- This topic has 14 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
And if so, why ?
Tony Newcombe’s strike-rate at Lingfield ( A/W ) over the last five years is a miserable 2% ( 1-57 ). In contrast Stuart Williams has saddled 17 winners from 107, giving an overall s/r of 16%. Clearly one would have misgivings about backing any runner sent to race at Lingfield by the former, but why should Newcombe’s strike-rate be so poor ? I can understand a jockey having a low s/r at a particular track, because the course is tricky and they don’t ride it too well, but it is hard to fathom why the same should be true of trainers. It is understandable at the major tracks like Ascot where the competition is fierce and top yards are out to land the spoils, but less easy to understand as regards the gaff tracks. Why one particular trainer is a wizard at Folkestone but utterly hopeless at Plumpton is a complete mystery to me.
Thoughts ?
It’s a good question and I
for one do not have the clarity
of the hurdygurdyman’s geetar at this
storm filled time in my vodka black-skied morning,
however,the sipping hippy in me tells me that
the statistics may include multiple winners and
the saying – lies, damned dark skies,
and statistics springs to mind in the middle
of my early morning bible practiceEphesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.
Geezus Gamble I’ve had 3 days and nights of Margaritas and Johhnie Walker and missed 3 Nicky Hederson trained winners cos I never even noticed they were in the races I had bests in, so don’t expect me to much of me you will be spirit-ually disappointed.
What was the question again?
I think it’s pertinent if a trainer keeps having lots of winners there
Creatures of habit aren’t they. Like us they have their likes and dislikes. The standard of horse that their pocket allows them to buy and the type of horse that usually runs at his’her fav track has a lot to do with it.
He/She will no doubt aim to have their better horses spot on for those meetings year after year so they no doubt are worth following. Because the same people/faces tend to go to these meeting year after they get to be in the know so the market moves are probably more relevant than normal too.
HJ was always good for winners at Northern track like Hexham. Gordon Elliot/Perth says it all as does Nicky Richards who likes to plunder Kelso along with Lucinda Russell and Tim Easterby has a soft spot for Ayr.
Don’t have to follow it too closely as the info is on every race card.
A trainer’s s/r in a particular race is more pertinent. I’m sure that you could have an almost endless stream of examples. However such information does tend to affect the price of that runner. In Henry’s halcyon days, his runners at Yarmouth and Nottingham were invariably shorter than might be considered value, though there are some that would argue there is no such thing as a bad-priced winner.
I’m not sure a simple look a trainer’s strike rate at a particular course is all that enlightening; it’s only a part of the story.
Many a rewarding hour (in all senses of the word) can be had by studying a trainer’s modus operandi.
A particular trainer might have a poor strike rate at a particular track, but a further analysis might indicate that he has a high strike rate at that course with a particular type of horse (e.g. in Nurseries).
It’s some years now since I devoted hour after hour to trawling through entries, statistics etc. to try and gain a clue as to how good a trainer thought a horse was and how he would exploit what talent it had to win a race. (And if a gambling yard to gauge when the money would be down.) It didn’t always pay off, but when it did it was with an added sense of acheivement for me when collecting my dosh.
Here’s a few things worth analysing if you enjoy trying to mind-read a trainer by studying his modus operandi.
1) Strike rate at a particular track (as per thread theme).
2) Jockey bookings (does he/she put certain jocks up when a win is expected?.) If stable jock is riding at another track, who does trainer put up on fancied runners at lesser courses? Does trainer make use of apprentices in handicaps? Does he favour certain jockeys for certain types of races (e.g. some jockeys for sprinters only)?
3) Blinkers. Does a trainer have an improved strike rate at certain tracks/kind of races (sprints; nurseries) when fitting blinkers for the first time?
Does trainer take blinkers off after promising run first time in the headgear so that handicap mark drops in next few unblinkered runs, then puts them on again when it wants to win? (I know of one trainer who used to do this in the 70’s and 80s. Didn’t happen too often, but I backed a few nice priced winners ‘cos of it. He’s retired now).
4) Distance. Does trainer bring horses on gradually before running them at their optimum trip? I’m sure you can all think of the odd flat trainer who does this.
5) Entries. If you get the Racing Calendar / handicap Book / Horses in Training etc. check whether a trainer only enters his really decent unraced 2 and 3 yr old for early closing big races or does he enter every eligible nag in the yard. If the former and he then runs said nag in modest maiden on debut, does he have a higher than average success rate with them? (This was another rewarding field of research for me in years gone by. The Wraggs, Michael Jarvis, Peter Walwyn and oddly enough Clive Brittain, were always worth analysing when it came to GP1 / Classic entries. If there were say, 10 middle-distance bred 3-y-o’s in the yard and an unraced one was entered for a classic when another that had run and showed decent ability wasn’t, one could safely assume that the unraced one had decent ability also. Although students of modus operandi would know that Geoff Wragg brought his middle distance animals on with great patience and, unlike some of those named, wouldn’t expect them to win first time out.)
