah I know – clear like mud, but you get the point. Trainers aren’t that dependable –u think?)

Now take that presumed model and extrapolate it over the hundreds of trainers who run horses all over the country. I think some here are giving trainers much more credit than they rightfully deserve.
I don’t think we disagree at all…

Perhaps I’m a little more…shall we say, gullible. ;)

When I don’t know the actual answer I tend to err on the side of its possible, regardless of how outlandish the claim. And while your point is a valid one, winning horse races by studying trainers is not on par with building rocket ships and most of us would do poorly at both.

[keilan]

I don’t think we disagree at all…

Perhaps I’m a little more…shall we say, gullible. ;)




You're not gullible but you're a good guy :)

ohhh and how about the times when all the trainer move's line up with the stars and the track is running 5 lengths slow or fast. The game isn't that simplistic --

later guys

[Jeff P]

posted by Keilan - I realize each of you are well intended but doesn't it take more than someone's word?Ok. I'll throw you a bone... I won't post a specific trainer play used by one of my clients... but I'll be happy to illustrate the kind of stuff they taught me to focus on...

Steve Miyadi is a talented well known trainer. You'll consistently find him near the top of the trainer standings in Northern California. Overall, he has a pretty good record. In fact, during calendar years 2005, 2006, and so far in 2007 had you bet every one of his starters to win, with no other handicapping whatsoever, you would have been profitable with a rebate. But if you had made an effort to dig deeper... to research out what he does to get his starters ready to race... you might have discovered that he works and races his horses into condition... And he is by no means the only trainer who works and races his horses into condition.

Ok. Let's look at some data...

Calendar year 2005, Steve Miyadi all starters, broken out by a factor in JCapper called BasicFitness:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 730.60 670.70 688.10
Bet -690.00 -690.00 -690.00
Gain 40.60 -19.30 -1.90

Wins 109 182 227
Plays 345 345 345
PCT .3159 .5275 .6580

ROI 1.0588 0.9720 0.9972
Avg Mut 6.70 3.69 3.03


By: BasicFitness

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
0.00 5.00 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
5.00 10.00 -9.40 126.00 0.9254 18 63 .2857 0.9043
10.00 15.00 14.80 22.00 1.6727 5 11 .4545 1.4387
15.00 20.00 -7.60 184.00 0.9587 23 92 .2500 0.7913
20.00 25.00 -27.60 160.00 0.8275 24 80 .3000 0.9495
25.00 30.00 37.40 132.00 1.2833 25 66 .3788 1.1989
30.00 35.00 37.00 62.00 1.5968 14 31 .4516 1.4294


From the above we can create a simple model:

Steve Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25.

Note: JCapper's BF is a computer generated measure of a trainer's attempt to instill a foundation into a horse. Other software probably has something similar which can be used to good effect to get results that are similar. I'm also quite sure that Miyadi's starters could be sliced and diced any number of different ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Let's look at some more data...

First, Calendar Year 2005 Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25:
UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 268.40 216.80 218.90
Bet -194.00 -194.00 -194.00
Gain 74.40 22.80 24.90

Wins 39 58 74
Plays 97 97 97
PCT .4021 .5979 .7629

ROI 1.3835 1.1175 1.1284
Avg Mut 6.88 3.74 2.96


Ok. That's not too bad. We actually could have bet the model's plays across the board and shown a profit. Throw in a rebate and we could have done even better. But that's how we would have done had we played the races we used when developing the model itself. To be fair, we need to subject the model to the acid test. How does the model perform going forward?

Let's look at some more data...

The model, Calendar Year 2006:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_06.txt)
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 169.60 131.00 149.80
Bet -142.00 -142.00 -142.00
Gain 27.60 -11.00 7.80

Wins 28 37 50
Plays 71 71 71
PCT .3944 .5211 .7042

ROI 1.1944 0.9225 1.0549
Avg Mut 6.06 3.54 3.00


And year to date for 2007:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_07.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 111.40 155.50 132.30
Bet -108.00 -108.00 -108.00
Gain 3.40 47.50 24.30

Wins 16 32 39
Plays 54 54 54
PCT .2963 .5926 .7222

ROI 1.0315 1.4398 1.2250
Avg Mut 6.96 4.86 3.39

This is a VERY simplistic model which I have no doubt can be improved upon greatly by anyone willing to do some research. After seeing this, are you still willing to say that successful trainer pattern play is impossible?

