Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board


Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Racing Discussion (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Four trainers have won 41% of the G1 races run in North America so far this year. (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=167187)

Andy Asaro 10-12-2021 09:42 AM

Four trainers have won 41% of the G1 races run in North America so far this year.
 
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...1-competition/

Excerpt:

Four trainers – Steve Asmussen, Bob Baffert, Chad Brown and Brad Cox – have combined to win 41% of the 83 Grade 1 races run in North America so far this year, a marked increase in the success rate for racing's elite “super trainers” from just a decade ago.

Asmussen and Cox have won nine G1 races each this year, with Baffert and Brown just one behind. Throw in Todd Pletcher's six G1 wins and fully 40 of 83 (48%) of the sport's most important races have been won this year by horses from one of five stables.

Going back a decade to 2011, the dominance was not as severe. When that racing year ended, Bob Baffert led all trainers with 11 G1 wins, but the trainer with the next highest number was Dale Romans, with six, followed by Todd Pletcher, H. Graham Motion and William Mott, with five apiece.

The combined 32 G1 races won by those five trainers accounted for 28% of the 116 G1 stakes run by the end of 2011.

Andy Asaro 10-12-2021 09:44 AM

This is really bad for racing and for Gamblers. For decades the favorite win % was around 33%. Over the last several years the favorites win rate has jumped to around 39% and these four guys winning 41% of Grade 1 races is part of the reason.

classhandicapper 10-12-2021 10:29 AM

That trend is going to help drive more trainers out of the game.

cj 10-12-2021 10:41 AM

The sport needs an overhaul on a lot of levels and this is one of them.

mountainman 10-12-2021 11:08 AM

Other monopolies exist at a more cellular level in racing. Some jock agents, for instance, control much more business (and far more riders) than is healthy for the game.

And small groups of horsemen form dangerous liaisons. These sort of units result in very short fields and 1/5 walk-overs.

When insiders game the system in order to "get theirs," the product suffers.

BarchCapper 10-12-2021 11:36 AM

I was trying to figure out the other day why it is perfectly alright with me when Letruska goes out to an easy lead and smokes a Grade I field without facing a challenge, yet it drives me crazy when it happens in other big races.

Now I realize why.

lamboguy 10-12-2021 12:07 PM

the breeding farms have also figured out to breed fewer horses and create a bigger demand for the horses they sell in the auctions tripling the prices that they would have bought 15 years ago. you now have a Korean and Viet Nam contingent of people that are buying what used to be $10,000 horses and they are paying $30,000 and bring the horses back to their countries. that along with a few trainers controlling condition books and horse population's wind up giving you 5 +6 horse fields and scaring away business from the race tracks.

MJC922 10-12-2021 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarchCapper (Post 2759667)
I was trying to figure out the other day why it is perfectly alright with me when Letruska goes out to an easy lead and smokes a Grade I field without facing a challenge, yet it drives me crazy when it happens in other big races.

Now I realize why.

Someone really should've played watchdog there though. Third quarter was so soft following that soft half it becomes a total freebie at that point. Makes no sense to give races away like this. I understand she's lone speed and the best horse on paper, whatever, but we can say that about a lot of horses that blow up and throw a slightly subpar effort now and then.

GMB@BP 10-12-2021 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759655)
The sport needs an overhaul on a lot of levels and this is one of them.

yup, the proliferation of these mega stables have no helped the sport in any way.

Tom 10-12-2021 01:16 PM

I understand Belmont Park is going to be renamed Chad Downs.

Robert Fischer 10-12-2021 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2759692)
I understand Belmont Park is going to be renamed Chad Downs.

Chad is dominant, but he's all class.
:ThmbUp:
Has anyone ever broken down Brown's percentages by race, instead of by entries?
Equibase has him 695 161W 136P 102Shw $17,772,235
which is a 'meager' 23%
Many 2 and even 3 entries in races.
What's his % in well-meant races, by race?

the little guy 10-12-2021 03:25 PM

Seems to me it's at least as relevant, and I think more so, how many different owners are winning Grade 1s, and looking at how much they spend to get to that level. Owners, like bettors, are the ones putting up the money. Telling them who they can and can't use as trainers is nonsensical.

Brad Cox, Todd Pletcher, and Chad Brown had no advantages getting into the game. They started with a handful of horses. I must be crazy, but I don't see how their "domination" is the problem. At some point, others will come along and take their places or affect their results ( Brendan Walsh seems like a guy perhaps poised to enter the upper echelon ). If they aren't delivering for owners, they will lose horses and thus opportunity.

Don't a handful of riders dominate in the biggest races? Why isn't that met with similar angst?

dilanesp 10-12-2021 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759754)
Seems to me it's at least as relevant, and I think more so, how many different owners are winning Grade 1s, and looking at how much they spend to get to that level. Owners, like bettors, are the ones putting up the money. Telling them who they can and can't use as trainers is nonsensical.

This is a straw man. Nobody is telling anyone who they can or can't use as trainers.

The issue is whether- especially in a sport that has its drug problems- dominance at the very top level by a handful of barns is a good sign.

the little guy 10-12-2021 03:44 PM

Someone needs to learn the definition of a straw man argument.

It's fine if you, or anyone, doesn't agree with me, but I didn't make a straw man argument. I didn't distort the point at all. I just don't agree it's a real issue in the game. I think it's complicated, most things are, and even if it is a "problem" I don't think it's particularly high on the list.

AndyC 10-12-2021 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2759649)
This is really bad for racing and for Gamblers. For decades the favorite win % was around 33%. Over the last several years the favorites win rate has jumped to around 39% and these four guys winning 41% of Grade 1 races is part of the reason.




I don't know but I would assume that the favorite win % could be attributable to smaller fields.



I think it would be a much bigger problem if it was the same top 8 trainers in 2021 as it was in 2011. Four new trainers made the top 8 list in 2021.

dilanesp 10-12-2021 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759761)
Someone needs to learn the definition of a straw man argument.

It's fine if you, or anyone, doesn't agree with me, but I didn't make a straw man argument. I didn't distort the point at all. I just don't agree it's a real issue in the game. I think it's complicated, most things are, and even if it is a "problem" I don't think it's particularly high on the list.

You certainly did make a straw man argument when you said "[t]elling them who they can and can't use as trainers is nonsensical", and given that you can't recognize that you were knocking down a straw man (literally NOBODY in this thread told any owner who they could or couldn't use as a trainer), you probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone about the definition of a straw man argument.

I agree that this issue is complicated. Which is why people shouldn't make it sound like folks are simplistically telling owners which trainers they can employ".

rastajenk 10-12-2021 05:18 PM

Well, for all you contractionists, this is what you're going to get more and more.

The_Turf_Monster 10-12-2021 06:41 PM

I don’t know about you but if I have a horse that can compete in graded stakes races, it’s going to one of the leading trainers that knows how to consistently win them

classhandicapper 10-12-2021 07:13 PM

It is bad if a lot of owners are losing a lot of money. However, owners have the freedom to change trainers. They already do that when they see fit, even with top stock. If you think you have good horses but aren't winning due to someone else out training your trainer, move your horses.

If you are a trainer and aren't getting the same stock and earnings you used to get, it gets harder to justify all the hard work and expenses associated with the job. So you may just drop out, become a jockey agent, help manage horses for a partnership, or retire earlier rather than stay in the game as a trainer. If even a few highly regarded trainers drop out, that concentrates the best horses in those few hands even more.

Success attracts money. There's not much we can do about that. That's the way it should be. But that doesn't mean it's always a good thing or that you can't go too far.

AndyC 10-12-2021 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilanesp (Post 2759776)
You certainly did make a straw man argument when you said "[t]elling them who they can and can't use as trainers is nonsensical", and given that you can't recognize that you were knocking down a straw man (literally NOBODY in this thread told any owner who they could or couldn't use as a trainer), you probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone about the definition of a straw man argument.

I agree that this issue is complicated. Which is why people shouldn't make it sound like folks are simplistically telling owners which trainers they can employ".


The post TLG made was not difficult to understand. If you don't agree with him you might try offering your own analysis. Your dubious claim of a straw man argument does nothing to further the conversation.

Andy Asaro 10-12-2021 08:47 PM


thaskalos 10-12-2021 09:11 PM

To me, it makes sense that a few of the top trainers would dominate the game's Grade-1 races. An owner with big money to spend can't be blamed for engaging the services of the most successful trainer that he can find. And I don't see this as a problem...because I don't view the Grade-1 races as an accurate barometer with which to judge the general condition that this game is in.

cj 10-12-2021 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos (Post 2759854)
To me, it makes sense that a few of the top trainers would dominate the game's Grade-1 races. An owner with big money to spend can't be blamed for engaging the services of the most successful trainer that he can find. And I don't see this as a problem...because I don't view the Grade-1 races as an accurate barometer with which to judge the general condition that this game is in.

The bigger problem is the ever rising rate of favorites winning rising to near harness racing level numbers, and this G1 thing is a microcosm of that. Nearly every circuit has a guy or two or three winning the vast majority of races.

thaskalos 10-12-2021 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759862)
The bigger problem is the ever rising rate of favorites winning rising to near harness racing level numbers, and this G1 thing is a microcosm of that. Nearly every circuit has a guy or two or three winning the vast majority of races.

I agree...and this isn't a "new" problem, IMO. It was more than a few years ago when I started a thread here about Juan Carlos Guerrero, who rose from total obscurity to a level where he was showing a 40% winning percentage across every single training statistical category. Other trainers then started scratching their horses out of the races where Guerrero's horses were present...and this led to even shorter fields, and even higher winning percentages for "King Carlos".

As a bettor, it doesn't bother me much when a top trainer wins 10% of the Grade-1 races...because the purses of the Grade-1 events pretty much ensure that the fields will retain most of their fullness and competitiveness. It's when I see the proliferation of the 6-horse fields that I revolt...because that's what threatens to make this game totally unbettable for the profit-minded player.

taxicab 10-12-2021 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2759845)

Since Letruska thinks she's Personal Ensign....
If I had a Filly/Mare who was going to be a giant number in the Distaff,I would consider rerouting her into the F/M Sprint.

azeri98 10-12-2021 10:24 PM

It's no coincidence that the best trainers get the most expensive horses or horses with superior breeding. It just makes sense that the best bred horses or horses with great conformation win the most Grade 1's. Some talk about Letrushka here. The horse was sired by a Derby winner, Super Saver. The dam was a daughter of Successful Appeal . The horse has a combination of speed and stamina both were which were bred into her. These regally bred horses also tend to pass on the good genes whereas feel good horses that were great on the track but lacked a little in breeding don't tend to be good sires. California Chrome, Holy Bull, Skip Away and Silver Charm to name a few. Tiznow was an OK sire but nothing special.

cj 10-13-2021 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azeri98 (Post 2759874)
It's no coincidence that the best trainers get the most expensive horses or horses with superior breeding. It just makes sense that the best bred horses or horses with great conformation win the most Grade 1's. Some talk about Letrushka here. The horse was sired by a Derby winner, Super Saver. The dam was a daughter of Successful Appeal . The horse has a combination of speed and stamina both were which were bred into her. These regally bred horses also tend to pass on the good genes whereas feel good horses that were great on the track but lacked a little in breeding don't tend to be good sires. California Chrome, Holy Bull, Skip Away and Silver Charm to name a few. Tiznow was an OK sire but nothing special.

Seattle Slew wasn't bad.

Spalding No! 10-13-2021 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaskalos (Post 2759869)
Other trainers then started scratching their horses out of the races where Guerrero's horses were present...and this led to even shorter fields, and even higher winning percentages for "King Carlos".

As a bettor, it doesn't bother me much when a top trainer wins 10% of the Grade-1 races...because the purses of the Grade-1 events pretty much ensure that the fields will retain most of their fullness and competitiveness. It's when I see the proliferation of the 6-horse fields that I revolt...because that's what threatens to make this game totally unbettable for the profit-minded player.

Just a couple of posts ahead of yours was on a tweet about how they are dropping like flies out of the BC FM Sprint.

(IMO, that's a shame because Gamine is one of the more vulnerable favorites on the card...at least in the face of a full field with other speed horses).

classhandicapper 10-13-2021 09:58 AM

A lot of turf stakes in NY have become unplayable for me. This is no knock on Chad Brown. He's legitimately great!! He develops his horses well, knows where they are in that development, spots them well, and reads the probable race development well. The problem is everyone else knows his horses are more likely to fire their "A" race, move forward to a new peak, or get a great trip than the other horses. So the odds on his horses are almost always a few ticks lower than they would be if trained by someone else. You can't bet against many of them because those lower odds are typically justified by his extraordinary talent. And it's harder to find an overlay on some trip or race flow because he trains them and they get bet so hard. That would all be tolerable if he had a handful of top horses. But he has so many of the best turfers in the country (partly due to his talents developing them) that he often has 2 or even 3 horses in a race. I've even seen examples of NY based horses that would ordinarily run and fit shipping out just to avoid running against some Chad monsters. So this is not just impacting other trainers. It's impacting gamblers. Again, more power to him. He's great. He deserves it. But that doesn't make it good for everyone.

cj 10-13-2021 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classhandicapper (Post 2759909)
A lot of turf stakes in NY have become unplayable for me. This is no knock on Chad Brown. He's legitimately great!! He develops his horses well, knows where they are in that development, spots them well, and reads the probable race development well. The problem is everyone else knows his horses are more likely to fire their "A" race, move forward to a new peak, or get a great trip than the other horses. So the odds on his horses are almost always a few ticks lower than they would be if trained by someone else. You can't bet against many of them because those lower odds are typically justified by his extraordinary talent. And it's harder to find an overlay on some trip or race flow because he trains them and they get bet so hard. That would all be tolerable if he had a handful of top horses. But he has so many of the best turfers in the country (partly due to his talents developing them) that he often has 2 or even 3 horses in a race. I've even seen examples of NY based horses that would ordinarily run and fit shipping out just to avoid running against some Chad monsters. So this is not just impacting other trainers. It's impacting gamblers. Again, more power to him. He's great. He deserves it. But that doesn't make it good for everyone.

Hard to argue this after the results of last weekend's turf stakes. :)

the little guy 10-13-2021 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759913)
Hard to argue this after the results of last weekend's turf stakes. :)

You mean where he ran 1-2 at 15:1 and 14:1?

cj 10-13-2021 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759914)
You mean where he ran 1-2 at 15:1 and 14:1?

And won at 5-1 the next day too.

the little guy 10-13-2021 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759917)
And won at 5-1 the next day too.

Yeah, I remember that one. I bet the second horse at 7:1.

The idea that people aren’t running their horses because Chad is in races, or aren’t betting them for the same reason, is so racing. Beyond idiotic

cj 10-13-2021 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759919)
Yeah, I remember that one. I bet the second horse at 7:1.

The idea that people aren’t running their horses because Chad is in races, or aren’t betting them for the same reason, is so racing. Beyond idiotic

I actually mentioned that on our podcast this week, very tough beat.

Chad happens to be a trainer I think I've learned to read pretty well and I love betting races with his runners in them, both for and against at times. He also put together a nice exacta box at Kee which I think was also a beat for you, at least on the top end. I'm guessing you had some exacta money. :)

the little guy 10-13-2021 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759922)
I actually mentioned that on our podcast this week, very tough beat.

Chad happens to be a trainer I think I've learned to read pretty well and I love betting races with his runners in them, both for and against at times. He also put together a nice exacta box at Kee which I think was also a beat for you, at least on the top end. I'm guessing you had some exacta money. :)

I am too stupid to have had that exacta.

aaron 10-13-2021 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759919)
Yeah, I remember that one. I bet the second horse at 7:1.

The idea that people aren’t running their horses because Chad is in races, or aren’t betting them for the same reason, is so racing. Beyond idiotic

I bet a Chad FTS that was 5 or 6-1 in a race I hated the favorites. He won pretty easy. A lot of Stake Races Chads horses go off as overlays because the public gets fixated on one of them and doesn't seem to realize his 2nd and 3rd horse might be okay.I understand you'll get beat by a lot of his favorites, but there is value in races his horses are entered.
IMO opinion a bigger problem in racing his agents having two top riders. This is rarely spoken about. To add to the problems you have jockeys who refuse to send their horses in obvious situations. These are big problems.

the little guy 10-13-2021 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron (Post 2759924)
I bet a Chad FTS that was 5 or 6-1 in a race I hated the favorites. He won pretty easy. A lot of Stake Races Chads horses go off as overlays because the public gets fixated on one of them and doesn't seem to realize his 2nd and 3rd horse might be okay.I understand you'll get beat by a lot of his favorites, but there is value in races his horses are entered.

It's very strange that that horse went off at 5:1. A few people had told me his recent works were very good. While I actually watched the race with Chad, I had never asked him about the horse ( I almost never do ), but I said I had heard the horse worked well and was surprised he was 5:1. He agreed but given how poorly his dirt first time starters had done this year ( I think Jack Christopher may have been the only one that won ) maybe that was scaring people off.

As it turned out, that horse is good. I guess if he had lost we would have said "they knew."

As far as the "Chad factor"....I don't get it. You handicap a race and make decisions. If you think his horses are overbet, you try to take advantage of that, and if you're right it will work in your favor. Isn't that, at least in theory, what we do in any race we handicap and decide to bet?

Jeff P 10-13-2021 01:03 PM

Chad Brown runners in G1's this past Saturday --
 
I wasn't really surprised when Chad Brown runners finished first and second in the G1 Joe Hirsch on the Turf at Belmont.

Nor was I all that surprised when Chad Brown pulled off the same feat again about an hour later in the G1 First Lady at Keeneland.

But I was kind of shocked at the odds.

Code:

ODDS  RES    WIN  PLACE    SHOW  DATE/Track/Race#/Surf/Dist HORSE/JOCKEY/TRAINER
015.60 1st  33.20  10.80    5.40  10/9/2021 BEL 7TH  T  FM ROCKEMPEROR (IRE)/CASTELLANO JAVIER/BROWN CHAD C
014.80 2nd          13.00    6.40  10/9/2021 BEL 7TH  T  FM SERVE THE KING (GB/ORTIZ JR IRAD/BROWN CHAD C
005.30 1st  12.60    6.40    4.80  10/9/2021 KEE 8TH  T  GD BLOWOUT (GB)/PRAT FLAVIEN/BROWN CHAD C
005.80 2nd            7.40    5.00  10/9/2021 KEE 8TH  T  GD REGAL GLORY/ORTIZ JOSE L/BROWN CHAD C

Speaking strictly for myself --

As long as the makeup of a race (G1 or otherwise) can be described as a deep contentious field: I'm in.

But races when the setup is a dominant horse like Letruska (KEE R9 10-10-2021) vs. a bunch of weak horses: I'm out.

Every single time.


-jp

.

classhandicapper 10-13-2021 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2759913)
Hard to argue this after the results of last weekend's turf stakes. :)

The fact that some of his horses win at high prices doesn't mean they are overlays or didn't take more money than their PPs warranted in those races.

Like I said, people know his horses are more likely to fire an A race or jump up to a new peak. So some horses that would be 20-1 for trainer X and win as often at 20-1 shots go off at 15-1 for Chad and win like typical 15-1 shots because they are more likely to fire or jump up.

classhandicapper 10-13-2021 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the little guy (Post 2759919)
Yeah, I remember that one. I bet the second horse at 7:1.

The idea that people aren’t running their horses because Chad is in races, or aren’t betting them for the same reason, is so racing. Beyond idiotic

Not that it's anything new, but you are wrong again.

Not long ago there was a discussion about a graded turf stakes race in NY on Twitter. It was a 5 horse field where he had 2 or 3 horses. Somebody on Twitter was whining to him about it. He mentioned 2-3 NY based horses that were eligible to run in that race but shipped to MTH instead.

He was basically saying "It's not my fault they chose to ship".

He's right. It's not "his" fault. He's going to run his horses where it makes sense to run them.

However, the fact that those shippers had almost no shot to beat Chad's multiple monsters and fit better in the MTH stake seemed to not be part of the thought process. They shipped because running for 3rd or 4th money in NY is not as good as having a chance to win at MTH.

The fact that the race in NY was unbettable (at least for me) but the MTH field was larger, more competitive, and I made a wager is also being overlooked. Small fields with multiple Chad horses are typically not very lucrative spots for betting.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.