pick winners VS making money

[gl45]

how many do keep a track profile, and if you do, do you ever handicap that profile. Quite few nuggets hide in there. Its not just TPR, early or late, positions at the various calls, or 5 bl at the 2nd call and at the finish, and that is all good, but
if you rank the trainers and jocks by their win %, bet the horse where the trainer has very low % of wins and the jock has a high % of wins. Sometimes the public do catch on and the horses goes out with low odds, but how often the public make mistakes.
Would you bet a trainer that in a field of 10 is ranked 9th in his wins % but today his horses is ridden by a jock ranked 1st., 2nd. or even 3rd. by his win %. Keep notes about.
Good luck.

[Mitch44]

For me its all about the horse which is my main focus. The best trainer in the world can't get a horse to win if the ability isn't there.To me its 90% the horse which is another reason why picking contenders is so important.

Trainers stats can also be very deceiving, There is very little difference between a 15% trainer and a 18% or 20%. If the 15% trainer had the stock of the 20% trainer then his % would also rise. One may get an edge where a trainer is much better in a certain situation such as his was earned on turf and the other was earned on dirt. Their stats need to be put in perspective but you can have several of them also. Focus on the horse.
Mitch44

[mowens33]

gl45, I agree with Mitch that the horse is 90%, and picking the pace line is key. He also makes a very good point about trainer stats.
One thing I do look for when I have closely matched horses is how they have run on the track there running on today and how they have run at the distance they are running at today.
It is my opinion that horse have favorite track and distances. (Horse for the course)
Mike

[gl45]

I just run the contest race at Tampa
My contender 3-7-10 I need a 4th contender, which one from the following screen shot. Would you bet $2 on horse #5, I would because the trainer was ranked 6th on a field of 7 horses and had a jock ranked 3rd. on the field.
Risks VS rewards.

[mowens33]

gl45, without knowing anything about this race did you base your selections only on trainer/jockey stats?
Mike

[Mitch44]

I would not bet # 5 and would stick to my top contenders. Except for the #2 all these trainers seem capable. I have no idea what their stats are for and if overall they do not give a clear picture. This a turf race and I have no idea how they earned their % & rankings. Did they earn it on turf or Dirt?

All these fun bets over time add up and unless you track them you may be surprised at their cost.

I would not go beyond my contenders. Obviously you doubt their rankings.The best trainer in the world can't get a win out of a horse that has no possibly. And the worse trainer can win if he has the horse.

A reason to take a shot on a horse has to make sound sense and this situation doesn't warrant it. Perhaps if the horse won its last race big and improved big such as from a switch to turf, would be a better example and his pace figures rank there with the completion. In that situation who knows what this horses top might be, And he better have some good odds to win stepping up in class etc.

Now to separate those top contenders requires using other tools such as NTL who won't get it etc. Mowens33 is correct in that many horses prefer certain tracks and refuse to run overs others etc. Every horse has a best distance, favorite surface etc. Its up to us the player to analyze and determine if the horse meets todays conditions ,competition and is properly placed. Our outside look into the horse is unbiased and is in many cases better than the trainers, even high % trainers.

Mitch44

[gl45]

mow33

no I did not, one thing that I do look for is to see how many times this field raced together. Here are the screen shots. Based on these screen shot would you consider #5 a contender? You can use any handicapping method to beat the races, it become easier if you add a few more bits of infos.
Bill V. TPR lesson is a straight forward method to rake some money, and when not sure pass the race.
I don't have anything new to add to the TPR discussion, Bill covered the most of it.

[Mitch44]

At one time I used tandem's but no longer. It works when it works and doesn't when it doesn't. It failed to work on a higher edge or percentage for me so I abandoned it. For me there are other factors that prove to be much more efficient. One would have to keep their own records to discover this as compared to other factors.

But to answer your question, no none of that would change my mind and I would stick to my top contenders. A horse that's not even on this screen could win if a top contender.