IMHO, successful trainer pattern play requires that the player be able to find (and exploit) things about the trainer that are not very obvious to the general public... I like to use the phrase "hidden positives" (no pun intended) to describe them. Using "under the radar" trainers helps... as does using factors that the public normally doesn't have a very good handle on.


-jp

[john del riccio]

posted by Keilan - Ok. I'll throw you a bone... I won't post a specific trainer play used by one of my clients... but I'll be happy to illustrate the kind of stuff they taught me to focus on...

Steve Miyadi is a talented well known trainer. You'll consistently find him near the top of the trainer standings in Northern California. Overall, he has a pretty good record. In fact, during calendar years 2005, 2006, and so far in 2007 had you bet every one of his starters to win, with no other handicapping whatsoever, you would have been profitable with a rebate. But if you had made an effort to dig deeper... to research out what he does to get his starters ready to race... you might have discovered that he works and races his horses into condition... And he is by no means the only trainer who works and races his horses into condition.

Ok. Let's look at some data...

Calendar year 2005, Steve Miyadi all starters, broken out by a factor in JCapper called BasicFitness:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 730.60 670.70 688.10
Bet -690.00 -690.00 -690.00
Gain 40.60 -19.30 -1.90

Wins 109 182 227
Plays 345 345 345
PCT .3159 .5275 .6580

ROI 1.0588 0.9720 0.9972
Avg Mut 6.70 3.69 3.03


By: BasicFitness

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
0.00 5.00 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
5.00 10.00 -9.40 126.00 0.9254 18 63 .2857 0.9043
10.00 15.00 14.80 22.00 1.6727 5 11 .4545 1.4387
15.00 20.00 -7.60 184.00 0.9587 23 92 .2500 0.7913
20.00 25.00 -27.60 160.00 0.8275 24 80 .3000 0.9495
25.00 30.00 37.40 132.00 1.2833 25 66 .3788 1.1989
30.00 35.00 37.00 62.00 1.5968 14 31 .4516 1.4294


From the above we can create a simple model:

Steve Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25.

Note: JCapper's BF is a computer generated measure of a trainer's attempt to instill a foundation into a horse. Other software probably has something similar which can be used to good effect to get results that are similar. I'm also quite sure that Miyadi's starters could be sliced and diced any number of different ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Let's look at some more data...

First, Calendar Year 2005 Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25:
UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 268.40 216.80 218.90
Bet -194.00 -194.00 -194.00
Gain 74.40 22.80 24.90

Wins 39 58 74
Plays 97 97 97
PCT .4021 .5979 .7629

ROI 1.3835 1.1175 1.1284
Avg Mut 6.88 3.74 2.96


Ok. That's not too bad. We actually could have bet the model's plays across the board and shown a profit. Throw in a rebate and we could have done even better. But that's how we would have done had we played the races we used when developing the model itself. To be fair, we need to subject the model to the acid test. How does the model perform going forward?

Let's look at some more data...

The model, Calendar Year 2006:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_06.txt)
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 169.60 131.00 149.80
Bet -142.00 -142.00 -142.00
Gain 27.60 -11.00 7.80

Wins 28 37 50
Plays 71 71 71
PCT .3944 .5211 .7042

ROI 1.1944 0.9225 1.0549
Avg Mut 6.06 3.54 3.00


And year to date for 2007:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_07.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 111.40 155.50 132.30
Bet -108.00 -108.00 -108.00
Gain 3.40 47.50 24.30

Wins 16 32 39
Plays 54 54 54
PCT .2963 .5926 .7222

ROI 1.0315 1.4398 1.2250
Avg Mut 6.96 4.86 3.39

This is a VERY simplistic model which I have no doubt can be improved upon greatly by anyone willing to do some research. After seeing this, are you still willing to say that successful trainer pattern play is impossible?

IMHO, successful trainer pattern play requires that the player be able to find (and exploit) things about the trainer that are not very obvious to the general public... I like to use the phrase "hidden positives" (no pun intended) to describe them. Using "under the radar" trainers helps... as does using factors that the public normally doesn't have a very good handle on.


