EC21
Conditional
As soon as someone reads that, that knows anything about racing, is ....oh fook.. another gambling stable post. So many words have been written about this. Firstly, any smaller trainer starting out has to be good at this, or they don't get off step one on the ladder. There are exceptions to this, a trainer who has worked for a big trainer and has good horses handed him/her. Most stables are **** at it overall once they get going, they don't need to be once the owners are coming in.
Imagine you have a small stable, or even a middle level one, you send one out, everyone thinks it will win in that stable, then it gets beat. I will bet now that an upcoming stable is good at this more than an established one, purely because they are unknown, and so have that market edge. The really smart trainers are those that once they get past the unknown bit edge, they still deliver when the money is down. Obviously no trainer can do that 100% of the time, so we have to spot when it happens above the average level. Eighteen months ago I used 3 criteria to judge if a stable had a gamble or drifter, just what happened with them. Clearly if a stable had horses winning when drifting, there is an issue there of not knowing what they have or not caring. I used the Horseracebase data base to try and work this out, not easy. I can't even remember now how I started the spread sheet, it was basically.... success when drifting, success when shortening. So I got a rating for every trainer. Then in real time over 18 months, if a trainer I thought knew what he had, had a runner and it was a shorterner, I would see how it ran, then update or down grade him/her on the spreadsheet. Over that period of time I found that certain trainers were really good at knowing their horses when the money was down. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it was s***. But something I did spot, the trainer's horses that the market said were fancied, and they were good at it, found that extra in the final furlong, even if they looked beat. This isn't a ..this will win..thread, there is no such thing when looking at this type of angle, but I think I can highlight horses each day, that when fancied, will be trying hard to win. Each day I will post horses I think are fancied by trainers who are above average at winning when they shorten. The issue then is, well if the money has gone on, where is the value? The only way round that for me is to have doubles and trebles on the day. There is no stable that has two or three horses they know will win, the whole idea as a punter is to spot the stables that could tie a few together. I hope that makes sense, but am open to any comment. I have been at this a while now, good results, but it isn't an area I know a lot about, (no stop watches Grass
). I'd love some input from anyone who thinks I am off target here. I would like Slims view. He will probably say..wtf are you on about? Then again, Slim won't read it, he hates long posts
Imagine you have a small stable, or even a middle level one, you send one out, everyone thinks it will win in that stable, then it gets beat. I will bet now that an upcoming stable is good at this more than an established one, purely because they are unknown, and so have that market edge. The really smart trainers are those that once they get past the unknown bit edge, they still deliver when the money is down. Obviously no trainer can do that 100% of the time, so we have to spot when it happens above the average level. Eighteen months ago I used 3 criteria to judge if a stable had a gamble or drifter, just what happened with them. Clearly if a stable had horses winning when drifting, there is an issue there of not knowing what they have or not caring. I used the Horseracebase data base to try and work this out, not easy. I can't even remember now how I started the spread sheet, it was basically.... success when drifting, success when shortening. So I got a rating for every trainer. Then in real time over 18 months, if a trainer I thought knew what he had, had a runner and it was a shorterner, I would see how it ran, then update or down grade him/her on the spreadsheet. Over that period of time I found that certain trainers were really good at knowing their horses when the money was down. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it was s***. But something I did spot, the trainer's horses that the market said were fancied, and they were good at it, found that extra in the final furlong, even if they looked beat. This isn't a ..this will win..thread, there is no such thing when looking at this type of angle, but I think I can highlight horses each day, that when fancied, will be trying hard to win. Each day I will post horses I think are fancied by trainers who are above average at winning when they shorten. The issue then is, well if the money has gone on, where is the value? The only way round that for me is to have doubles and trebles on the day. There is no stable that has two or three horses they know will win, the whole idea as a punter is to spot the stables that could tie a few together. I hope that makes sense, but am open to any comment. I have been at this a while now, good results, but it isn't an area I know a lot about, (no stop watches Grass
). I'd love some input from anyone who thinks I am off target here. I would like Slims view. He will probably say..wtf are you on about? Then again, Slim won't read it, he hates long posts
Last edited:
