Training styles..what gives you a clue

[sammy the sage]

as to Trainer intent...whether they're trying all out or not?

I know it varies widely from each...as well as coast to coast?

[46zilzal]

as to Trainer intent...whether they're trying all out or not?

I know it varies widely from each...as well as coast to coast?
The ONLY way you will know is work in their barn

[Tom]

Trying and winning are two different thinkgs.
Keeping statistical records of trainers can give you good information that you can use as a handicappng tool. You have to know, though, how to interpret the stats to see if you really have something other than noise. I see different results by track for the same trainer at times. Look for roi being inflated by a one or two bombs. Mark Cramer throws out the biggest payoffs to see how the "angle" would look without the extremes. Ed Bain had a real nice deal going with his 4+20 method, until he got squashed by the big boys. But his book still has value if you an get it.

You can really get some eroneous stuff if you just use the stats without thinking abou them.

Of course, no factor stands alone and I think trainer data should be used as one tool in combination with others. And, of course, if you do not use trainer data, you really can't comment on it intelligently. But some will anyway.;)

[GlenninOhio]

Another point to ponder when considering "trainer intent" is that owners can and often do have a major say in where a horse is spotted.

While this influence varies from owner to owner and trainer to trainer, it's naive to believe that there is always a "trainer intent" involved, which to me carries the implication that something sophisticated is behind why the horse is in a particular spot if you could only "crack the trainer's code".

I'm not saying many owners aren't logical (or even more logical than their trainers), but there are enough forceful owners out there who also haven't got a clue to muddy up efforts to play based off perceived trainer intent.

[Jeff P]

While it's true that you can't read the trainer's mind - and thus can't know with 100 pct accuracy what he or she is really trying to accomplish in today's race...

Keep in mind that you are competing against other players and not the trainer. So your real goal if you are going to use trainer info as part of your game is to glean insight that other players lack.

A database and a set of carefully kept trainer stats can certainly help you do just that... if you are willing to do your own research. For the most part the trainer stats you see in past performances really isn't going to help you.

But your own R&D can either give you an edge outright - or compound an edge you already had based on other criteria.

That last sentence is important - at least to me.

My best plays historically have always been those where many different broad areas somehow all managed to converge in one place... speed & pace, track profile, little things that actually DO flag trainer intent, physicality of the horse, a morning line oddsmaker who dismissed my selection and an obliging crowd that followed suit...

Every now and then the stars just seem to align. And when that happens this game can get downright enjoyable. But understand something: The amount of work I put in is directly related to the number of times I get to see that the stars in fact actually DO line up.

If you ask me trainer info can help your bottom line if you are willing to take the time to study (translation: work.) IMHO you have to uncover and work with areas (and trainers) that (for whatever reason) the crowd ignores.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

was trying to edit my previous post and ran out of edit time...

Training styles..what gives you a clue
I regularly use any and all of the following (and more) clues from the trainer to help me understand what he or she is trying to do:

Class Drops and Rises
Ship from Track
Claims
XthStartForTrainer
XthStartOfTheMeet
XthStartOffOfLayoff
XthStartAfterLasix
Other Medication
Equipment Changes
Distance Changes
Surface Changes
New Pace Top Last Out
Form Cycle Analysis
Speed Cycle Analysis
Workout Ratings
Form Ratings
A list of riders who excel for this trainer
A list of owners who this trainer excels for
Does the crowd consistently overlook this trainer's starters? If so, WHY?
Pattern of recent scratches for the horse... was he a vetscratch three days ago?

It all helps me to like or dismiss a horse. But I still have to answer the bigger question:

How does the horse actually fit (to my way of thinking) against those he faces today?

-jp

.

[sammy the sage]

Good words all! :cool:

I do know age and experience of the horse matter as well...that affects training regime w/some.....

Let's start w/one angle and proceed from there...

The blow-out/bullet work as last work...some do it 4-5 days out...the Dutrow boy's like to do a 3f 2 days...

I sometimes think THAT method can backfire???

Also...what about trainer's that BET on their entry...ie...M.Mitchell in S.Cal. is famous for this?

