Trainer statistics can be categorized into two groups: general and specific. The general ones are the ones for last year and/or the year to date that appear in the Daily Racing Form past performances and usually in the pp’s provided on the Internet by various racing information sources. Specific stats detail a trainer’s record in different categories of specialization such as “first start after 90 days,” “distance change: route to sprint,” and so on.

General trainer stats, except for very early in a meet, include all types of races and therefore only tell you that some trainers are pretty good overall, average, or bad. These stats can be very misleading and generally are not a good basis for a bet or the basis of any angle plays.

Specific trainer stats can sometimes generate spot plays that are very profitable.

I moved to Omaha in 1981, when Ak-sar-ben was one of the top ten tracks in the country (and when there were no such things as specific trainer stats unless you kept them yourself), I noticed one trainer, R.E. Lee, who seemed to be an average trainer who seemed to score irregularly but noticeably in 6-furlong sprints at odds of 5-1 or better with horses that didn’t figure strongly on paper.

I decided to dig a little. I found that of this 18% overall winning trainer’s races, 80% of his wins came in exacta races (in those days, only 3 races a day featured exacta wagering) using  one of two particular jockeys, after two races at higher class levels which were generally looked horrible in the pp’s. The crafty R.E. Lee had found his own highly profitable betting niche and followed his pattern faithfully, because it was successful. The stats became the basis for an automatic bet, which showed a profit at the end of the meet. Easy handicapping? More or less.

The same type of plays can be found today, as well as using good trainer stats to narrow down your serious contenders or decide how to allocate your per-race bankroll.

So the question becomes: which stats are the best?

Several national information vendors sell trainer stats categorized in excruciating detail. Several problems are built in: (1) Paralysis by Analysis. Information overload—just too much information to be absorbed or used without the luxury of lots of time to handicap. Sure, you can use a computer to zero in on a specific strength or weakness, but that leads to (2) The deception of percentages. A trainer who hits 50% of his races in a certain category should be a champ….unless the 50% is a one win for two races situation.

If it was 50 wins in 100 races, then we’re talking a CHAMP! Matter of fact, what is a good winning percentage? 15%?  20%?  35%? And over how many races? Tough subjective questions that only you can answer for yourself. (3) What’s in a Name? Some trainers will always use the same name when entering horses. A. Trainer may always sign his name “A. Trainer.” Some will use “A. Trainer,” “Albert Trainer,” “A. H. Trainer,” or “A. Trainer, Jr” at different times (your guess is as good as mine as to why), creating 4 or 5 different records when each name is recorded. No small amount of  human backtracking is needed to determine if the listings reflect 4 different people or just one person!

One of my friends is a  professional handicapper who I have known for years, who prefers to remain anonymous. His nickname is Spotplay, because that’s what he’s best at.  Spotplay decided to compile and maintain his own trainer statistics after he bought a couple of nationally advertised sets of computer- generated stats. One set included several major trainers’ stats for ALL circuits on which they raced, instead of their regional records with different strings of horses. Another actually included as current information stats for a trainer who died five years ago!

Spotplay developed his own master list of consistently competent trainers across the U.S., region by region, focusing on strengths and “massaging” the numbers to produce dependable figures (such as weighting  averages for the past few years, so that a trainer who was spectacular in one year but terrible before and after is graded accordingly).

Rather than use race number and percentages in his results which he uses for handicapping, he lists the trainers by region, then notes their strengths with simple codes. Particular strengths are noted with boldface type. Finally, jockeys who win consistently for the trainer are noted, along with any personal notes that warrant attention.

Here are some examples from his West coast section:

CHAMBERS, MIKE       OFF    D1       D2     T/D      drop    weak on turf 

HENDRICKS, DAN L    ALL    OFF     Lay1  Lay2    D1      Claims  turf1 is a prep

JACKSON, BRUCE L   DBD    Gomez

Codes: ALL – Very good overall trainer. OFF – Good on off tracks. D1 – 1st lifetime start. D2 – 2nd lifetime start. T/D – turf to dirt surface switch. Drop – big dropdowns in claiming races. Lay1 – 1st out after 90+ days. Lay2 – 2nd out after 90+ days. DBD – betting action with D1 and D2. Turf1 – 1st lifetime start on grass.

Spotplay’s object in devising this list and especially this format is to avoid wasting time considering horses trained by trainers who are occasionally lucky but generally losing trainers.

To me, his way of creating and using trainer stats is a lot easier and more accurate than the computer-generated ones. Sorry, but Spotplay does not make his work available for sale to the public.