Jockey/trainer teams

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Has anyone had any success using the jockey/trainer team totals as part of their handicapping procedure? It would appear to be trainer intent when the jockey returns to ride a horse that he has had success on and/or success with the trainer.Any thoughts?

Thank you for your time

[Robert Goren]

Not since they have been published in the past performances.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Robert,


It must have been a big edge years ago...but like mass information it has become de-valued.

[Fingal]

When everybody knows everything, it's useless. When everyone can see those published percentages & ROI, it's lemmings time.

Just because a jock has won on a certain horse in the past doesn't mean he or she will again, but that's the way the public bets & creates 6-5 favorites.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

It's amazing how many single factors the public uses to drive down prices and force short prices. example: Beyer figures, morning line favorites, big name trainers and jockeys, big drop downs etc.

[Overlay]

It's amazing how many single factors the public uses to drive down prices and force short prices. example: Beyer figures, morning line favorites, big name trainers and jockeys, big drop downs etc.

All the more reason why it's necessary to handicap and bet based on probabilities associated with multiple factors, and overall wagering value, rather than go/no-go single factors at any odds.

[Robert Goren]

Robert,


It must have been a big edge years ago...but like mass information it has become de-valued. It wasn't all that great. There were times when a stable would not use their regular boy and put on a lesser known jockey, It did pay to know which unknown jockey they would use when they were trying slip one in for a price.

[Robert Goren]

I am too sick to devote the time to do it any more, but the best way to beat this game is study the trainers. When ever a horse pops for a price try to figure out why it won and why the public didn't bet it. I used to have index cards on every trainer who got home a $20+ horse on the circuit. It is amazing how often some of these guys get a good priced winner home. If I was doing that today, I be looking La and/or Tex. JMO

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I am too sick to devote the time to do it any more, but the best way to beat this game is study the trainers. When ever a horse pops for a price try to figure out why it won and why the public didn't bet it. I used to have index cards on every trainer who got home a $20+ horse on the circuit. It is amazing how often some of these guys get a good priced winner home. If I was doing that today, I be looking La and/or Tex. JMO

Old school technique Robert...I knew a few sharp regulars years ago on the New York circuit who had an astonishing amount of trainer info that they used for great success.

[porkchop]

jim mazur (progressive handicapping) and ed bain handicap solely on trainer stats both have information that can be purchased

[Grits]

At this particular aspect of the game--stats. Mazur is, hands down, the best. His breakdown of meet specifics such as win early trainers, win later trainers, of shippers, of jockey trainer combos, of longshot trainers, etc. All good stuff. I'm better with his books than I am with working the indepth filters of Formulator.

He's got a wide selection of information on the Gulfstream meet that has just begun. And, as with other meets, it wouldn't take long to recoup one's investment.

[stuball]

Actually I look at it for the negatives...combos may win
but their ROI is negative. Any one that can beat them is
almost certain to have a positive ROI. Find the gold!!!
Stuball

[fmolf]

At this particular aspect of the game--stats. Mazur is, hands down, the best. His breakdown of meet specifics such as win early trainers, win later trainers, of shippers, of jockey trainer combos, of longshot trainers, etc. All good stuff. I'm better with his books than I am with working the indepth filters of Formulator.

He's got a wide selection of information on the Gulfstream meet that has just begun. And, as with other meets, it wouldn't take long to recoup one's investment.
Grits: check out the drf book Trainer angles...by Dean Keppler.Excellent read and he navigates you through the confusing process of filtering the pp's using formulator with regards to surface distance and trainer intent.Also an excellent book to read about trainer maneuvers as well.He shows how to cull all this information from the drf formulator pp's...excellent read.

[TrifectaMike]

It's amazing how many single factors the public uses to drive down prices and force short prices. example: Beyer figures, morning line favorites, big name trainers and jockeys, big drop downs etc.

I don't believe that to be the case. The prices are driven by the nature of the system. It is so because the odds as a time series are available to all. And the the tote odds reflect all the data that is available to every player including players with inside information.

Try to view the system as a ballon filled with air. If a single factor or force were to applied on one portion of the ballon then other areas of the ballon would disform. That would also be true of the odds. If it were true that single factors were driving the odds, then there would numerous horses with much higher odds than fair. But that is not the case. The odds in general are an efficent descriptor of the race.

In fact using minimal information such as a single factor is more likely a better approach.

Information drives the odds then the odds drive the odds to a further refinement. It is a systemic problem.

To play outside the system one needs a metric (a simple one at that) that can create accurate probabilities within a segment of the odds distribution and then wait for the opportunity to catch a local inefficency.

Mike

[Robert Goren]

I hate knock anyone's product, but if you try to use a computer to come up with anything useful on trainers you are going to be disappointed. You will end up with a bunch of horses going off at 6/5 who drop to 4/5 as the gate opens. This is alot more art than science. You need a keen sense of smell. JMO

[Overlay]

The odds in general are an efficient descriptor of the race.

I agree with that statement in the aggregate, but the public also regularly goes overboard on isolated factors such as speed, pace, trainers, or jockeys (to name a few) in individual races to an extent that makes finding and capitalizing on value eminently possible and worthwhile. Are those factors significant in determining race outcomes? Of course. Are there repeated occasions when the public (despite its remarkable overall accuracy) gives too much weight to one or more of those factors with regard to specific horses in the context of an individual race? Unquestionably. And it only takes one such misjudgment to create exploitable value on the other horses in that race.

