Trainer stats - Pace and Cap

RichieP · 06-15-2005, 09:02 AM

Just wondering what you feel about using or not using trainer stats. Some use them while others belive it is strictly the horse period.

Is there a middle ground? Would u want to bet a horse who is trained by a guy 1/39 going first time turf and today is 1st turf? what if the odds are 30/1 and he projects strongly.

The file we use to power the programs by trackmaster offer nothing in the way of help here.

I KNOW a true professional WAGERER who feels strongly about incorporating at least something pertaining to the individual traiing the horse for today's race.

If the saying " 80% of the races are won by 20% of the trainers" is true does that have any influence?

opinions??
Rich

shoeless · 06-15-2005, 06:07 PM

Richie, I guess you already know my answer to this.The horse runs the race but if the trainer doesn't want it to under these conditions it wont.No matter what the readouts say.Sorry if this offends any members who dont believe mixing mainstream handicapping with the program. Shoeless

JimG · 06-15-2005, 07:59 PM

My take on trainer stats is that if it is a commonly known stat, it is pretty useless from a betting standpoint. The trainer stats in the drf are an example of what I call "common trainer stats". If a horse looks like crap from a pace standpoint, I am not going to bet it because trainer is 35% winners first off a layoff. In fact the way I look at it, he still loses 65% of the time. So what if the trainer has a positive roi turf-to-dirt if the horse in this race looks like a nag. 1 big longshot can of course give a trainer a positive roi.

However, if you play a particular circuit and track trainer moves not common to national publications, you can find angles that may be worthwhile at the windows. Those would be separate type automatic bets that have no impact one way or another from your Spec/Val3 readouts. In fact I would recommend a separate bankroll for such action.

Jim

JimG · 06-15-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieP

J80% of the races are won by 20% of the trainers is true does that have any influence?

opinions??
Rich

Rich,

I've heard these numbers as well, but the 20% races that are not won by the known trainers generally provide the nicest payoffs.

The way I look at, if I like 3 horses from a pace standpoint, and their odds are fairly close, but 2 of them are trained by competent conditioners, I will usually bet those 2.

Jim

JimG · 06-15-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieP

Would u want to bet a horse who is trained by a guy 1/39 going first time turf and today is 1st turf? what if the odds are 30/1 and he projects strongly.

Rich

Absolutely, given that scenario, I would make the bet. If the trainer had better stats, the horse would be more like 8/1 instead of 30/1. In fact I would be more concerned that the horse would not run well if the trainer had good stats and the public lets him go off at 30-1. Those type don't pass the smell test for me.

Jim

socantra · 06-19-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieP

If the saying " 80% of the races are won by 20% of the trainers" is true does that have any influence?

opinions??
Rich

I'd say the 80/20 rule probably holds true for trainers. It applies to most areas of human endeavor. In almost any field you find, 20% of the paticipants have 80% of the talent.

Training is not really rocket science though. You feed your horse, you exercise your horse and you call the vet when it's sick. Its done by millions of people all over the world.

The 'good' trainers know how to place their stock, and they tend to have better stock. That doesn't mean that other 'less talented' trainers don't win races every day, and at much better prices than the 'good' trainers.

Our friend Eric Penicka has done real well using trainer stats on the Ohio circuit, but he's been watching them for years. He even published a book and a newsletter about it at one time. He has valuable information on the trainers that most people don't have. He'd be crazy NOT to take that information into account when using Validator.

I know very little about trainers on the other hand. Outside of a little general information about well known trainers, I know what the Trackmaster data files tell me. I would be crazy TO take that information into account when using Validator.

Like most things, its situational.

Dick...

Jonathan Steele · 06-21-2005, 01:05 AM

Richie,

Well, I don't ignore 'em that's for sure. It's just another piece of the puzzle to me. Definitely more relevant than a jockey's record from my observations. I'll also look at trainer stats from a contrarian point of view. Whenever I see a trainer with a lousy record, say 60-0-2-4, I say to myself unless this guy/gal is absolutely pathetic, his/her day is just around the corner, i.e. a win at a big juicy mutuel. Just check the past performances if you have an old Form or track simulcast program around and you may just see what I mean.

Regards,

Jon

06-15-2005, 09:02 AM	#1
RichieP Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,019	Trainer stats Just wondering what you feel about using or not using trainer stats. Some use them while others belive it is strictly the horse period. Is there a middle ground? Would u want to bet a horse who is trained by a guy 1/39 going first time turf and today is 1st turf? what if the odds are 30/1 and he projects strongly. The file we use to power the programs by trackmaster offer nothing in the way of help here. I KNOW a true professional WAGERER who feels strongly about incorporating at least something pertaining to the individual traiing the horse for today's race. If the saying " 80% of the races are won by 20% of the trainers" is true does that have any influence? opinions?? Rich

06-15-2005, 06:07 PM	#2
shoeless Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,650	Richie, I guess you already know my answer to this.The horse runs the race but if the trainer doesn't want it to under these conditions it wont.No matter what the readouts say.Sorry if this offends any members who dont believe mixing mainstream handicapping with the program. Shoeless

06-15-2005, 07:59 PM	#3
JimG Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 992	My take on trainer stats is that if it is a commonly known stat, it is pretty useless from a betting standpoint. The trainer stats in the drf are an example of what I call "common trainer stats". If a horse looks like crap from a pace standpoint, I am not going to bet it because trainer is 35% winners first off a layoff. In fact the way I look at it, he still loses 65% of the time. So what if the trainer has a positive roi turf-to-dirt if the horse in this race looks like a nag. 1 big longshot can of course give a trainer a positive roi. However, if you play a particular circuit and track trainer moves not common to national publications, you can find angles that may be worthwhile at the windows. Those would be separate type automatic bets that have no impact one way or another from your Spec/Val3 readouts. In fact I would recommend a separate bankroll for such action. Jim

06-21-2005, 01:05 AM	#7
Jonathan Steele Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 471	Richie, Well, I don't ignore 'em that's for sure. It's just another piece of the puzzle to me. Definitely more relevant than a jockey's record from my observations. I'll also look at trainer stats from a contrarian point of view. Whenever I see a trainer with a lousy record, say 60-0-2-4, I say to myself unless this guy/gal is absolutely pathetic, his/her day is just around the corner, i.e. a win at a big juicy mutuel. Just check the past performances if you have an old Form or track simulcast program around and you may just see what I mean. Regards, Jon