[Robert Fischer]

true story, had a tip on a horse the other day
There has never been a more well meant horse.
training like a bear,hungry barn, surface switch, even got bet down
caught a faster than expected pace and
"Outrun... Rallied belatedly along the rail... checked in traffic"
But he had Serious Intentions! :D
maybe if he stretches to a mile and an eighth... :bang:


training patterns with a database sounds promising

[Marlin]

One stat I like to keep involves small trainers at smaller tracks. I record performance versus odds. As expected most perform within the norm where I consider it statistically irrelevant. However, there are a select few that are either VERY STRONG or VERY WEAK in the respective categories. Remember, everyone likes to cash a ticket.

Edit: The categories are performance with short prices and performances with long prices.

[sammy the sage]

""Remember, everyone likes to cash a ticket.""

YEP..

What got me on this tangent...was sitting next to the former owner of a racetrack....(who shall remain nameless)...who was a former harness race jock in the 50's...now retired...buys and sells horse TB's at auction's now...a nd bets/wins like Richard Dryfeuss..."Let IT Ride"

Been around 50 yrs w/horseflesh....

Anyways at the OTB...he's there betting at every track on the screen...just watching odds and looking at trainer's and jocks...no handicapping...hitting p-3's left and right...ABSOLUTLY AMAZING

[46zilzal]

Trainer stats are HUGE victims of sample error.
One season a barn may have several fillies then never get them again for years. THAT batch, could be above average and all the trainer did was to bring out the talent that each individual had: NO DIFFERENT than that trainer's ability to bring out the talent in any other subset of horses.

IT IS THE HORSE not the trainer that runs, competes and wins. NO ONE ELSE.

[Tom]

See post #2, last two lines. :lol: I knew it! :lol:

The horse doesn't enter itself, train itself, assign a rider, etc. The TRAINER does that, and many have identifiable patterns. All samples have some error, so what? As I said in my post, people who use stats know how to work around errors and get to meaningful data. You obvioulsy do not.

But thanks for trying to contirubte anyway. :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

Reductionism is full of statistical misconceptions. Imagine a physician making a diagnosis by only looking at things from a patient's spouse rather than the patient themselves.

It is this mentality which cannot understand ecology, physiology and a myriad of other disciplines akin to not being able to understand the FOREST for the trees, as the e/l (improving early speed) wins the first at Saratoga today: THE HORSE not the trainer.

GRANDSTANDERS are subject to too many Hollywood renditions of the race track (a la Salty O'Rourke, or Boots Malone) to know that the majority of the time, trainers are trying to win. Their paycheck comes from that. This malarkey about "darkening their form" is pure Hollywood.

[Jeff P]

IT IS THE HORSE not the trainer that runs, competes and wins. NO ONE ELSE.I actually agree with this.

But consider the records of two well known trainers.... I'll refrain from posting their names because the information gleaned was hard won and I prefer to continue to use it when I bet...

The following stats are from my calendar year 2007 database. I should also point out that an almost identical pattern can be found when looking at other years (including this one) as well.

The first trainer is great at bringing out that talent very soon after adding the horse to the barn:
By: Xth Start For Trainer

Start # Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 53.10 192.00 1.2766 27 96 .2813 1.0891
2 -32.00 144.00 0.7778 18 72 .2500 0.9681
3 -14.10 116.00 0.8784 18 58 .3103 1.2018
4 -39.10 100.00 0.6090 14 50 .2800 1.0843
5 -28.30 80.00 0.6463 6 40 .1500 0.5809
6 -32.20 74.00 0.5649 7 37 .1892 0.7326
But after he's had them a while they begin to sour and lose interest in running for him.

The other is a guy who's well known for running them into the ground. But a look at his record shows the "known for running them into the ground" part is nothing more than rumor perpetuated by an unknowing betting public:
By: Xth Start For Trainer

Start # Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -53.70 106.00 0.4934 4 53 .0755 0.6172
2 -35.70 86.00 0.5849 3 43 .0698 0.5705
3 -67.80 74.00 0.0838 1 37 .0270 0.2210
4 -0.60 76.00 0.9921 5 38 .1316 1.0760
5 -18.60 62.00 0.7000 5 31 .1613 1.3190
6 2.80 40.00 1.0700 3 20 .1500 1.2267
7 -0.60 42.00 0.9857 3 21 .1429 1.1683
8 26.40 36.00 1.7333 4 18 .2222 1.8173
9 -17.60 30.00 0.4133 1 15 .0667 0.5452
10 9.60 20.00 1.4800 2 10 .2000 1.6356
11+ 42.40 164.00 1.2585 14 82 .1707 1.3962
When a new arrival shows up at his barn he's patient with them, and somehow the longer he has them the better they run.