-jp

That was truly an awesome post.

John

[classhandicapper]

[QUOTE=keilan]I think anyone that claims they use nothing but "trainer angles" and are making significant money are a bit……………….
/QUOTE]

Kilean,

It is definitely possible to make money with trainer information being the backbone of the selection process.

Over my lifetime, I am 100% certain that I am profitable on pure trainer plays. My two best racetrack friends are both profitable players and both focus primarily on trainer information. I'm pretty sure a 3rd is profitable from his trainer plays also.

The major problem is that it's dynamic.

You can't research a trainer, find a profitable pattern, and then automatically assume it will remain profitable. Two things prevent that.

1. A lot of good handicappers are looking at the same information. As soon as a "possible" pattern starts developing, incremental money starts showing up on the horses. The longer the pattern lasts and the greater the probability some special trainer skill is associated with it, the more money shows up. That drives prices down even lower until they are no longer profitable.

2. Trainers change style and stock.

The trick is being nimble enough to recognize "real" patterns quickly enough to profit (not just random occurrences in the data) and then to get out of the way when the horses start getting overbet.

It's not easy. That's why it's not a major part of my game, but I don't ignore things that I notice from time to time about the way horses are prepared for peak eforts by certain trainers, especially at certain meets/times of the year.

It's certainly not as easy for me to find something now as it was 30 years ago. So much more data is available to everyone now. You used to have to pour over stacks of yellowing DRFs for hours and hours looking at every horse a trainer trained, then cut out the PPs, and make notes.

The best one I ever found was Frank Wright second time starters with blinkers on many years ago. His horses would run horribly as FTS and then improve dramatically at huge prices with B's on for their second time out. I made some major scores on several of them and came close on a few others.

[ranchwest]

posted by Dave Schwartz: Betting on trainer patterns is not my cup of tea. But I have to agree with what Dave posted here. Five years ago I wouldn't have believed a trainer pattern based approach could have possibly worked if I hadn't been shown otherwise. I too have a number of clients whose work primarily centers around trainer patterns. I know of two who specialize in doing their own research and uncovering areas where certain trainers consistently excel. At the same time they also avoid areas where certain trainers are consistently weak. Aside from being surprisingly successful (to me) at the windows, both of these clients have something else in common. Both focus on specific meets and both know the trainers at their chosen meets inside and out. I have to admit that teaching them how to use software to model some of their own trainer patterns - and actually listening to what they were trying to tell me - was eye opening to say the least.

As a player I'm kind of set in my ways. I have my own approach that I KNOW works for me. So that's what I do when I play. But one thing has become very obvious to me. There are many different ways this game can be beaten. I'm not as quick as I used to be to dismiss someone else's approach just because it is different than my own.




-jp

.

Exactly. From what I've seen, to make serious money off of trainers, you have to know everything about what they do and when they do it.

It isn't a matter of downloading some stats off the internet. Or even querying a database.

Which trainers do well at the beginning of specific meets?
What about after a track is winterized each year?
Which trainers do well during specific months of the year?
What are the signals that a trainer will win off the claim?
Who are the go to jockeys for each trainer?
Which surfaces/distances do a trainer's horses win on?
How many days turnaround does a trainer usually take on first off the claim wins?
Which trainer/owner connections are high percentage?
On and on.

I'm not kidding. I've known people who read the charts so many times you'd think it was a spicy novel. And then would exhibit tremendous patience in waiting for the right races.

I said I've seen it. I didn't say it was easy.

[GaryG]

RW that is exactly right. If you follow a track or circuit closely you will know these things without realizing it. The brain just kicks in at the appropriate time. You will find you much more about the trainers than you thought you did. I hope this makes sense.

[hcap]

DanGHcap,

Have you found it profitable going forward with trainer patterns? I did a brief study in real time using data that showed a tremendous net, and it was very disappointing to tell the truth.Some months ago I offered to write a trainer program for a board member loopeepop. Nothing ever happenned. I guess he lost interest. However someone else contacted me, and I set it up for him.

I had an older program that was the basis for a newer one started about a month ago. Most of it is done. But not completely.