There are plenty of other things I’ve forgotten over the years that others might consider analysing.
One might suppose from the above that I retired with pockets full of bookmakers’ cash; sadly that’s not the case ( I never had the time or the self-control to be a serious horse racing punter). But such amalysis of a trainer’s m/o can be rewarding if you’ve got the time and the patience.I’m not sure a simple look a trainer’s strike rate at a particular course is all that enlightening; it’s only a part of the story.
Many a rewarding hour (in all senses of the word) can be had by studying a trainer’s modus operandi.
A particular trainer might have a poor strike rate at a particular track, but a further analysis might indicate that he has a high strike rate at that course with a particular type of horse (e.g. in Nurseries).
It’s some years now since I devoted hour after hour to trawling through entries, statistics etc. to try and gain a clue as to how good a trainer thought a horse was and how he would exploit what talent it had to win a race. (And if a gambling yard to gauge when the money would be down.) It didn’t always pay off, but when it did it was with an added sense of acheivement for me when collecting my dosh.
Here’s a few things worth analysing if you enjoy trying to mind-read a trainer by studying his modus operandi.
1) Strike rate at a particular track (as per thread theme).
2) Jockey bookings (does he/she put certain jocks up when a win is expected?.) If stable jock is riding at another track, who does trainer put up on fancied runners at lesser courses? Does trainer make use of apprentices in handicaps? Does he favour certain jockeys for certain types of races (e.g. some jockeys for sprinters only)?
3) Blinkers. Does a trainer have an improved strike rate at certain tracks/kind of races (sprints; nurseries) when fitting blinkers for the first time?
Does trainer take blinkers off after promising run first time in the headgear so that handicap mark drops in next few unblinkered runs, then puts them on again when it wants to win? (I know of one trainer who used to do this in the 70’s and 80s. Didn’t happen too often, but I backed a few nice priced winners ‘cos of it. He’s retired now).
4) Distance. Does trainer bring horses on gradually before running them at their optimum trip? I’m sure you can all think of the odd flat trainer who does this.
5) Entries. If you get the Racing Calendar / handicap Book / Horses in Training etc. check whether a trainer only enters his really decent unraced 2 and 3 yr old for early closing big races or does he enter every eligible nag in the yard. If the former and he then runs said nag in modest maiden on debut, does he have a higher than average success rate with them? (This was another rewarding field of research for me in years gone by. The Wraggs, Michael Jarvis, Peter Walwyn and oddly enough Clive Brittain, were always worth analysing when it came to GP1 / Classic entries. If there were say, 10 middle-distance bred 3-y-o’s in the yard and an unraced one was entered for a classic when another that had run and showed decent ability wasn’t, one could safely assume that the unraced one had decent ability also. Although students of modus operandi would know that Geoff Wragg brought his middle distance animals on with great patience and, unlike some of those named, wouldn’t expect them to win first time out.)
There are plenty of other things I’ve forgotten over the years that others might consider analysing.
One might suppose from the above that I retired with pockets full of bookmakers’ cash; sadly that’s not the case ( I never had the time or the self-control to be a serious horse racing punter). But such amalysis of a trainer’s m/o can be rewarding if you’ve got the time and the patience.A fascinating read Insomniac, thanks
And if so, why ?
Tony Newcombe’s strike-rate at Lingfield ( A/W ) over the last five years is a miserable 2% ( 1-57 ). In contrast Stuart Williams has saddled 17 winners from 107, giving an overall s/r of 16%. Clearly one would have misgivings about backing any runner sent to race at Lingfield by the former, but why should Newcombe’s strike-rate be so poor ? I can understand a
jockey
having a low s/r at a particular track, because the course is tricky and they don’t ride it too well, but it is hard to fathom why the same should be true of trainers.
It is
understandable at the major tracks like Ascot where the competition is fierce and top yards are out to land the spoils, but less easy to understand as regards the gaff tracks. Why one particular trainer is a wizard at Folkestone but utterly hopeless at Plumpton is a complete mystery to me.
Thoughts ?