No matter what methodology you use, if you play long enough, you'll very likely bet the starters of both trainers. And if you have a successful methodology you might do it profitably and not even care about their records.

But...

I'll make the argument that using trainer stats is just like speed in workouts, just like lasix, just like pedigree...

and everything else over the years that I've posted about only to have you declare what I've posted can not possibly matter...

yes 46 this is meant for you...

If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the actual data - then here's what happens:

When a horse you bet happens to be making start #5 and beyond for the first trainer I mentioned...

Your chances of cashing a bet are compromised. Worse, you will be completely unaware of it.

You COULD have required higher odds before making the bet HAD you been aware...

What I do with a database is no different than what automobile insurance companies do when they set rates based on driver's age, city of residence, and number of accidents. I could argue it is the INDIVIDUAL DRIVER that matters and not the data.

But everyone understands why insurance companies do what they do. Their rate structure is designed to make them profitable.


-jp

.

[46zilzal]

Everyone loves old D. Wayne.

That trainer is not anywhere in the top training stats. SAME GUY, SAME METHODS: no horses, few wins....

The horse runs the race all alone. All the trainer can do is TRY to extract the best from that horse. I worked with a guy who taught me well: he has a small barn, is VERY conservative, and shockingly often turns down owners who want to tell him how to train. As such, he keeps horses reasonably sound all season long. He is as good a trainer as there is, BUT, he rarely gets the horses, but when he does (Vernon Indvader) they win, THEY WIN, a lot of money.

AGAIN parimutuel responses are from the CROWD not from the horse OR the trainer.

[46zilzal]

Improving early speed: the HORSE told me. Hidden in the pace lines.

[Tom]

As usual, your post proves nothing. Did anyone say you could not pick winners using pace? Try using your pace program on first time starters, or lightly raced maidens, with a couple of 2 furlong races, of a 4 furlong one. Can't do it. Your pace program is a very fine program, but it is hardly the final word on handicapping. It has it's uses and it's limitations. Like you.

Are you so totally dense as to think that you have a monopoly on handicapping? Everyone here who uses trainer stats successfully will disagree with you. But go ahead and delude yourself into thinking you have the only right way.

You don't even know how we use the data. You only think you do. Otherwise, you would not have dodged Jeff's post. :lol::lol::lol:

[46zilzal]

Firsters are PURE guesswork as I have learned extensively over the years. They work alone, in the quiet of the mornings, then BOOM they are pitted against a group in the cacophony of a real race: few step up the first time unless they simply run away from the field.

Go to the backstretch where real training takes place not from the grandstands where all of these databases are foaled.

I love grandstanders.......and their quiet confidence of THINKING they know horse racing. I KNOW BECAUSE I ONCE WAS IN THAT SAME GROUP. When you go to the other side of that backstretch fence, you learn very quickly that the game is FAR different than you implied it was by your databases. Reductiionism is not the same as learning about the WHOLE game up close and personal.

[Jeff P]

Tim, do you think I'm a grandstander because I created and use a database?



-jp

.

[46zilzal]

Tim, do you think I'm a grandstander because I created and use a database

.
To the same degree I was before the epiphany of learning the game WITH THE PEOPLE WHO RUN IT, YES.

Reminds of a movie where reductionism was way off base. Dizzy Dean is pitiching and the catcher comes out to talk to him. A boy in the stands asks his father:"What are they talking about dad" Dad explains, based on as much logic as his far away position and experience can engender: "I think they are discussing how to pitch to this guy."

Camera comes up close:

Catcher:"Still got that shotgun you were selling? Wanted to talk to you before the other guys did."
Dean: "Yep, meet me in the duggout right after the game."

Logical ASSUMPTION, but wrong. That is what 2nd hand information without an over-view can give you.

[Jeff P]

And do you also think the numbers I post are pure folly or the result of random noise?... that there's absolutely no way a cause and effect relationship can exist between them and what actually happens on a racetrack?