Also being a fighter and proven winner could be more important as some horses just don't win and have second-itis. A classic ex. was in the La. Derby last Sat.(2 days ago)with the # 11 horse who had only 1 win for 6 starts. Gr 1 horses usually don't lose two races in a row or have multiple loses. He also was a tandem horse that lost. There are other factors that are more efficient than the tandem. Keep records of your tandems and compare them to other factors.

Mitch44

[gl45]

Mitch,

FG is not a track that I use. You mention Louisiana Derby, run it to see what would offer. The screen shot of my contenders, no matter what, I would have won some money, a 5 horse (1-2-3-5-7) ex box ($20) would have fetched me$93.5 for a ROI 4.67. If $20 is too expensive maybe 1-2-5 on top 3-7 and revers for $12.

[mowens33]

mow33

no I did not, one thing that I do look for is to see how many times this field raced together. Here are the screen shots. Based on these screen shot would you consider #5 a contender? You can use any handicapping method to beat the races, it become easier if you add a few more bits of infos.
Bill V. TPR lesson is a straight forward method to rake some money, and when not sure pass the race.
I don't have anything new to add to the TPR discussion, Bill covered the most of it.
gl45, looking at the tandems the 5 doesn’t put himself in winning position very often, so to me he looks like he is totally dependent on the POR. So the faster upfront the better chance he would have.
Looking at the information I have as a win contender I don’t see it!
But I have been wrong many times before!
Mike

[Mitch44]

gl45 adding the dirt category to the overall trainer yearly percentage is an exact example of putting into context the trainer, which I said you must do. Problem is I never would have the #7 as a contender and NO Sartin TEACHINGS WOULD EVER HAVE HAD THE #7 HORSE as a contender. Any advance factors etc. is only applied to true contenders.This is kind of bending the truth to fit the results. Applying any factors or analysis is only done to contenders. There is no logical way to come up with the # 7 in the La. Derby as a contender.

Perhaps you just found the key to the mint. Would anyone else have ever used the #7 in the La. Derby as a contender? If you can pick contenders like that you're going to be very rich. I'm not convinced this technique will on a consistent basis pick contenders or winners. Hey look with the top 5 you could have had a big Tri. and six deep the superfecta.

Mitch44

[Latekick]

The only time i consider jockeys and trainers and all that noise is for cheaper Maiden claiming races. For example, at Fairgrounds on derby day saturday, in the first race which was a cheap maiden claimer, i had 4 contenders but did not want to bet the race because of the fact that they were not strong contenders. However, i had made note that the #10 was getting a rider change from a bug boy, to one of the best jocks in Louisiana for a trainer with no wins at the meet. He won at 8/1 and was a good start to my day. This doesn't always work, but i have taken note that in cheap maiden races is the best time to use this approach when you have weak contenders and the race offers some value.

[Mitch44]

I'll repeat for clarity the horse accounts for 90%. Trainers, jockeys and everything else takes a backseat. Personally I never consider the jockey. These are not primary factors in horseracing and take a back seat to the basics of hcp. such as consistency, surface, distance, class or conditions of the race etc. etc.

Mitch44

[gl45]

Mitch,
My contenders were 1-2-5....#7 was the intruder
No I didn't found the key to the mint, but a weekly paycheck does help.

[Bill V.]

I suppose a trainer can work to find the best
track , distance and footing. And maybe teach a maiden what racing is about,
But the best trainers are the ones with the best stock and the top Jockeys ride for good trainers ,
I avoid the type of races were my phase 1 ratings
are secondary , what I mean is if a race has a bunch of
unknowns because of limited similar pace lines
then the jockey trainer stats are probably a better indication but then there are so many variables to stats .

[gl45]

Horses don't choose and put themselves into various racing events.
Horses don't choose distances, surface, race condition...etc...etc...
Horses don't know how consistent or classy they are.
They may search for food and water themselves when its time to eat
Don't decide when its time to get some exercise in preparation for the next race
Horses don't know how to administer therapeutic treatment for any ailment they might have.

They don't bet on themselves because they know they’re in top condition.
Etc., Etc....

[Mitch44]

The best trainers lose about 80% of their races and its because the other trainers are also going and trying all out. Their also choosing the right race conditions of dis., surface etc.There can only be one winner. The public actually does a better job at picking winners then trainers, it all comes down to the horse and its ability. Except for some poor luck etc. or occasional things during the running of the race the best horse wins.

Trainers, jockeys and owners all become blinded by their own personal interest and aren't as honest as the public or us as handicappers are. No different then any parent when it comes to their kids. Their the best in all categories such as brains, looks etc.

At the classiest tracks of N.Y. or Cailf. any trainer or jockey can win if given the right horse. To include ranked 20th in the standing as they'll beat the top ranked ones with the best horse. Trainers and jockeys just aren't primary factors. As handicappers its up to us to determine the top contenders, pace lines and interpretation of readouts. We control our own destiny.

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

gl45: Bris # of win bets and % win are deceptive because of playing multiple horses in a race etc. The high ROI of +1.84 tells me there was a big payoff or two in the winners or an exacta etc.

Regardless the bottom line was money won and you showed a profit. Big congratulations are due! Nice job and well done. keep it up and repeat it. Again great job.
Mitch44

[shoeless]

GL45

Great job on the wagering


Jeff

[gl45]

Mitch, Jeff,
thanks for the kind words. I think we all agree that the purpose of handicapping is to be successful in make money by choosing high odds horses.

[gandalf380]

IMHO, the original post by GL45 raises a valid point which seems to have been ignored. Some of the most astute handicappers on the track are jockeys' agents. If a high percentage jockey gets on a horse trained by a low percentage trainer, that is something to pay attention to, especially if that jockey never rides for that trainer. The agent must have seen something in the horse or the setup of the race to warrant giving the horse a ride. Remember, the better jockey usually has a choice of horses to ride and I think it is significant when this situation arises.

[Lt1]

I wouldn't read too much into jockey moves. As Jerry Bailey explained in his video series there are numerous reasons jockeys end up on certain mounts. In the example above it may just be returning a favor, or the trainer has another the barn that the jock really wants to ride down the road. It still all comes down to the horse.

[Mitch44]

"Mitch, Jeff,
thanks for the kind words. I think we all agree that the purpose of handicapping is to be successful in make money by choosing high odds horses."

Whoa!!!! gl45 You have a knack of twisting things and changing things such as going from the # 5 in your example to the # 7 after the fact to fit your narrative. And now you putting words in my mouth with " by choosing high odds horses" I have never said that. I've said that only top contenders should be considered for any further evaluation and that it all comes down to the horse 90% period. Hell everything has an exception to it but one is better off sticking to the 90%.

To take a field of horses and decide your bets by trainer stats and or odds isn't a successful strategy to this game. Its a proven fact that the longer the odds the less the % of winners etc. All one has to do is look at the booking percentages to confirm that.
gl45 you sound like a Piszolla practitioner?

Any horse has to have more going for it than odds as there are more false longshots than there are false favorites and trainers aren't the key, as the best loose about 80%. Now among your contenders its up to the player to make those decisions. Of my 5 contenders who is legit and who isn't? The way I get a horse that pays $5.60 is the same way I get the one that pays $25.60.

Odds and trainers aren't a primary handicapping factor to selecting contenders is what I said however they can be another tool to separate them. Even then I would put the basics of the game ahead of them such as consistency, fits todays conditions to surface and distance, and some others etc. that take priority over trainers. One could absolutely ignore trainers and jockeys and do just as good if not better. I do look at them and they can be helpful at times in certain situations such as an unknown factor in a race but their just another tool but not my primary tool nor should they be for any handicapper.

Mitch44

[gl45]

Mitch,
oops I should have said".....by choosing value".
Sorry Bill, I'm feel I have hijacked your thread.

[Bill V.]

