Trainer Stats

[ronestes]

I've always put a lot of handicapping time in evaluating trainers stats, that pertain to the race at hand. Mostly, first and second starters, first off a claim, 1st, 2nd, 3rd off a layoff and first time turf. I'm just starting to wonder just how important these individual stats are. It seems the vast majority of the time the trainers who are good at any of these are the ones with the highest winning percentages especially 20% and up. I understand that there will be exceptions, but it seems all you need to do is rely mostly on overall performance. Ron

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by ronestes

I've always put a lot of handicapping time in evaluating trainers stats, that pertain to the race at hand. Mostly, first and second starters, first off a claim, 1st, 2nd, 3rd off a layoff and first time turf. I'm just starting to wonder just how important these individual stats are. It seems the vast majority of the time the trainers who are good at any of these are the ones with the highest winning percentages especially 20% and up. I understand that there will be exceptions, but it seems all you need to do is rely mostly on overall performance. Ron

Those stats can give you an insight into training methods. If a high percentage trainer has poor results with 1st off a layoff, it could indicate that he likes to use a race to get a horse back into racing, rather than do it all with works. Same with first time starters.

[classhandicapper]

I agree that most top trainers are good at multiple things, but you will find differences in their strengths and style, especially with turf/dirt, sprint/route, first/second time starters etc... I think it's worth some handicapping time.

[Appy]

"it seems all you need to do is rely mostly on overall performance."

IMO that couldn't be further from the truth. You could go broke in short order using that scheme.
On the other hand you could also make a good living relying strictly on trainer based stats. It depends on your own unique filtering system and how hard you are willing to work at it.

[PhantomOnTour]

I have found that the best trainer gems are with the mid to low % trainers, because the odds are usually higher and they are not household names with household moves that everyone knows.
Still, you can find great prices on top trainers in the right spot.

I am publicly thanking a guy named Dahoss9698 who used to post on this board for revealing a deadly Pletcher angle...he used it to select Danza at 41-1 in the Arkansas Derby. I took that angle and almost had Sweet Whiskey in the Acorn at a huge price before Sweet Reason nailed her late. She was 32-1.
The angle is a runner stretching out for the first time in a GrStks race.

I still use a few pet angles with other big names like Mott and Lukas, but the more obscure barns are where I find the best angles.
Also, some trainer moves aren't documented anywhere...like 2nd start at the meet, or a switch to a certain jock.

[Dave Schwartz]

My experience is that trainer stats are best viewed from the 10,000-ft level. (That is how we do ours.)

More specifically, you take ALL of the categories that apply today and average them together. In our system that will typically be about 140 categories.

Every attempt I have ever made with them to use just a handful of "control factor" highs (or lows) has resulted in failure.

In one very significantly-sized study, I keyed on all the high-performance categories attributable to each trainer using Ed Bain's 4+30 concept. (30% hit rate and at least 4 wins.)

What I found were some real power-horses with stats that just screamed can't lose. The result was that they rarely lost but, ironically (is that the right usage?) one could not make a profit with them despite hit rates in the mid-70s!

[GatetoWire]

I am a big user of trainer stats but I like to take the opposite approach of most.
I like to only look at meet specific stats. So instead of looking at how trainer X has done with an angle over the past 2 years I prefer to see how that trainer has done at that meet only over a 2 or 3 year period.

I find this works very well at NYRA if you divide the meets into sections. Aqueduct inner, Belmont Spring, Saratoga and Belmont Fall. Some real patterns exist but at the same time you need to use caution because in some cases the sample size of a particular angle might be very small.

I think over time it has helped me understand the NY trainers better and not only what angle they are good at but what time of year a particular angle might have a very high win %

[Dave Schwartz]

I am a big user of trainer stats but I like to take the opposite approach of most.
I like to only look at meet specific stats. So instead of looking at how trainer X has done with an angle over the past 2 years I prefer to see how that trainer has done at that meet only over a 2 or 3 year period.

That is a good point!

We actually do the stats on a circuit-by-circuit basis. Thus, NYRA (AQU, BEL, SAR) is a single circuit.