-jp

.

[46zilzal]

There is NOW and NEVER will be ONE way to the mountain top: some go by this road, others take the upper ridge, some go straight up the face of the cliff.

Do your own thing, be my guest, BUT trying to understand the racing game from a distance is one fraught with error.

[ryesteve]

Do I need to know how a clock works before I can tell what time it is?

[Marlin]

46 is right. The Horse and the horse alone will compete on a given day. Attempting to determine if the horse will race well or poorly is called handicapping. 46 do you ever bet first time starters? One might as well throw out pace lines as well. The horse could have got cast in the stall. It's called probability. Probability is reflected in odds. Either you never bet or you bet on horses you train personally on the backside.

[46zilzal]

46 is right. The Horse and the horse alone will compete on a given day. Attempting to determine if the horse will race well or poorly is called handicapping. 46 do you ever bet first time starters? One might as well throw out pace lines as well. The horse could have got cast in the stall. It's called probability. Probability is reflected in odds. Either you never bet or you bet on horses you train personally on the backside.
Only time that I touch a Frister is in a field of chronics who show very little early lick and have tried 8 to 10 times. I have made wagers almost everyday (other than my trip to Europe in March) for the last 12 years.

I am not a trainer, but have been a groom, hot walker and followed the track vet around several mornings then later reviewed necropsy photos with him.

[sammy the sage]

Well 46...we'll just have to dis-agree as usual...imagine that :bang:

Your creditial's :rolleyes: as a professed "hot-walker" and other "back-side" experience PALE in comparision to what I posted in #10 post on this thread...and his take is 180 degree's different....

I will agree many road's to the top of the mountain...BUT to ALWAYS put down other's way's and CLAIM w/unequivacal certainty that YOUR'S is the BEST...

You either can't look in the mirror at your-self OR you're STUCK in looking at the mirror ALL the TIME! :faint:

[Tom]

This was the original thread topic.....I think we have shown a few clues so far,dontcha think? :bang:


Training styles..what gives you a clue?

[Jeff P]

Hey. At least I tried. :bang: :bang:


-jp

.

[classhandicapper]

I pretty much agree with everything Tom had to say on the subject.

IMO trainer stats are sometimes very useful for determining trainer intent and the likely direction of a horse's performance. However, due to sample size, changes in stock, changes in training style, the impact of weather, and other factors you have to be very careful to examine the stats to make sure you are finding a legitimate pattern and not just a lot of random noise.

If find that when I like a horse on figures and it also has a "trainer postive" going for it, those are among the best bets at the racetrack for me. By trainer positive I mean a situation where the trainer does especially well and where he also tends to get underbet.

[classhandicapper]

I actually agree with this.

But consider the records of two well known trainers.... I'll refrain from posting their names because the information gleaned was hard won and I prefer to continue to use it when I bet...

The following stats are from my calendar year 2007 database. I should also point out that an almost identical pattern can be found when looking at other years (including this one) as well.

The first trainer is great at bringing out that talent very soon after adding the horse to the barn:
By: Xth Start For Trainer

Start # Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 53.10 192.00 1.2766 27 96 .2813 1.0891
2 -32.00 144.00 0.7778 18 72 .2500 0.9681
3 -14.10 116.00 0.8784 18 58 .3103 1.2018
4 -39.10 100.00 0.6090 14 50 .2800 1.0843
5 -28.30 80.00 0.6463 6 40 .1500 0.5809
6 -32.20 74.00 0.5649 7 37 .1892 0.7326
But after he's had them a while they begin to sour and lose interest in running for him.

The other is a guy who's well known for running them into the ground. But a look at his record shows the "known for running them into the ground" part is nothing more than rumor perpetuated by an unknowing betting public:
By: Xth Start For Trainer

Start # Gain Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
1 -53.70 106.00 0.4934 4 53 .0755 0.6172
2 -35.70 86.00 0.5849 3 43 .0698 0.5705
3 -67.80 74.00 0.0838 1 37 .0270 0.2210
4 -0.60 76.00 0.9921 5 38 .1316 1.0760
5 -18.60 62.00 0.7000 5 31 .1613 1.3190
6 2.80 40.00 1.0700 3 20 .1500 1.2267
7 -0.60 42.00 0.9857 3 21 .1429 1.1683
8 26.40 36.00 1.7333 4 18 .2222 1.8173
9 -17.60 30.00 0.4133 1 15 .0667 0.5452
10 9.60 20.00 1.4800 2 10 .2000 1.6356
11+ 42.40 164.00 1.2585 14 82 .1707 1.3962
When a new arrival shows up at his barn he's patient with them, and somehow the longer he has them the better they run.