Your fine, I do not agree with you, but you have your opinion,
I thank Mitch , Tim , Mike and latekick. It really still is about the horse.
There are lots of things that go on with owners, trainers, Jockeys,
and their agents, To me I know what I am looking at with phase 1 readouts and the energy match up, All the other stuff about people and egos and favors and kickbacks, and magic potions, well I don't want to bet my money on it.
If a horse has the energy match up and the top TPR numbers, and is being ignored by the jockey trainer loving public I am betting on my readouts
Bill

[Mitch44]

The key to this game is picking winners regardless of what they pay. Winners are the springboard of every bet. And their easier to pick than place horses or show horses. Absolutely any horse can get the show slot in a trifecta. The match-up greatly effect these slots along with numerous other reasons and especially form.

A DD as an example is easier to hit then a Ex. or Tri. and when there isn't a rolling DD you can create your own with a parlay. Even if a horse will pay $4.80 and is legit one needs to ask;"how can I make money out of this race." And it can be done. I'm always amazed at some of the payoffs with low paying winners. Players will demand certain odds and pass a horse like this which is OK but then they'll play EX or DD combinations that will pay $7.00 and put $6 into it. Not only demand a minimum you'll take for win but also demand a minimum you'll take for DD & Ex. We don't know the payoffs for Tri. or a P-3 but generally you can get an idea from the other slots.

By the way don't wait till the last minute to do this because you need time to look at payoffs. At about 5 minutes things don't change much so you should be working on it. Heck in some races going in you can be sure of what the public will do. Such as the upcoming Fl. Derby.

Also you need to know how strong that $4.80 horse is and if it gaps your other contenders. If he doesn't gap the others or stand out then you probably should wager cap your other top 2 horses. What you don't do is go looking at non-contenders because of odds.

The average horseplayer spends probably 95% of his time picking horses and gives little if any thought to betting. It deserves much more of every players attention. The springboard to success is winners that are easily found in your top 3 TPR and many other readouts in RDSS.

Spring into action,
Mitch44

[Lt1]

Very good points Mitch. I too have exs pay $40 to $50 with the low paying favorite on top. If however one cannot find an acceptable payoff in the pools they wish to invest in then a pass is in order. No one ever lost money passing a race.

[Mitch44]

Your exactly correct LT1 and with todays racing we're not forced to play only one track etc. There are plenty of opportunities.

I have to admit one of my weaknesses is that after spending time doing a race they are very difficult to pass. This has lead me to look for other ways to profit from them which really upped my game.

Mitch44

[Bill V.]

I love your way of looking at races . For me lately, the way I pick races is to open my TS account and see what track is running, and what race they are in . I download all tracks anyway so I know I have that card, if I see I have time before post time, I will work the race or maybe the next race coming up. Then I work the race and based on either the ml or the from the tote X ray if it's a current race, I with make my bet or pass. The frustrating part is this is it for me for the day. Maybe 1 or 2 races and from what ever track, So a model or profile is useless for this kind of handicapping , so I need to see how I can make money on betting so few races , Times change and techonogy is far more advanced, then in the early pirco days when everybody worked one card a day from the "home track"
I used to do this with Parx , but now I have just a good chance to bet race 5 from Parx as any other track
I could be betting a race from Gulfstream or Fairground or Santa Anita or GG.

[Mitch44]

Mitch,
oops I should have said".....by choosing value".

No problem gl45 I understand, we're good.

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

I understand your problem Bill. I use to play the same way but now with so many tracks to choose from I also have abandoned the track profile. Too many tracks to keep up with nowadays and as you said not like the old days before simulcasting where we played only one track. I now subscribe to the "Doc's" later teachings where the match-up of the horses in the race account for 80% and only 20% has to do with the track. I go with that 80% putting the percentages on my side.

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a track profile won't improve your game. It will if your playing only one track and you'll have an edge. Its extremely easy to keep up with one track but not multiple tracks. That 80% is incorporated in the ratings and I trust them.

