John Shirreffs

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

so you do think he is cheating then, and this is the proof?

I don't know what he's doing... but he's got an edge. As a trainer, you don't produce a profitable ROI over a 14 year span without an edge.

He's a guy that consistantly would get horses to win there debut by 10 lengths with triple digit figures when he had 505.

Now he's totally opposite - but still an awesome horse trainer.

We really are to a point though where trainers with poor stats never have a top horse. That's why I was such a rabid fan of Rachel Alexandra back when Hal Wiggins trained her. Look at his stats ... they are bad!! You damn sure know that guy is 100% clean.

I would be an RA Super Fan if she stayed with Wiggins and did the same thing she did with Asmussen. It's possible she might have ... who knows. Her final start with Wiggins was amazing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't know what he's doing... but he's got an edge. As a trainer, you don't produce a profitable ROI over a 14 year span without an edge.

He's a guy that consistantly would get horses to win there debut by 10 lengths with triple digit figures when he had 505.

Now he's totally opposite - but still an awesome horse trainer.

We really are to a point though where trainers with poor stats never have a top horse. That's why I was such a rabid fan of Rachel Alexandra back when Hal Wiggins trained her. Look at his stats ... they are bad!! You damn sure know that guy is 100% clean.

I would be an RA Super Fan if she stayed with Wiggins and did the same thing she did with Asmussen. It's possible she might have ... who knows. Her final start with Wiggins was amazing.

I think a really high winning percentage is much more indicative of a trainer having an edge than a high ROI. We all know who some of the trainers with an edge are. Most of them have really high win percenatges, but not necessarily high ROIs.

From what I know of Shireffs, he is the last guy in the world that I would suspect of having an edge. He is one of the most honest trainers out there. Not only that, he has always used the most conservative veterinarians. The cheating trainers use the agressive and cheating vets, not the conservative vets.

[10 pnt move up]

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

Yes, exactly right. A few big longshots can have a huge impact on ROI for a trainer that doesn't have a ton of starts.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

He's had a flat bet profit in 8 of the last 13 years.

Even if you take away the two Tiago and Giacomo years and pretend both never happened .. that would make him profitable in 6 of 11 years. And one of the two years taken away, he still would have showed a FBP without the aid of the longshot winner.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He's had a flat bet profit in 8 of the last 13 years.

Even if you take away the two Tiago and Giacomo years and pretend both never happened .. that would make him profitable in 6 of 11 years. And one of the two years taken away, he still would have showed a FBP without the aid of the longshot winner.

whats his violation record? I dont remember seeing anything the last decade or so but...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He's had a flat bet profit in 8 of the last 13 years.

Even if you take away the two Tiago and Giacomo years and pretend both never happened .. that would make him profitable in 6 of 11 years. And one of the two years taken away, he still would have showed a FBP without the aid of the longshot winner.

That is true. But having a 50-1 can have a pretty large effect. For example, if a guy had 100 starters a year and had a dead average ROI ($1.64) for a 3 year period, and then he won with a 50-1 shot, his ROI would skyrocket all the way up to a positive ROI of $2.02. So one crazy longshot would turn a dead average ROI positive for a 3 year period.

Who are the other trainers with the highest ROIs the last 15 years? I bet they are not any of the guys who we suspect of cheating. Because as you said before, the fans catch on to the cheaters pretty quickly and the high ROI will disappear after 3-4 years at the most.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who are the other trainers with the highest ROIs the last 15 years? I bet they are not any of the guys who we suspect of cheating. Because as you said before, the fans catch on to the cheaters pretty quickly and the high ROI will disappear after 3-4 years at the most.

You'd be wrong in some cases ... because those type of trainers tend to do so much statistical damage in those 5 or 6 year runs before everyone figures out how good they are.

And when everyone starts to radically overbet the horses on paper - they still won't lose at a strong enough rate to give back what they won before bettors caught on.

Trainers with more than 1,500 starters and a profitable ROI since '96

Jeff Mullins 4,717 starts $2.01 ROI
Lloyd Mason 4,498 starts $2.01 ROI
Tim Kreiser 3,134 starts $2.04 ROI
Steph Beattie 2,790 starts $2.02 ROI
Larry Jones 2,765 starts $2.02 ROI
Jimmy Jerkens 2,454 starts $2.01 ROI
Julio Cartagena 2,291 starts $2.02 ROI
Ramon Preciado 2,010 starts $2.07 ROI
Mike Maker 1,985 starts $2.00 ROI
Bruce Alexander 1,953 starts $2.04 ROI
Andrew Leggio Jr. 1,928 starts $2.06 ROI
John Shirreffs 1,641 starts $2.04 ROI

I think certainly Cartagena, Steph Beattie, Preciado, and Mullins are the four names on that list who get a lot of slander heaped at them.

To get a better idea of how much some of these trainers get overbet on name alone.

Steph Beattie ran 311 horses in her boyfriends name (David Wells) - the horses that raced in his unfamilar name yielded a $2.83 ROI. So, the horses win at just a 1% profit on the betting dollar when they race in Steph's name - but yield a 41.5% profit on every dollar bet when they race in a name the betting public isn't familar with.

Julio Cartagena - another Mid-Atlantic high percentage pure magic claiming trainer. Only a 1% profit when they race in his name. 486 times he raced under the less familar name Keisy Cartagena ... the ROI spiked to $2.49 from $2.02

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You'd be wrong in some cases ... because those type of trainers tend to do so much statistical damage in those 5 or 6 year runs before everyone figures out how good they are.

