I will admit that due to the late start of Cali racing compared to CST, I have never followed it as close as all the other tracks east of Mississippi. Call it East Coast (Midwest) Bias if you want or possibly just only so much time in the day but I just haven\'t. However, I\'ve followed Cali closer the last few years (probably 2-3) but I really struggle to hone in on successful angles on a regular basis.
I am curious others\' thoughts and stories of success or lack thereof out West. Specifically, are there just way more trainers out there to follow? I never seem to be in touch with the nuances of the trainers in the lower level races which isn\'t true as dramatically at any other major circuit for me (Tampa, Gulfstream, FG, NYRA, Kentucky, Illinois, etc.) Usually when I follow one track at least somewhat closely for a significant amount of time I start to see situations that click and matter for the future.....but not in California as much.
This is not sour grapes just brutal honesty that typically I\'m a terrible handicapper on races out there. One of the big things I\'m driving at is I have a good memory for big price winners/angles but I don\'t think I\'ve ever had a big price winner out West or one that I\'ve seen repeat itself. Maybe it is simply I\'m not doing enough homework but I don\'t think that\'s it. I think it is a bigger maze possibly due to the sheer number of trainers?
Any thoughts from those out West or those that follow SA and Del Mar through the years (and Los Al now I guess). My apologies for the novice nature of this post but I feel lost trying to find winners Often at Del Mar and SA.
EDIT: Also wondering if any of you try to play both California and East Coast/Midwest tracks? Or just focus on one side of the country versus the other?
No such thing as a big price winners with 6 horse fields. Occasional price when a race falls apart. Don\'t see West Coast racing surviving in the direction it\'s headed and I\'m from the West.
FWIW
Opinions:
Bob Baffert rarely has an entry that is not competitive. e.g. Sunday @ DMR the 7th race Filly MSW. Has two first time starters vs a bunch of other first time starters. His 7/5 favorite won looking like a champion. His other 8/1 (no eye popping w/o\'s) ran a credible third. She apparently doesn\'t have the early speed but look out at longer distances. If they don\'t win he doesn\'t keep them long. One way to get a score is to beat him, then again we all know how hard that is. He casts off some in claiming races a good place to take a shot against because they still get bet.
Jerry Hollendorfer - A S.F. Bay Area transplant. Big operation all over the state. Not a publicity hound ala BB. A meticulous guy/organization like a German auto maker. I consider him a master of spotting horses he\'s versatile Northern or Southern California claiming or stakes. A very patient guy rarely runs a horse that isn\'t ready same as Baffert. Don\'t leave him out even when his charge looks dubious.
Jeff Bonde - Doesn\'t get many stakes horses but he is one to always consider in claiming or NoCal Alw races.
O\'Neil - I never bet him.
Kristen Mulhall - paying her dues now but I think she will make a name for herself in a few more years. Living off reclamation projects currently. She disappoints more than she wins.
Simon Callahan - I think he has a Turf preference rarely a good dirt prospect
There is a gaggle of SoCal trainers that pretty much stick to claimers separate and distinct from the bigger $ operations. There are a handful of small yet upscale barns that develop a couple good runners each year. Peter Miller and Desormeaux come to mind.
With BB & JH both winning about 30% of the Allowance and Stakes races not many leftovers.
Brice Blanc is an acknowledged turf specialist. His mounts nearly always are live on the grass but not on dirt.
Bejarano - not subtle, he rides to win no quarter given. I believe he is best on dirt.
Early speed rules on Socal dirt not so much @ GG fields (no stats to back up such an assertion) but its the impression I\'ve gotten.
Good Luck hope you get some more feedback. P-Dub any thoughts?
I\'ve pretty much stopped playing exotics at SA. When a tri routinely pays less than $10, it\'s just not worth the effort.
I love big races with big names. But when in comes to playing, I\'ll take the 10 horse allowance.
Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW
>
> Opinions:
> any thoughts?
My first thought (and this should not surprise anyone) is that opinions are
good, but STATISTICS are preferable. Conveniently, trainer statistics are
available, gratis, each day in the Redboard Room. The main function
OPINIONS serve is to potentially evolve into a great debate which eventually
dissolves into name calling. An exchange based on statistics has the potential
to be much more enlightening.