Because of the proliferation of computers etc. the payoffs have decreased over the years. I don't believe the public is any smarter but those putting out picks are and the public hammers them. On many horses you have to go 70% & 30% now verses the old 60% & 40%. That 70% just makes me uncomfortable so I try to get creative. My first look is for a DD because its easier to pick winners, in fact the further down you go the harder it is to pick a horse. E.g. Who will come in 4th for a SF I would rather create my own DD if none are available with a parlay such as : $5 parley, $3 on 2nd choice & $2 on 3rd choice ( providing their odds are acceptable) Sometimes the public will hammer two horses so these aren't hard and fast rules. Every bet requires judgement. You want more for less and if you can't at least double your outlay( minimum) on the bet you shouldn't make it. So if your bets total $9 for an ex, demand a $18 min. payoff. This way your extension is less and when you win you'll win more. I play ex.'s the same way and look at the payoffs prior to making the bets and cutting my extension money in) on underlays.

Tailor the bet to the situation.

Mitch44

[MikeB]

Not real track profiles, but some minimal information on a track by track basis is available free at http://www.brisnet.com/

On the home page, at the very top in the center is a green box that says "Handicapper's Edge". Click on that, and then on today's date. On the next page scroll down the left hand column to "At A Glances" and select the track you want from the pop out menu.

[Mitch44]

Things get lost in here but go back and read my post on page # 3 ,post #26 reference yesterdays big race. I won't say; " I told . . . . "

Edited by Bill V ..Here is the a link
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=102977&postcount=26

The main point is to heed it and work on your betting plan to take advantage of opportunities that take place everyday. Also you won't get there without keeping records and knowing how strong your top two choices are in order to design a betting plan to capture your know percentages.

A horse pays $ 4.40(Nyquist) and the Ex. pays $50. I just love it.
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Thank You Mitch

I added a link to post #26 for you
Bill

[Mark]

I don't see why the use of accumulative trainer stats can't be a very valuable means of identifying the bottom end of trifectas and superfectas. There usually are only a very few horses entered in any race regardless of class that can't run 4th. Often these are just slow race horses that these minor placings are all that stand between them and the boat to France. One can argue that trainer stats are 90% horse stock and 10% trainer talent but that is an overstatement and simplification. If you play a steady diet of minor league tracks in the south or eastern seaboard you will see how can train a horse. Training any animal is both art and science, but particularly for a sport where the animal is required to move their 1000-1200 lb mass across surfaces of varying hardness on a regular basis. All to often we see the result of desperation or just poor training skill in a disabled animal or premature death.
The goal then of every trainer is to bring their charge to an acceptable level of fitness and condition to allow him to race every 2 to 3 weeks over campaigns of 6 months to a year and not break him down or injure him to a degree that he has to remain in the barn or go to the ranch.
While it is easy to spot the trainers with the best horse flesh, they will not last if they are crappy trainers. Others with more limited stock will pick their spots, care for the animal and nurture him into a feed bill and training fee paying vehicle.
So in this instance, the use of trainer stats is most likely as good an indicator of picking the bottom side of exotics as any. The search though is to determine in your own mind if a trainer is competent. When you see him/her send out a horse does the animal have the necessary foundation of work to make him marginally competitive. How do they run? Do they try? How many furlongs of workouts and races do you normally see his horses have when they are run? Cheap slow horses find their way into 5th, 4th and 3rd just because they are fit.

[Mitch44]

As the saying goes; "no feet, no horse" and I'll add to that by saying no horse, no trainer and or no trainer stat. Many races have capable trainers but in a 12 horse field there are going to be 11 losers. Every day better % trainers and jocks get beat by lesser one's because it about what the horse is capable of doing. The best trainer in the world can't get something out of a horse that just isn't there. No different than buying expensive horses make a winner.(Green Monkey 16 million)

I don't believe 90% horse is an overstatement or a simplification.

It takes a few months of training just to get them into condition to enter a race. There are many reasons cheap horses get up into finishes that are above their pay grade. And one of the biggest is the match-up in the race and form. Mohaymen is a much better horse than the horse that finished 2nd and 3rd in the Fl. Derby. I'll take him over those two always and probably win 9 out of10 of them.