The graph I posted is for one trainer in particular that is a standout.


I originally spotted this trainer with data starting 1/01/06 and ending 12/31/06.

I updated the graph with the last 6 months. Bet number 103 is the last bet of 2006. 104 thu bet number 140 represents 2007.
A pretty good continuation on new data going forward.



0 0 0
0 3 2.2
12.2 7 4
10.2 5.2 3.6
0 0 0
0 0 0
4.2 2.8 3
5.8 3.6 8.2
0 0 5.4
18.8 7.6 4.4
0 0 2.8
14.6 6 4.4
0 0 0
5.6 0 0
0 3.6 2.2
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
7.6 3.6 2.6
0 0 0
6.4 3.8 3
3.2 2.8 2.6
32 9 5.2
0 0 0
12 5 3.4
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
9.2 4.8 3.2
7.8 4.2 3.4
6.4 3.6 3.4
3.4 2.2 2.2
5.2 3 2.4
3.4 3.2 2.4
0 0 0
0 0 0
7.6 3.6 2.8
0 0 0


I am also looking at breeders,Sire, Dams, Jocks and owners.
Also various combinations of connections. Still a work in progress.

[keilan]

posted by Keilan - Ok. I'll throw you a bone... I won't post a specific trainer play used by one of my clients... but I'll be happy to illustrate the kind of stuff they taught me to focus on...

Steve Miyadi is a talented well known trainer. You'll consistently find him near the top of the trainer standings in Northern California. Overall, he has a pretty good record. In fact, during calendar years 2005, 2006, and so far in 2007 had you bet every one of his starters to win, with no other handicapping whatsoever, you would have been profitable with a rebate. But if you had made an effort to dig deeper... to research out what he does to get his starters ready to race... you might have discovered that he works and races his horses into condition... And he is by no means the only trainer who works and races his horses into condition.

Ok. Let's look at some data...

Calendar year 2005, Steve Miyadi all starters, broken out by a factor in JCapper called BasicFitness:
Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt)


Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 730.60 670.70 688.10
Bet -690.00 -690.00 -690.00
Gain 40.60 -19.30 -1.90

Wins 109 182 227
Plays 345 345 345
PCT .3159 .5275 .6580

ROI 1.0588 0.9720 0.9972
Avg Mut 6.70 3.69 3.03


By: BasicFitness

>=Min <Max Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-999.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
0.00 5.00 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
5.00 10.00 -9.40 126.00 0.9254 18 63 .2857 0.9043
10.00 15.00 14.80 22.00 1.6727 5 11 .4545 1.4387
15.00 20.00 -7.60 184.00 0.9587 23 92 .2500 0.7913
20.00 25.00 -27.60 160.00 0.8275 24 80 .3000 0.9495
25.00 30.00 37.40 132.00 1.2833 25 66 .3788 1.1989
30.00 35.00 37.00 62.00 1.5968 14 31 .4516 1.4294


From the above we can create a simple model:

Steve Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25.

Note: JCapper's BF is a computer generated measure of a trainer's attempt to instill a foundation into a horse. Other software probably has something similar which can be used to good effect to get results that are similar. I'm also quite sure that Miyadi's starters could be sliced and diced any number of different ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Let's look at some more data...

First, Calendar Year 2005 Miyadi starters where BasicFitness is at least 25:
UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_05.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 268.40 216.80 218.90
Bet -194.00 -194.00 -194.00
Gain 74.40 22.80 24.90

Wins 39 58 74
Plays 97 97 97
PCT .4021 .5979 .7629

ROI 1.3835 1.1175 1.1284
Avg Mut 6.88 3.74 2.96


Ok. That's not too bad. We actually could have bet the model's plays across the board and shown a profit. Throw in a rebate and we could have done even better. But that's how we would have done had we played the races we used when developing the model itself. To be fair, we need to subject the model to the acid test. How does the model perform going forward?

Let's look at some more data...