And when everyone starts to radically overbet the horses on paper - they still won't lose at a strong enough rate to give back what they won before bettors caught on.

Trainers with more than 1,500 starters and a profitable ROI since '96

Jeff Mullins 4,717 starts $2.01 ROI
Lloyd Mason 4,498 starts $2.01 ROI
Tim Kreiser 3,134 starts $2.04 ROI
Steph Beattie 2,790 starts $2.02 ROI
Larry Jones 2,765 starts $2.02 ROI
Jimmy Jerkens 2,454 starts $2.01 ROI
Julio Cartagena 2,291 starts $2.02 ROI
Ramon Preciado 2,010 starts $2.07 ROI
Mike Maker 1,985 starts $2.00 ROI
Bruce Alexander 1,953 starts $2.04 ROI
Andrew Leggio Jr. 1,928 starts $2.06 ROI
John Shirreffs 1,641 starts $2.04 ROI

I think certainly Cartagena, Steph Beattie, Preciado, and Mullins are the four names on that list who get a lot of slander heaped at them.

To get a better idea of how much some of these trainers get overbet on name alone.

Steph Beattie ran 311 horses in her boyfriends name (David Wells) - the horses that raced in his unfamilar name yielded a $2.83 ROI. So, the horses win at just a 1% profit on the betting dollar when they race in Steph's name - but yield a 41.5% profit on every dollar bet when they race in a name the betting public isn't familar with.

Julio Cartagena - another Mid-Atlantic high percentage pure magic claiming trainer. Only a 1% profit when they race in his name. 486 times he raced under the less familar name Keisy Cartagena ... the ROI spiked to $2.49 from $2.02

proof that Steph Beattie doesn't cheat, it's her boyfriend that does

[slotdirt]

Not that I am suggesting anything, but is there a place out there where one can see a trainer's drug violations? Nobody is that clean, are they?

[pba1817]

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think a really high winning percentage is much more indicative of a trainer having an edge than a high ROI. We all know who some of the trainers with an edge are. Most of them have really high win percenatges, but not necessarily high ROIs.

No. The guys who I'm assuming you're thinking of may have really high win percentages, but not necessarily high ROIs right now ... but only because their reputation has been so strong that there horses get overbet.

Guys like Dutrow Jr., Mullins etc.

However, before those type of guys get the big win percentages, and develop big reputations with bettors, they all had dazzling ROI's. ALL of them.

The win percentage stat is more about trainers placing horses in the right spots. The ROI is a pretty good statistical indicatior of production versus expectations.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

From what I know of Shireffs, he is the last guy in the world that I would suspect of having an edge. He is one of the most honest trainers out there. Not only that, he has always used the most conservative veterinarians. The cheating trainers use the agressive and cheating vets, not the conservative vets.

I've been a big fan of his almost from day 1... and he sounds like a good guy. However...he's a guy that has an overall flat bet profit with EVERY single horse he's saddled since '96. He's a guy who's had a flat bet profit with every single horse he saddled in 8 different years since '96. He's a guy that won at a 40% clip with every horse he saddled in 1999.

He was the best trainer I've ever seen with having a debuter ready when he had 505's horses. Now he's really one of the best - if not the best - out there at getting good horses to peak on the right day.

Having an edge doesn't have to mean using illegal drugs, aggressive vets, and cheating. There might be guys who are doing those three things and not getting much production from them.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

No. The guys who I'm assuming you're thinking of may have really high win percentages, but not necessarily high ROIs right now ... but only because their reputation has been so strong that there horses get overbet.

Guys like Dutrow Jr., Mullins etc.

However, before those type of guys get the big win percentages, and develop big reputations with bettors, they all had dazzling ROI's. ALL of them.

The win percentage stat is more about trainers placing horses in the right spots. The ROI is a pretty good statistical indicatior of production versus expectations.





I've been a big fan of his almost from day 1... and he sounds like a good guy. However...he's a guy that has an overall flat bet profit with EVERY single horse he's saddled since '96. He's a guy who's had a flat bet profit with every single horse he saddled in 8 different years since '96. He's a guy that won at a 40% clip with every horse he saddled in 1999.

He was the best trainer I've ever seen with having a debuter ready when he had 505's horses. Now he's really one of the best - if not the best - out there at getting good horses to peak on the right day.

Having an edge doesn't have to mean using illegal drugs, aggressive vets, and cheating. There might be guys who are doing those three things and not getting much production from them.

I totally agree with you that a cheating trainer will obviously have an extremely high ROI to go along with his high win percentage initially. But as you said, once everybody catches on, they will bet his horses and he will no longer have a really high ROI. The high ROI will disappear after a few years (maybe 3-4 years at the most).

I agree with you that Shireffs is great at pointing a horse for a certain race and getting the horse to peak for that race. That type of trainer should have a higher ROI than average because when people are handicapping a race, they are looking at a horse's PPs and are not expecting a horse to improve. They are expecting the horse to possibly repeat the best race he has ever run. They are not expecting the horse to step up and run much better than he's ever run before. Trainers who are pointing for a certain race, may indeed get the horse to step up in that race and run better than they've ever run before. That would give that type of trainer a much higher ROI than your average trainer.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

We really are to a point though where trainers with poor stats never have a top horse. That's why I was such a rabid fan of Rachel Alexandra back when Hal Wiggins trained her. Look at his stats ... they are bad!! You damn sure know that guy is 100% clean.

Wiggins did have one very costly positive. Rapid Proof's connections lost $300,000 when he was disqualified from 1st in the 2005 Muniz when he tested positive for an anti-inflammatory steroid.