Trainer stats can be useful information in certain situation as all trainers aren't created equal with layoffs, stretch outs and even then their wrong at least 80% of the time.
With horses their record is available and they can be compared against their competition. With trainers their records are not put in context and are extremely deceptive. A trainer can have a 18% record and perhaps all his wins came from one good horse or it was earned in turf sprints and todays conditions are a dirt route. If we had complete data on their records we could make better informed decisions but even than they'll lose 70% or more of the time. Another huge weakness of trainers stat is that their available to everyone now so what edge was there for the most part is gone.

This really hit home to me back in the early 90's at the Sartin seminar at Saratoga. They gave out past performances of a race and blacken out all the unimportant things that players have a hang up with that is meaningless to the race. Stuff like weight, all names jock, trainers owners and even the horses names along with age and sex. The only thing left was actual running lines of the race to include surface ,dis. ........ We worked the race and came up with the winner. A very valuable lesson. A handicapper doesn't need trainer stats to win or to determine who can finish or to determine horses capability and limitations.

Stubborn resistance to change causes more loses than anything. Everyone has their own beliefs and if you believe in weight on, weight off, jockey on or jockey off etc. and its working for you then by all means don't change a thing.

Mitch44

[Mark]

I was under the impression that the thread was about throwing in additional horses in exotics wagers. The fellow that started this talked about using trainer stats to find an extra horse for his exotics wager. However, you have taken the opportunity to espouse you own personal beliefs and to a certain extent condescend to those who don't necessarily follow your view. It is absolutely apparent that you have strong opinions and do not resist espousing them assertively.
I and most people that contribute to this forum have familiarity with the Sartin Methodology. I attended numerous seminars in the 90s, in Las Vegas and visited with the Doc several times in Beaumont. I bought Thoromation at full price. I've been handicapping for over 50 years. So I am not particularly tolerant of lectures.
The horses that run 5th, 4th or sometimes 3rd usually at exceptional prices and key larger trifecta and superfecta payouts are not win horses or even ITM contenders for the most part. They are horses that make a living running 5th, 4th or 3rd picking up minor checks, paying the feed bill. They are useful animals and when well handled have long careers.
Recognizing when a horseman is competent and puts good foundations into their charges is a learned skill. Today with the various off track training centers and farms, particularly in the South some horses have prepped at the farm or off track. Where horses have not raced for 60 days and are required to have one published workout, they are often horribly slow. But generally the old rule of thumb of 1/2 furlong a day between workouts and races will not steer you wrong. If you are observant and have a decent memory you will know what trainers employ these tactics and include that in your decision making process.
Again the subject of this thread was about training stats and exotics wagering. My remarks were in support of the use of stats or at least local knowledge to find horses that are fit that can fill those lower exotics holes.
If you have success with your methods that is fantastic but it doesn't mean that everyone has to subscribe to them. That's what makes horse races a challenge as everyone involved as the right and privilege to learn and use that knowledge to their own benefit.

[Mitch44]

In his opening thread he asked about jocks, trainers and betting them in exotics slots. etc. my replies have been in keeping with that opening. Obviously you agree with the theory which is great because I said "if its working for you by all means don't change a thing."
Not everyone is going to agree with you and like you we're entitled to our opinion. Your remarks are about in support of and mine are about against such stuff. There always will be differences of opinions. I saw absolutely nothing condescending or lecturing at all about it. People are mature and can subscribe to what ever they want to.

I'm sure if some one out there is a trainer they may feel unimportant and cheap horses are necessary for the game but the horse is 90%.That never was a slight on trainers or horses and it shouldn't be taken as such.
Good luck,
Mitch44

[Lt1]

I also was at that Sar seminar and remember that little work out like it was yesterday. If I remember correctly it was done to get us away from getting hung up on such non factors and to concentrate more on the pps of the horse. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone here likes to see the horses they like are in the hands of a good trainer and jock. All of us here should be aware that BL/BL is for win only and that other factors come into play when looking for the place and show horses including but not limited to record keeping. As has been stated here almost any horse can and do chug up for 3rd and 4th. I am equally sure that most of us have developed our own style for accomplishing that goal. Looking forward to seeing more exchanges of ideas on the subject
Tim