The model, Calendar Year 2006:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_06.txt)
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 169.60 131.00 149.80
Bet -142.00 -142.00 -142.00
Gain 27.60 -11.00 7.80

Wins 28 37 50
Plays 71 71 71
PCT .3944 .5211 .7042

ROI 1.1944 0.9225 1.0549
Avg Mut 6.06 3.54 3.00


And year to date for 2007:

UDM Definition: MIYADI-BF25
Divisor: # UDM Def Divisor: 999
Surface Req: *ANY Surface*
Distance Req: *ANY Distance*

Running Style: ALL
Trainer Name: MIYADI S

Data Window Settings:
Divisor = 999
Filters Applied: BFMIN25-

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*)
From Index File: D:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Trainer_MIYADI_07.txt
Trainer: MIYADI S

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 111.40 155.50 132.30
Bet -108.00 -108.00 -108.00
Gain 3.40 47.50 24.30

Wins 16 32 39
Plays 54 54 54
PCT .2963 .5926 .7222

ROI 1.0315 1.4398 1.2250
Avg Mut 6.96 4.86 3.39

This is a VERY simplistic model which I have no doubt can be improved upon greatly by anyone willing to do some research. After seeing this, are you still willing to say that successful trainer pattern play is impossible?

IMHO, successful trainer pattern play requires that the player be able to find (and exploit) things about the trainer that are not very obvious to the general public... I like to use the phrase "hidden positives" (no pun intended) to describe them. Using "under the radar" trainers helps... as does using factors that the public normally doesn't have a very good handle on.


-jp


Thanks Jeff that was a great illustration and I love the “basic fitness” factor. I see from the graphs that at only a specific point in time do trainer angles become profitable; I’ll refer to it as filtering and re-filtering. I made an earlier comment back in post #106 I expect they do more than what any of you have described.

Of course that is the case and I appreciate you taking the effort and time to toss me a “bone”.

You’ve said to me privately that I’m 4 to 5 yrs behind you with regard to playing this game. I not so sure we couldn’t add a zero to that.

[jma]

Have a heart Fats,

Let Candlin enjoy the moment!!! 0 – 48 at Belmont going in…:eek:

It was brilliant training that won that race!...Right? ;) :D

Out of all the claims I read in this thread, the most shocking was that Candlin won a race...and yet it happened. :)

[Bill Olmsted]

So was that the running theme of these 5 books? That'd be pretty disappointing for the folks who bought them...

LOL!

Good one!

I stand facing the wall with cone hat on, stewing in my own humility.

[Tom]

Actually, I cashed a few tickets thanks to Bill's trainer guides back in the day. :jump:

[Bill Olmsted]

Tom,

Thanks for saving my sorry behind.

Trainer handicapping CAN work but you have to look at what's working now. For example, I like to bet the trainer/owner combintion of Stephanie Beattie and Robert Cole (They can win when you aren't looking as they did the other night). Or bet all of Donald Campbell's horses--no matter what. If you do this, there is a good chance that you will come out ahead for the rest of 2007. Nothing guaranteed, of course, but the odds are in your favor. I'm sure there are many others out there. But when you are betting on the trainer, you are betting on faith and not basic handicapping fundementals.

[ranchwest]

Tom,

Thanks for saving my sorry behind.

Trainer handicapping CAN work but you have to look at what's working now. For example, I like to bet the trainer/owner combintion of Stephanie Beattie and Robert Cole (They can win when you aren't looking as they did the other night). Or bet all of Donald Campbell's horses--no matter what. If you do this, there is a good chance that you will come out ahead for the rest of 2007. Nothing guaranteed, of course, but the odds are in your favor. I'm sure there are many others out there. But when you are betting on the trainer, you are betting on faith and not basic handicapping fundementals.

It's all faith-based. Handicappers just have to learn what they trust.

A few things I'd like to mention.

As I stated before, trainer handicapping is best applied with support from physicality handicapping.

Also, trainer handicapping will usually work better on some circuits than others. I suspect that some of the "doubting Thomas's" here are of such a mindset validly because their circuit does not play well with trainer handicapping.

[Bill Olmsted]

Is all handicapping faith based? For me, there must be hard evidence to confirm one's intuition. The only way to know if your faith is properly placed is to keep extensive written records of every bet you make.

[ranchwest]

Is all handicapping faith based? For me, there must be hard evidence to confirm one's intuition. The only way to know if your faith is properly placed is to keep extensive written records of every bet you make.