[Grits]

Grits: check out the drf book Trainer angles...by Dean Keppler.Excellent read and he navigates you through the confusing process of filtering the pp's using formulator with regards to surface distance and trainer intent.Also an excellent book to read about trainer maneuvers as well.He shows how to cull all this information from the drf formulator pp's...excellent read.

Thanks, fmolf. Don't have Keppler's book, it may well be worth a look because I've sure been dunced by Formulator on a host of tries. Though, still, I like Mazur's books.

[castaway01]

Thanks, fmolf. Don't have Keppler's book, it may well be worth a look because I've sure been dunced by Formulator on a host of tries. Though, still, I like Mazur's books.

That book, while not the greatest, will definitely teach you how to use Formulator. In reading the book, one of the other interesting things I noticed was that for many of the top-ranked trainers in certain categories in the book, when you do up-to-date searches on their stats, you'll find the trainer went 3 for 31 (or whatever) in that category in the next year. Just shows how trainers go on hot streaks where that person is doing something for a few months or a year---new drug, new feed, better stock, whatever---and starts winning off a layoff, or off the claim, and then it peters out. On the other hand, for many of the trainers who are consistently successful at some "move", the public catches on and takes the value out of it. Trainer handicapping is a lot of work and it's much better to know who is winning in the short term as opposed to over the past three or five years. You really have to stay on top of it. It can work as a spot play method though, which is how I use it.

[illinoisbred]

That book, while not the greatest, will definitely teach you how to use Formulator. In reading the book, one of the other interesting things I noticed was that for many of the top-ranked trainers in certain categories in the book, when you do up-to-date searches on their stats, you'll find the trainer went 3 for 31 (or whatever) in that category in the next year. Just shows how trainers go on hot streaks where that person is doing something for a few months or a year---new drug, new feed, better stock, whatever---and starts winning off a layoff, or off the claim, and then it peters out. On the other hand, for many of the trainers who are consistently successful at some "move", the public catches on and takes the value out of it. Trainer handicapping is a lot of work and it's much better to know who is winning in the short term as opposed to over the past three or five years. You really have to stay on top of it. It can work as a spot play method though, which is how I use it.
Agree 100%. Short-term analysis is much superior. Very few trainers have long-term positive ROI angles/patterns. I was a trainer handicapper back in the 80's at about the time Tom Amoss became a trainer. For several years there was no one any better with 1st after claims than him. 6 through 10-1s were not uncommon on his winners to start, but those quickly became 2,3-1s and now are 4-5s,6-5s when he hits which isn't as often as it used to be.The pre-race analysts still tout this angle at the Fair Grounds and Arlington but the only occasional good payoffs seem to come at Churchill or Keeneland. If this is an approach you're considering stick to short-term, meet specific data.

[castaway01]

Agree 100%. Short-term analysis is much superior. Very few trainers have long-term positive ROI angles/patterns. I was a trainer handicapper back in the 80's at about the time Tom Amoss became a trainer. For several years there was no one any better with 1st after claims than him. 6 through 10-1s were not uncommon on his winners to start, but those quickly became 2,3-1s and now are 4-5s,6-5s when he hits which isn't as often as it used to be.The pre-race analysts still tout this angle at the Fair Grounds and Arlington but the only occasional good payoffs seem to come at Churchill or Keeneland. If this is an approach you're considering stick to short-term, meet specific data.

Tom Amoss is an excellent example of someone who used to be a key guy for me to bet and lately is pretty worthless, yet still gets touted as a wizard with winning first off the claim. Even in 2005 and 2006 (and I only have my stats so I won't bother giving them because they're likely incomplete) he had a strongly positive ROI first off the claim. By 2009, based on Formulator his winning percentage for first off the claim was down to 21% and the ROI was $0.60 for each dollar bet. So he went from 30% winners to 21%, plus everyone is onto the angle, so it drove it far into unprofitability (if that is a word).

[Robert Goren]

It is what they claim. Some trainers get too big and start claiming horses that do not produce a quick return on investment. I have never been a big fan betting horses coming right back off a claim. The prices are too short.

[Jackal]

No stat is going to pay very much once it's published in the DRF. Lot's of people bet the top jockey's and trainers no matter what the circumstances might be.

You will get paid by finding small stables that perform under certain circumstances. I used to bet John Saddler when he first started. I got paid well for about a year.

[castaway01]

No stat is going to pay very much once it's published in the DRF. Lot's of people bet the top jockey's and trainers no matter what the circumstances might be.

You will get paid by finding small stables that perform under certain circumstances. I used to bet John Saddler when he first started. I got paid well for about a year.

Well, there are definite exceptions. The key is to knowing which trainer who is 15/77 at some angle is 6/13 at a certain track or distance with that same angle. Then resist the urge to play the 4-5s and pounce when he or she is 4-1. But obviously anyone who is cranking out wins is eventually going to be bet down and/or go cold. You have to pick your spots---hence the phrase "spot play".

[turfbar]

the other day somewhere really not sure but a Steve Assmussen entrant united with go to guy Shaun Bridgemohan ,mortal lock right... cold as ice on the board
aayy bet it anyways --- nowhere search warrant out for the horse and Shaun.

crazy shit happens

Turfbar

[ranchwest]

I hate knock anyone's product, but if you try to use a computer to come up with anything useful on trainers you are going to be disappointed. You will end up with a bunch of horses going off at 6/5 who drop to 4/5 as the gate opens. This is alot more art than science. You need a keen sense of smell. JMO

Anything that goes on an index card can go on a computer. I agree that there is a lot of art to winning on trainer plays.