Statistics

[drib]

When I listen to the NYRA handicapping discussions, there is frequent use of trainer statistics. i believe one has to tread carefully in using these numbers, now easily obtained using DRF Formulator. Unless one brings a great deal of insight to the analysis, most of these statistics are not just useless, but misleading. I hear someone say that "Trainer A is 1-20 running horses in distance races after sprints". Unless one closely examines these entries (for instance, were they distance bred? Maybe today's horse was better suited, by pedigree) this kind of stat can cost the listener.
Striking is that the same program that promotes these trainer stats, NEVER, EVER tells the listener the stats for in house handicappers. I realize that making selections many hours before post time at Saratoga is quite difficult, but don't you think it important to know the track record of the NYRA selectors; certainly of more significance than so many of their mindless stats?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by drib

When I listen to the NYRA handicapping discussions, there is frequent use of trainer statistics. i believe one has to tread carefully in using these numbers, now easily obtained using DRF Formulator. Unless one brings a great deal of insight to the analysis, most of these statistics are not just useless, but misleading. I hear someone say that "Trainer A is 1-20 running horses in distance races after sprints". Unless one closely examines these entries (for instance, were they distance bred? Maybe today's horse was better suited, by pedigree) this kind of stat can cost the listener.
Striking is that the same program that promotes these trainer stats, NEVER, EVER tells the listener the stats for in house handicappers. I realize that making selections many hours before post time at Saratoga is quite difficult, but don't you think it important to know the track record of the NYRA selectors; certainly of more significance than so many of their mindless stats?

Good post.

Trainer stats are a difficult handicapping approach to apply because you can usually build a case for either good or bad.

Using angles will make you nuts.

My personally approach is to average all the trainer stats one has that are applicable to this horse and look at them that way. Produces a remarkably good number.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[jay68802]

Saturday in the first leg of the pick 4 at Saratoga, i used the eventual winner the on 4 tickets. The reason for using this horse was general trainer stats. 22% off a break and jockey / trainer combo of 25%. I figured with a strike rate like this (3-1) and tote odds of 21-1, this horse made sense to bet. The only trainer stats i use need to have large samples, stats with less than 30 instants can be misleading.

[andicap]

I basically learned to discount most negative stats -- got beat too often -- unless the horse was short-priced. Best to focus on the positive ones and look for prices. Trainers go through cycles and many of their stats depend on the horses in their barns that particular year/month/meet.

I do believe some trainers carry certain patterns. Some dont try to win on 1st time starters for examples. Others are better off a layoff, maybe.

When I played a lot, I would demand a bigger price for trainers on a cold streak and upgrade horses for trainers who seemed to be winning with below-par figures.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Good post.

Trainer stats are a difficult handicapping approach to apply because you can usually build a case for either good or bad.

Using angles will make you nuts.

My personally approach is to average all the trainer stats one has that are applicable to this horse and look at them that way. Produces a remarkably good number.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

thats basically what timeform does

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by andicap

I basically learned to discount most negative stats -- got beat too often -- unless the horse was short-priced. Best to focus on the positive ones and look for prices. Trainers go through cycles and many of their stats depend on the horses in their barns that particular year/month/meet.

I do believe some trainers carry certain patterns. Some dont try to win on 1st time starters for examples. Others are better off a layoff, maybe.

When I played a lot, I would demand a bigger price for trainers on a cold streak and upgrade horses for trainers who seemed to be winning with below-par figures.

I filter out the longshots. I want to know how a trainer does with a horse who is likely in form, or getting bet in his debut, or off a layoff, which is a pretty good indication of how they are meant.

I also do not focus too much on ROI, couple bombs and its misleading.

[green80]

trainer stats are dependent on the quality of horses that he has. The trainers with the best horses are going to dominate the stats. There are plenty of good trainers with inferior stock that don't look good statistically but they can condition a horse as good as the top guys or better. A rating that would be more true would be to incorporate average odds per starter on each trainer .

[betovernetcapper]

Originally Posted by green80

trainer stats are dependent on the quality of horses that he has. The trainers with the best horses are going to dominate the stats. There are plenty of good trainers with inferior stock that don't look good statistically but they can condition a horse as good as the top guys or better. A rating that would be more true would be to incorporate average odds per starter on each trainer .

I think creating an impact value number for each stat is really creative. You'd have to get the DRF or Equibase or Bris to do it though & I think that would rank right up there with converting everyone in Iran to born again Christianity. It could happen but it would be an up hill battle.

Re the first part of your statement, it's a little circular. The best horses tend to go to the best trainers or those trainers that are getting results. If a good trainer is getting inferior stock, he is doing something wrong. He may lack people skills. If your not getting results and are rude or a drunk, people are not likely to give you their good stock. He may place his horses in the wrong races. He may be running at the wrong track. My late uncle was a decent trainer in a lot of ways, but he had this notion of training horses to run fast late. This is a good idea at a few tracks, but he only ran in bullring tracks where 90% of the winners broke fast & hugged the rail. He'd win about 2 races a year. IMO if your a good trainer & have inferior stock, somewhere there is a hole in your game.