trainers wit 2horses lesser fancied wins especially gav smit ,bass,even de kok ,irish maid , storm crossing,i include all coplings in jptj

hibernia Wrote:

---

> My opinion is this one, get on with it,it`s always
> going to happen in stables with a big string..

Precisely. It's happened to all of them - even the O'Briens and bin Suroors of this world. Not to mention Andre Fabre, who only yesterday had 2 runners in a race. The 12/1 shot won, the 3/1 favourite with the "right" jockey up finished nowhere. Rather try and judge every horse's chance on its merits and don't worry too much about whether it has stable companions in the race. Look at it as being horse racing, not trainer racing.

magiclips Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > My opinion is this one, get on with it,it`s
> always
> > going to happen in stables with a big string..
>
> Precisely. It's happened to all of them - even
> the O'Briens and bin Suroors of this world. Not
> to mention Andre Fabre, who only yesterday had 2
> runners in a race. The 12/1 shot won, the 3/1
> favourite with the "right" jockey up finished
> nowhere. Rather try and judge every horse's
> chance on its merits and don't worry too much
> about whether it has stable companions in the
> race. Look at it as being horse racing, not
> trainer racing.

Magic sometimes its hard when the horse that wins ran last on all of it's previous 5 runs .

I agree, Punter, but when horses like that win does it make a whole lot of difference if the stable had more than one runner in the race? Anyway, going from five lasts in a row to winning is a bit extreme, I'd say.

magiclips Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > My opinion is this one, get on with it,it`s
> always
> > going to happen in stables with a big string..
>
> Precisely. It's happened to all of them - even
> the O'Briens and bin Suroors of this world. Not
> to mention Andre Fabre, who only yesterday had 2
> runners in a race. The 12/1 shot won, the 3/1
> favourite with the "right" jockey up finished
> nowhere. Rather try and judge every horse's
> chance on its merits and don't worry too much
> about whether it has stable companions in the
> race. Look at it as being horse racing, not
> trainer racing.

100% Magic -

I have posted before. Study form and forget about bookmakers prices.

Never forget that the genius punters who focus on this phenomenon are the same ones that create the odds on the tote with their wagers.

Magic watch Luke Morris and the rides he wins on .

Interesting thread ,and whilst no-one can deny that horses are unpredictable ,by nature,you have to ask yourself,that if a trainer is unable to identify his/her 'best' on a reasonably regular basis,why do so many punters want their info?
If someone who is not particularly accurate in assessing how a horse he/she trains will run against his/her own horses...WHY then, when he/she only has one horse in a race, would you waste your money on his/her assessment of his/her horse against the balance of the field ,when he/she knows even less about the opposition, as they are from other yards
Doesn't make any sense to me!

The following:

Fact 1: A good trainer can assess his horse quite well.
(Exceptions just confirm the rule. I made statistic about it and i can tell you, which trainer assess their horses well, which are are carefully about prediction and which are more talking about their dreams.)

Fact 2: A first jockey on a horse with a second stable horse in the race does not always mean, that the stable jock is on the better horse. There are a lot of reasons for a change in order (weight, prep-run etc)

Fact 3: Some results are very hard to explain by just either the a) unpredictable nature of a horse or b) the trainers missing ability to assess his horses.
(Why? It is also a question of statistics. Examples: Stable jock on a horse with form 10 - 8 - 4- 3 -2 (from left ro right) on odds of 3-1. Second horse form with 10 -13 - 14 wins at 50-1. This is quite unreal. But happened. Already doubtful, but when i see, that the "first" horse then wins the second next race at odds of 7-1, then of course it is hard to believe. When i see then, that the same trainer send an in-form-horse into a race together with a "second" horse, that ran only once over 1200 and is winning now over 1600 at odds of 10-1, you cannot tell me, that he did not knew about. A trainer maybe cannot assess totally a horse, but he always should know about upcoming horses, about horses, which progressed or will progress over further. And he knows. All this examples are "true" examples)

Fact 4: Solution: Like in France. But even there, where nobody can "earn" with the "second" horse, you quite often have the second horse in front of the first. So maybe sometimes you have to believe, what is hard to believe.

on your 1st point Saldani i can say that New turf have amazed me in their assesment of their runners .they know whats going on in their stable and are usually spot on .
Mdk's assistant in kzn also seems to be able to asses his runners correctly D Howells another that comes to mind !

But 1st prize by far goes to new turf !

Sometimes they "know", sometimes they have no idea. Horses can make fools of anyone, though not by any means all of the time. As a general rule of thumb, the more moderate the horse the more it tends to be unpredictable. The idea that trainers always "know" when a horse is going to improve over a longer distance is also nonsense. Sometimes yes, but sometimes it's just done for the sake of trying something different and hoping for improvement. Again, the fact that the stable may have more than one runner in the race is not necessarily relevant.

As for blindly following bookmakers' prices in every race - you might as well go and jump off a cliff and get it over with quickly.<

Saldian,your first "fact" is the one I was getting at.Trainers are like any other walk of life,be it lawyers or accountants etc.etc. ......they range from brilliant to useless!
If you watch for the patterns of various stables,you will see that,as you say,some are more consistent,some are more accurate in their assessments shown by strike rates of backed horses......bottom line........some are more professional!.
Identification of these patterns can help in the accurate selections of punters.

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Sometimes they "know", sometimes they have no
> idea. Horses can make fools of anyone, though not
> by any means all of the time. As a general rule
> of thumb, the more moderate the horse the more it
> tends to be unpredictable. The idea that trainers
> always "know" when a horse is going to improve
> over a longer distance is also nonsense.
> Sometimes yes, but sometimes it's just done for
> the sake of trying something different and hoping
> for improvement. Again, the fact that the stable
> may have more than one runner in the race is not
> necessarily relevant.
>
> As for blindly following bookmakers' prices in
> every race - you might as well go and jump off a
> cliff and get it over with quickly.<

Absolutely true. There is another thread on this subject. I think it is called part 2, where I have echoed the same sentiments.

2 other things to remember is that the horse does not know how much the owners paid for at the sales AND also does not know what the bookmaker has priced it at.