Newcombe’s s.r at Lingfield is poor, and there are many others like it amongst trainers and jockeys. Difficult to explain why unless a trainer sends horses to a particular course for a gallop. Imagine being an owner and Newcombe tells you he’s sending your horse to Lingfield. " What’s the point, Tony " ( assuming owners are aware of such stats )
There are a few odd and surprising ones
Pipe’s strike rare at Exeter – his local track – is a mere 9%, one of his worst, and he has had as many winners but boasts a strike rate of 21% at Stratford. Could it be he sends horses to Exeter for a run prior to them going further afield, at greater cost, when they’re ready to win ?
On the flat, i’ve always looked out for certain trainers horses who have had a run at a local course or on the all weather prior to a more valuable race.
A trainers record at a track is an important thing to check before deciding on a bet. If i fancy a horse on form and think it looks worth a bet I will always finally check the trainers track record and wont hesitate to cancel a bet if the trainer has a poor record at a track.
A certain part as to why certain trainers do better at certain tracks but not others is down to how the horse is trained. For example Mark Johnston trains his horses to run up steep hills. When you look at his record on testing tracks you will see he has a high percentage of winners on testing tracks.
Some trainers gallops may be very tight turning, these horses who are used to being trained to run on tight turning gallops will most likely do very well when sent to a tight turning track like chester.
Some trainers gallops may be very undulating and he may well do better when sending his runners to undulating tracks.How the horse has been trained and under what type of gallop can have a large say as to how a certain trainers runners may run at certain type of tracks.
Zoso,
An important factor you raise there. We’ve all heard of the phrase ‘horses for courses’ but in addition a training regime that the horse enjoys will be a positive when the horse meets conditions at the racecourse it is familiar with from its homework.
Probably not many trainers would recommend moving a horse out of their yard (loss of income) but it does help explain why some horses show improved form for a change of yard. They are happier in their work and this translates to what they show on the racecourse.
Trainer’s strike rates at a particular course can be important, but it wouldn’t usually be a major factor in my working out. Much more interested in the horse’s record at a course / type of course (right/left-handed, flat/sharp, galloping, undulating/stiff etc) and (usually far more important) the trainer’s over all form (recent over all strike rate).
Some trainers do particularly well at their local course. David Elsworth did well at Salisbury, when based at Whitsbury; now has a decent record at Newmarket. Richard Hannon now the man to beat at the Wiltshire track. Paul Nicholls does well at Wincanton. However, the local racegoers and bookmakers know when their local trainer has a particularly good SR, often priced up at shorter odds than they should be. So it can pay to back against the local trainer / one with a good SR.
Other trainers might have a poor record locally, from using it to get horses fit. Depends on the trainer.
Value Is EverythingI’m not really sure how true it is recently, but if you had a race at HQ and there was only one or two non-Newmarket trained horses in the race….
It stands to reason, the locals could just be out for the exercise, running for connexions to get a free pass etc. The travellers are much more likely to be trying.
It’s actually Wolverhampton where Tony Newcombe’s S/R is 2%. His AW strike rate is lower in general than his turf one so presumably the ones that run in the winter are those not good enough to make it on turf which would explain the lower S/R or the stable tend to concentrate on the turf in general.
Wolverhampton might be the quickest AW track to get to by road from his base in Devon so the most moderate of his moderate winter horses are sent there as it isn’t as expensive as sending them to the others. Either way I wouldn’t be in a rush to back them!A trainers record at a track is an important thing to check before deciding on a bet. If i fancy a horse on form and think it looks worth a bet I will always finally check the trainers track record and wont hesitate to cancel a bet if the trainer has a poor record at a track.
A certain part as to why certain trainers do better at certain tracks but not others is down to how the horse is trained. For example Mark Johnston trains his horses to run up steep hills. When you look at his record on testing tracks you will see he has a high percentage of winners on testing tracks.
Some trainers gallops may be very tight turning, these horses who are used to being trained to run on tight turning gallops will most likely do very well when sent to a tight turning track like chester.
Some trainers gallops may be very undulating and he may well do better when sending his runners to undulating tracks.How the horse has been trained and under what type of gallop can have a large say as to how a certain trainers runners may run at certain type of tracks.
Henderson and Nicholls; kempton and Cheltenham. Training environment definitely has an impact; marginal but an impact nonetheless.
In Henry’s halcyon days, his runners at Yarmouth and Nottingham
……….Were backed off the boards Eclipse and when Steve Cauthen turned up to ride them they went off invariably shorter.Godolphin dodge away nicely at Nottingham too these days.Fond memories.
There were too many stable staff in the yards (when he had 2), so the information was not always reliable either KF. Sometimes he would make it interesting by putting more than one in a race and dear old Mr Bond up. Other yards where the stable staff knew how to keep quiet were more fun.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.