An observation from Saturday's racing & betting ...
 

In R2 at Moonee Valley 8yo gelding Count Encosta was sent out the $4.20 favourite in a field of 12. It had 5 wins from 57 starts. It had also been unplaced in its 4 starts over 1600 metres.

There is absolutely no way I would take $4.20 in a Saturday Melbourne metropolitan race about a horse that had run so many races with such a poor winning strike rate.

Count Encosta ran a good race. But it didn't win.

Astute punters might have backed some Peter G. Moody trained winners at very nice odds last Saturday.

For example, Dissident was a $15.00 TF winner of the Group 1 Memsie Stakes at Caulfield and Weinholt won at $13.00 at Rosehill.

Over the years I have enjoyed backing beaten favourites that were unlucky and getting much bigger odds than when they were favourites!

Consider these points about Weinholt:

1. The 4YO gelding finished 7th. two weeks earlier at the same track over the same 1200 metres distance as this race starting as the $4.00 favourite.

2. Good form guides told us it was caught wide with no cover and had no luck.

3. This race Weinholt was also down in class from a Rating 90 handicap to a Rating 85 handicap.

4. It had a top trainer - Peter G. Moody.

5. Weinholt was an outstanding bet in this field of 12 and the $13.00 on offer was luxury odds!

One thing I wouldn't mind CP looking at with Peter Moody as I don't quite have all the data available going back over a good period of testing.

Horses trained by Moody
Male horses 1st up (not on Metro tracks)

Regards

The Age would have stopped me right in my tracks let alone the strike rate.

Colts Geldings and Horses
No first starters
First Up

Metro
11.60% S/R
-13.75% Loss

Provincial
18.64% S/R
-22.02% Loss

Country
23.44% S/R
-30.19% Loss

For what it's worth, I'm a very strong believer that the majority of trainers are of equal ability and talent. You'll notice that some very good trainers of the past are struggling now. And those that were previously struggling are doing extremely well in the past couple of years.
It doesn't come down to feeding, fitness, race selection, they mostly all have the same talent in this regard.
Gai nearly gave the game away a few years ago completely.

It comes with the quality of horses which owners give and later after some great success, the ability of the trainers to pick horses for wealthy owners.
Many are great trainers, but lack that final ability to pick quality horses.
Breeding is not the only consideration and paying high prices on breeding ALONE, has seen many trainers go to the wall and almost disappear.
One multiple Melbourne Cup winner went broke, and was rescued by a wealthy owner, many identities have gone broke including a well known journalist.

So when you see a trainer at the top of their game, it's usually the horses making them look good, or they have an extra ability when it comes to selecting breeding, stride and conformation.

At least two racing dynasty's are almost finished, such a pity.

Yep.
Same with Jockeys.

In regards to the Trainer/Jockey discussion what are people's thoughts on the following:

Any trainers that seem to be performing well and perceived as good trainers become overbet anyway and therefore by betting on the trainers not perceived as being good you obtain value anyway. This then counter-acts the 'performance' of the better trainers and therefore makes it rather negligible to take trainer's into account too much.

The only axterix next to the above statement would be that if you can identify the 'good' trainers before the market does then you may have some advantage.

Does the same then apply to jockeys? By the time you take into account the 'good' jockeys being overbet along with weight advantages for apprentices etc does it then become somewhat a moot point to take jockeys into account too much?

I'm interested in what others think. I'm sure some live by only backing the 'good' trainers and jockeys but it's not something I really take into account thus far due to the above with the exception being specific circumstances (just some examples):

- I like a horse expected to lead and win a little more if glen boss is on it
- I like the chances of a horse that may need to be patient or weave through the field a little more if Oli is on it

Hi Josh

Interesting point. Personally I factor jockeys and trainers into my assessments. I believe the key and a point that you raised is "if you can identify the 'good' trainers before the market does then you may have some advantage."

This brings me back to a recent RSN radio interview that I did that touches on several relevant points that address this and related issues. For those interested the link is:

https://soundcloud.com/rsn-racing/p...ratings-2-win-4

I dont consider Trainers /Jockeys at all except as a passing interest.

Take a look at the rubbish Glen Boss has to ride on off Carnival Season.

(My guess Glens put on to give a opinion on whether the trainer should persevere or cut their losses.)