Movie Recommendation for Tavasco: \"Leningrad Cowboys Go America.\" Great satire
from the late 1980s, with an extended sight gag which runs through the movie
and somehow never gets old. Available on Hulu.
Tavasco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FWIW
>
> Opinions:
>
> Bob Baffert rarely has an entry that is not
> competitive. e.g. Sunday @ DMR the 7th race Filly
> MSW. Has two first time starters vs a bunch of
> other first time starters. His 7/5 favorite won
> looking like a champion. His other 8/1 (no eye
> popping w/o\'s) ran a credible third. She
> apparently doesn\'t have the early speed but look
> out at longer distances. If they don\'t win he
> doesn\'t keep them long. One way to get a score is
> to beat him, then again we all know how hard that
> is. He casts off some in claiming races a good
> place to take a shot against because they still
> get bet.
>
> Jerry Hollendorfer - A S.F. Bay Area transplant.
> Big operation all over the state. Not a publicity
> hound ala BB. A meticulous guy/organization like a
> German auto maker. I consider him a master of
> spotting horses he\'s versatile Northern or
> Southern California claiming or stakes. A very
> patient guy rarely runs a horse that isn\'t ready
> same as Baffert. Don\'t leave him out even when his
> charge looks dubious.
>
> Jeff Bonde - Doesn\'t get many stakes horses but he
> is one to always consider in claiming or NoCal Alw
> races.
>
> O\'Neil - I never bet him.
>
> Kristen Mulhall - paying her dues now but I think
> she will make a name for herself in a few more
> years. Living off reclamation projects currently.
> She disappoints more than she wins.
>
> Simon Callahan - I think he has a Turf preference
> rarely a good dirt prospect
>
> There is a gaggle of SoCal trainers that pretty
> much stick to claimers separate and distinct from
> the bigger $ operations. There are a handful of
> small yet upscale barns that develop a couple good
> runners each year. Peter Miller and Desormeaux
> come to mind.
>
> With BB & JH both winning about 30% of the
> Allowance and Stakes races not many leftovers.
>
> Brice Blanc is an acknowledged turf specialist.
> His mounts nearly always are live on the grass but
> not on dirt.
>
> Bejarano - not subtle, he rides to win no quarter
> given. I believe he is best on dirt.
>
> Early speed rules on Socal dirt not so much @ GG
> fields (no stats to back up such an assertion) but
> its the impression I\'ve gotten.
>
> Good Luck hope you get some more feedback. P-Dub
> any thoughts?
I\'ve never been a big trainer guy. Unless we are dealing with FTS, where some get them geared up more than others. Richiebee makes a good point about statistics regarding trainers.
I am a BIG fan of Hollendorfer. He dominated up here for years, took his act on the road and has proven to be amongst the finest trainers in the country bar none.
I\'m more of a jockey guy. Kent D one of the very best on turf, I always consider his horses. Stevens doesn\'t ride as many at this stage of his career, but his mounts are usually pretty live. Bejarano can flat out ride on any surface IMO.
And of course, the great Mike Smith is without peer.
For me its about numbers and figures. I\'ve hit many nice prices on trainers and/or jockeys that aren\'t well known. If a horse has a shot on numbers, I\'m not too concerned about connections.
I also like horses changing something. Surface change with a distance change, and if blinkers added a bonus.
But as far as the question regarding trainers, I just let the numbers point me in the right direction. That goes for any circuit.
richiebee:
Thank you for the movie recommendation and the reminder that handicapping is best served with a dose of objectivity.
I\'ll try and watch the film tonight. I have a recommendation for you too. \"The Sultan\" a recent Bollywood film, probably impossible to view the whole movie, but it has a number of terrific scenes. The portions on the streets and roads of India are especially curious. Good Flash Dancing and with exotic romantic glances & gestures. Very campy but a little tough to follow with no subtitles, not to mention it has a wrestling MMA backdrop?
Richie:
Thanks for the reminder I need to focus in on stats instead of anecdotal evidence I\'m piecing together. I need to do some more work.
At the same time, I\'ll give a few examples of where I\'m coming from. I know all about Baffert, Hollendorfer, Mandella, and Callahan (who trains Firing Line and Taris, fine dirt horses). I probably don\'t appreciate the jockey angles in SoCal nearly enough although I feel like I end up on the Bejarano horses he never wins with and then kills me in the next leg of a horizontal.
But what I have trouble with is:
Yesterday, Scott Hansen wins a race with a first time turf horse. Trainer was 3 for 35 on the year and 1 for 22 on Turf the last two years. He had the fastest number in the race (7) and I believe the next fastest was a 9.5, a 9.75 and a few with 10\'s. At 5-1 was this a solid wager on a horse trying turf for the first time? He won so some would say certainly. Do you play the figure even when it is fastest on dirt and he is never tried turf? Even with a first Euro/first lasix for Drysdale, Sheriff\'s horse when he scratched Ziconic from the race, or O\'Neill/Bejarano 2nd off the bench with Blinkers or Kent D (hated the outside post personally) ....but you get the point.
On Thursday, in the third race, Lorenzo Ruiz trained Hawk\'s Eyes to a front running score on turf at 15-1. To be quite frank, I\'m familiar with Jorge Periban, Rafael Becerra, and a host of other trainers some may describe as obscure but I\'ve never even heard of Ruiz before. In this example, I didn\'t look at the Red Board Room so this is on me if he was a solid play on the figures or not. But at that price I feel comfortable guessing he wasn\'t a standout figure play. Anyone out there familiar with Ruiz?
These two cherry picked examples are what I struggle with out there very often it seems. The lesson it seems is to focus more on the horse and less on the trainers although the moment I do that Baffert, Mandella, and O\'Neill sweep the card. Thanks for the feedback both on board and off board privately as well that was passed along. Several helpful points!
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what I have trouble with is:
>
> Yesterday, Scott Hansen wins a race with a first
> time turf horse. Trainer was 3 for 35 on the year
> and 1 for 22 on Turf the last two years. He had
> the fastest number in the race (7) and I believe
> the next fastest was a 9.5, a 9.75 and a few with
> 10\'s. At 5-1 was this a solid wager on a horse
> trying turf for the first time? He won so some
> would say certainly. Do you play the figure even
> when it is fastest on dirt and he is never tried
> turf? Even with a first Euro/first lasix for
> Drysdale, Sheriff\'s horse when he scratched
> Ziconic from the race, or O\'Neill/Bejarano 2nd off
> the bench with Blinkers or Kent D (hated the
> outside post personally) ....but you get the
> point.
In the examples above I would give very little, if any, weight to the trainer stats. For me, betting the first time turf horse with superior figures would be based on the sires turf numbers compared to his dirt #\'s and/or whether he had any sibs who had success on the lawn. If the sire was positive turf or even neutral that would be a bet for me. With the first time lasix, again, wouldn\'t care about how the trainer has performed in those cases, would take his expected number and decrease by 1, which seems to be the average expected improvement first time lasix. Might adjust a little further if his euro races were exceptionally slow pace wise. Tough to read too much into the Sheriffs move without additional context. On the O\'Neil second of the layoff, I would look at trainer stats to see if that\'s a higher percentage than first off the layoff but only in the context of past numbers - if the horse was borderline contender then might consider. All of that is a long way of saying that I agree with your subsequent point, that it should be more about the horse than the trainer. Not to say you can\'t glean useful info from those stats but in most cases it would be secondary to what the horse has done. Just my opinion.....
>
Fairmount:
My point for you and Tavasco is that this is the TG board, and that any
extensive analysis of trainers should include some mention of TG trainer
profile stats, which, again, are available free each day in the Redboard Room.
With regards to the Scott Hansen horse you mentioned, there are many ways to
interpret a short priced (5/1) runner from a low percentage trainer.
Michelle Nevin, former assistant to Rick Dutrow, is a trainer I really
respect. She trains a cleverly named turf sprint maiden named (I think) Gee
Pea Ess, who has gone off at odds on in her last two races, one at Belmont,
one at the Spa. I was all in against GPS in both of these races based on the
fact that for all of her skill, Michelle\'s strike rate in grass races is
something like 3%.
Where a trainer stat trends to either extreme, i.e. below 5% or over 25%, lets
say, it tends to attract my attention