Yeah, in basically all cases you're placing your faith in something.

For example, if you're betting pace or speed, you're placing your faith in the timing mechanisms, some of which we know have built in flaws (run-ups, rail adjustments, etc.). And, there's the whole thread we went through recently about measuring lengths. And all of the threads about whether speed ratings should include subjective evaluations, where you're putting your faith in people like Andy Beyer (this is neither an endorsement or a criticism of Andy Beyer, just stating a fact).

And, if you're betting pace, you're having faith that the jockey is not going to alter the pace pattern of the horse.

You're right, "written" (retained?) records of all bets are the measure. This hobby or profession or game or however an individual thinks of it has one measure and that is money.

[KingsLaw]

I think, at a minimum, you have to faith that your interpretation of the facts will actually play out.

This is still a horse race - An angle that wins 40% of the time is awesome ... 50%, 70% whatever ... still means you are losing 60% of the time, it's a coin flip or losing 30% of the time. (not saying it wouldn't be a good bet to make).

I hope the horses I pick that come with value win so I can beat, not only the other players but the takeout %. It's a fairly tall order. Tougher for people like me who have to be very judicious with the bankroll.

Not only that, but can anyone really say they have a winning system? There is always an unknown variable in trying to predict the outcome of anything ... nothing happens in a vacuum.

You gotta have faith that you will cash that ticket or why make the bet.

Luck and it's counterpart, which I dare not name, do exist.

[Bill Olmsted]

Trying to measure the impact of luck on your bottom line is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. As the guy said in Psycho, "If it ain't aspic it won't jell. Luck is a quaint, romantic notion that is purely coincidental and can't be relied on.

[ranchwest]

Just because we have faith in something (speaking on a non-religious level) doesn't mean that it will pan out. We just believe it will.

[Bill Olmsted]

faith, Confidence or trust in a person or thing; loyality; fidelity to a person, promise, or commitment; belief not substantiated by proof; spiritual acceptance of truth or realites not certified by reason.

[ranchwest]

Trying to measure the impact of luck on your bottom line is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. As the guy said in Psycho, "If it ain't aspic it won't jell. Luck is a quaint, romantic notion that is purely coincidental and can't be relied on.

Johnny Oates (former baseball manager) said (and some say he was quoting someone else) that luck is when preparation and opportunity meet. That goes well with a saying from my high school coach -- in order to participate you have to get into the program.

For most folks, successful handicapping is darned hard work. If you get lucky along the way, all the better. You are correct that success can't rely on the frequency of luck, though I would add that some luck (both good and bad) is inevitable. For most people it averages out and that just leaves the sweat of the brow.

[LemonSoupKid]

My friends, there is no such thing as "luck". No one gets "lucky". Luck is a concept created for people who can't imagine something happening (generally to a particular person, collective, or in general) under the circumstances. Everything is probability. It's sad that everything has been given this magic type feeling as if there were some force out there that aided or went against someone on a given day. Just like calculating value, we are trying to match predicted probabilities vs. what we think the real issues are that we can see accounting for talent and difficulty in a race. Do we see all (most) of them? Sometimes. Usually we do not, nor are our brains highly developed to reason through each intricacy that affects outcome. Still, in other scenarios we can select a horse that is SO good that he can overcome adversity unforeseen and still win. In any case, given externals, we use knowledge to gauge the best horse in a given situation (which everyone knows). If a blind man picks a winner, it's not lucky. It's improbable. It's not going to happen very often. Just like Giacomo winning the Derby. Was it a fluke? Yes, because I believe a fluke is when an overwhelming # of factors have to contribute to give horse A a chance to win, when in most of those situations even with a best effort he still wouldn't win. There is never a scenario where a horse has zero chance of winning. Therefore, there is no such thing as luck. Just probability. Luck has become a concept of personalized voodoo (either way) and I detest it.

My thoughts,
Lemon

[Greyfox]

My friends, there is no such thing as "luck".Lemon

Believe what you want. Some of us are luckier than others, every day, every month.
At any rate, with respect to eliminations, at the tracks that I play,
I watch the game of "musical saddles" that jockeys play.
Top jockeys at major ovals usually don't give up live mounts, except when under contract elsewhere.