King: Which trainers produce with horses 4-1 or less?

When choosing between two contenders in a race, both of them 4-1 shots, is it better to wager on the horse with the trainer winning at 20 percent on the year or the one hitting at a lower 12 percent rate?

Most bettors would choose the horse trained by the 20 percenter. But backing the high-percentage trainer is not always the best wagering move. Sometimes the lower-percentage trainer’s 4-1 shot is a more legitimate runner – simply because the horse isn’t taking action due to a trainer’s name recognition or a flashy record.

Not to be understated, how well-backed horses fare – or longshots, for that matter – should be scrutinized individually by trainer to get the truest results. And DRF ’s Formulator database is a valuable resource for this information.

In addition to looking at specific trainer angles in Formulator, like first-out records, horseplayers can query how trainers do with favorites, midpriced horses, and longshots. Simply input the odds you want to check, and within a few seconds, the data are there.

With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to find trainers at Churchill Downs who reward bettors most when their horses are well regarded at the mutuel windows. So, I went through every trainer with a horse entered Saturday there and checked how they did over the past five years with horses running at Churchill who were at odds of 4-1 or less.

◗ Trainers with overachieving contenders at Churchill.

Among those Saturday trainers with at least 15 Churchill starters going off at odds of 4-1 or less, the following trainers showed a positive return on investment: Don Habeeb (6 for 15, 40 percent winners, $3.10); Bill Connelly (9 for 22, 41 percent, $3.02); Pat Byrne (11 for 31, 35 percent, $2.60); Forrest Kaelin (10 for 28, 36 percent, $2.32); Buff Bradley (8 for 25, 32 percent, $2.24); Brad Cox (58 for 155, 37 percent, $2.12); Eduardo Caramori (5 for 18, 28 percent, $2.09); and Bernie Flint (25 for 80, 31 percent, $2.04).

Some of these returns were contrary to misguided notions I held in my head, such as my belief that Kaelin only seemed to win with longshots.

So, why the positive numbers? Hard to say precisely, but one would have to think that perhaps it is because most of these trainers – with the exceptions of Cox and Flint – have modest stables. Lacking volume, people aren’t accustomed to seeing them contend for training titles, and their horses, even well- backed ones going off below 4-1, are still starting as overlays.

◗ Those trainers with low ROIs with horses starting at 4-1 odds or less at Churchill.

Due to takeout, most trainers studied ended up with ROIs well below $2 in my sample of Saturday trainers. As for those who fell well short of a positive return ($1.40 or less) who had at least 15 starts at Churchill at 4-1 or less, they included Kellyn Gorder, $1.35; Chuck Peery, $1.29; D. Wayne Lukas, $1.23; Helen Pitts, $1.23; Mike Tomlinson, $1.17; Vickie Foley, $1.16; Steve Hobby, $1.06; and Jeffrey Thornbury, $0.50 – though the latter’s extremely low ROI was likely skewed by a disproportionate number of seconds and thirds from his small sample of 16 runners.

Collectively, their horses in this odds range won at a little less than 20 percent.

Bear in mind that many of those mentioned above have far better numbers at other tracks, for one reason or another. Lukas, for example, typically sees his win percentage rise at Oaklawn Park in the winter.

◗ Putting the numbers all together

These statistics, both the good and the bad, can be interpreted a little bit like stock returns. They explain prior performance, but they are not necessarily assured of repeating in the future.

So, in the case of Cox, his horses are winning at such a high level right now, it’s hard to imagine that five years down the road he will still be generating a positive ROI. His horses will simply become hot prospects at the betting windows. In fact, they already are as I type this.

Conversely, Thornbury, who has been unlucky with so many near-misses at Churchill, will likely see more winners and therefore a higher ROI in the future – if a few of those seconds and thirds turn into winners.

Nevertheless, it is sound handicapping to know which trainers produce when the public expects them to, and those who do not. That history, more so than their overall win percentage, is of far greater value.