No matter what methodology you use, if you play long enough, you'll very likely bet the starters of both trainers. And if you have a successful methodology you might do it profitably and not even care about their records.

But...

I'll make the argument that using trainer stats is just like speed in workouts, just like lasix, just like pedigree...

and everything else over the years that I've posted about only to have you declare what I've posted can not possibly matter...

yes 46 this is meant for you...

If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the actual data - then here's what happens:

When a horse you bet happens to be making start #5 and beyond for the first trainer I mentioned...

Your chances of cashing a bet are compromised. Worse, you will be completely unaware of it.

You COULD have required higher odds before making the bet HAD you been aware...

What I do with a database is no different than what automobile insurance companies do when they set rates based on driver's age, city of residence, and number of accidents. I could argue it is the INDIVIDUAL DRIVER that matters and not the data.

But everyone understands why insurance companies do what they do. Their rate structure is designed to make them profitable.


-jp

.

Great post. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

I don't just bet trainer angles. What I do is use them as a reason to go back to other pace lines. Or fill the undersides of exactas. Or have "B" horses in pic3's. Lots of reason and ways to use trainer stuff. One of my favorites is to throw out favorites who have negative patterns.

[classhandicapper]

I don't just bet trainer angles. What I do is use them as a reason to go back to other pace lines. Or fill the undersides of exactas. Or have "B" horses in pic3's. Lots of reason and ways to use trainer stuff. One of my favorites is to throw out favorites who have negative patterns.

:ThmbUp:

[sammy the sage]

""One of my favorites is to throw out favorites who have negative patterns.""

Ichibad Crane today was a PERFECT example of a throw-out!

from work pattern on I.C....a trainer who like's med-fast works for ""GO"" horse's...this horse's last work...was VERY VERY SLOW...so morning line fav...easy throw-out w/THIS trainer!

gotta be careful here...SOME trainer's use the SLOW work to HIDE readiness..the BETTING trainer Mitchell on the s.cal. circuit is famous for this...have posted that before in other threads!

[ranchwest]

Trainer stats are HUGE victims of sample error.
One season a barn may have several fillies then never get them again for years. THAT batch, could be above average and all the trainer did was to bring out the talent that each individual had: NO DIFFERENT than that trainer's ability to bring out the talent in any other subset of horses.

IT IS THE HORSE not the trainer that runs, competes and wins. NO ONE ELSE.

Everything can be a victim of sample error. Nothing works every time.

Every horse in every race is its own puzzle.

I don't argue with results and results can be achieved in a lot of different ways. The most common way I've seen for results to be consistent is through work.

[Robert Fischer]

not a bad trainer angle for the data basers:

1. Trainer has less than "X" runners last 60 days
2. Step up in class (2 or more for those who quantify class)
3. Last race was 1st or 2nd
4. Today's ml odds >10-1

look for trainers who excel not only in wins, but also in-the-money finishes


in addition to, or in substitution for condition#2 you could consider changes in Track Venue.

[Pell Mell]

Trainer stats are HUGE victims of sample error.
One season a barn may have several fillies then never get them again for years. THAT batch, could be above average and all the trainer did was to bring out the talent that each individual had: NO DIFFERENT than that trainer's ability to bring out the talent in any other subset of horses.

IT IS THE HORSE not the trainer that runs, competes and wins. NO ONE ELSE.

Who decides where the horse will run?

Who decides the class, surface, distance, jockey, tactics, equipment, date, etc.? The horse?

Only after all the questions are answered is it up to the horse!

[ranchwest]

Who decides where the horse will run?

Who decides the class, surface, distance, jockey, tactics, equipment, date, etc.? The horse?

Only after all the questions are answered is it up to the horse!

46 follows some really smart horses. :lol: