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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

.

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.

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.

I dunno Class, that doesn't sound like it's Chad Brown's problem. More an indictment of the dilution of the racing product with too many stakes races and how owners rightfully search for softer spots as a result.

Back to the original thrust re this handful of trainers winning so many G1 races - isn't that a very logical outcome? Sustained success attracts capital, which results in certain trainers ending up with the most talented horses. They still have to produce results. I also assume these guys have excellent client handling skills at the highest level. Chad Brown must be able to hold his own with someone like Seth Klarman (Klaravich Stables), a savvy billionaire hedge fund manager.

It's 100% not Chad's problem. He's great, end of story. I couldn't possibly have been more clear about that in my posts. However, IMO it's an example of the kinds of issues that come up for racing, which is the premise of the thread.

100% agreed.

As a handicapping factor, seems no different than how Golden Gate bettors used to have to deal with Russell Baze.

I hear what you are saying, but Rockemporor won in a canter, hard to argue he wasn't value. Blowout was as clear as lone speed as you will ever see on paper and still went off at 5-1.

A few years ago Chad's horses had a lot more name recognition, and most likely more talent, than the group he currently has as a whole. A lot of those races were unbettable and frankly I wouldn't want to run my horse against some of those either.

But there is a reason his horse's have seemed to be slipping through the cracks lately and it isn't because he isn't a great trainer. I've found a lot of value in his runners the past several months, not just horses that won at prices but were underlaid. (And no, Rockemporor wasn't one of them :) )