[biggestal99]

Most of the time i dont use trainer stats except off the claim stats, i use horse stats, if a horse wins off the layoff or second out once, he prolly will do it again, horses are creatures of habit.
I.ve had some nice hits using strictly horse stats. :-)

Allan

[upthecreek]

This was a stat on the #2 horses trainer
Sprnt-Sprnt-Rte6 17%17%+41.25!
The horse just won his last race(mdn) won this race @ 27-1
Could you play the horse on this alone?
I look for stats that are > then his overall win % also check the trainers win % w/ the jock

[jk3521]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

This was a stat on the #2 horses trainer
Sprnt-Sprnt-Rte6 17%17%+41.25!
The horse just won his last race(mdn) won this race @ 27-1
Could you play the horse on this alone?
I look for stats that are > then his overall win % also check the trainers win % w/ the jock

Sure, but he wasn't the only trainer with good stats and he wins at 5% for the year . In the same race was , , and which trainers all had good stats and were winning at a 15-23% clip for the year. Why would you bet his horse over the other four? So his overall win % sucked and he had no winners with this particular jock. No bet.

[JohnGalt1]

I posted data from 2013 on trainer stats in the Handicapper's forum.

I wish I knew how to link to it here. Could someone post the link here please?

I was looking for automatic horses either to bet to win or include in pick 3's and 4's.

I used similar guidelines to Ed Bains method.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

I posted data from 2013 on trainer stats in the Handicapper's forum.

I wish I knew how to link to it here. Could someone post the link here please?

I was looking for automatic horses either to bet to win or include in pick 3's and 4's.

I used similar guidelines to Ed Bains method.

This is your post John....

2013 Trainer/jockey data

When I handicap I have been circling trainers with a 30% or higher wins with first and second after claim, first time starters, winner and maiden winner last race, and 90 days+ since last race. And turf if trainer is 25% or higher since turf fields are usually bigger.

And I circle when a jockey trainer combo is 30% or higher.

Marc Cramer Is always looking for the "automatic bet."

I am not a trainer or jockey oriented handicapper, since I believe it is the horse that races.

I decided to look at one year of races that I personally handicapped to see how the data performed.

The flaws to what I did is it only the races and tracks I did, so very few NE tracks, and some races had multiple instances, as many as 4 in a very few races. and I did not play Golden Gate much or the jockey trainer stats would be out of whack with the small fields, allowing more trainers to have 30% wins, and almost any trainer Baze rides for are 30% together.

I did not factor in form or speed or class. If a horse was off a 200 day lay off with only a 3 furlong work out but was a last out winner from 30% trainer, he was counted. Though there probably were no horses like that example. In other words, I used no filters.

My results---

Trainer--above listed categories--204 races--36 wins--17.6%

Jockey/trainer combo--657 races--133 wins--20%

Trainers, not included above, AND a jockey trainer combo also not included above--79 races--19 wins--24%

What I am doing when these categories comes up is to be more confident if I like the horse from my handicapping, but to also add them to pick three and pick fours.

I don't not know how these performed in vertical bets.

Un fortunately I have left out horse like this since compiling this data and have been knocked out of pick 3's and 4's by inferior horses with 30% trainers or jockey trainer combos..

This is not a definitive study because of the limitations. I may get slightly different results in 2014, as any of you might in the races you handicapped in 2013.

To sum up, I personally see more value with this than I thought before, and will (try to) add any horse to any horizontal bet, and if the bet is more than I want to pay, to pass the race rather than save money only to lose.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by ronestes

I've always put a lot of handicapping time in evaluating trainers stats, that pertain to the race at hand. Mostly, first and second starters, first off a claim, 1st, 2nd, 3rd off a layoff and first time turf. I'm just starting to wonder just how important these individual stats are. It seems the vast majority of the time the trainers who are good at any of these are the ones with the highest winning percentages especially 20% and up. I understand that there will be exceptions, but it seems all you need to do is rely mostly on overall performance. Ron

While success percentages, regarding trainer categories, may have "some" value, that value is probably less valuable than traditional, or numbers based, analysis. Just because a trainer has good percentages in a certain category, that pertains to one of his horses in a specific race, doesn't mean that it "applies" to that specific horse, in that specific race. There are some circumstances where trainer stats, jockey stats, breeding stats, etc., are all we have to go on, but in all other circumstances they are just factors, like all the other factors.

[upthecreek]

Originally Posted by jk3521

Sure, but he wasn't the only trainer with good stats and he wins at 5% for the year . In the same race was , , and which trainers all had good stats and were winning at a 15-23% clip for the year. Why would you bet his horse over the other four? So his overall win % sucked and he had no winners with this particular jock. No bet.

Like I said I look for specialized trainer stats that are greater then his overall win% and his ROI and the odds were right and the horse was in form-thats how!