Beyer pens post script after sit-down with Wolfson

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by philcski

Great comparison.

I'm not sure that it is...

Maybe a better comparison is to Mike Krzyzewski or Bobby Knight. Both coached at Army early on and both had winning records there.

Mike Krzyzewski was about 55% at Army. Knight was 59%.

Krzyzewski moved on to Duke where he's more like 77%. Knight went to Indiana University where he won around 73%.

They won at Army where they attracted the attention of bigger programs -- with more money and recruiting power. Plus, it's probably safe to assume that, like anything else, the more time you put in the more you learn about the process.

Sure, we shouldn't be naive and not at least question some of the numbers the so-called "super-trainers" put up -- but by the same token, we should also question our suspicions and be fair about painting with a broad brush.

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable -- but certainly Wolfson didn't just appear on the scene a couple of years back to make an impression. He's been around and training at a high-level for quite some time. For instance, Chaposa Springs was a prolific stakes winner (including a couple of G1s) for Wolfson in the mid-90s.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.

drugs it might be very simple , isn't he geting better horses now?

i'm sure if you did a stat check on d wayne he would probably show great stats in the mid 90's and then a big fall off during the last 5 yrs - becuase the good horses got taken away from him

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i'm sure if you did a stat check on d wayne he would probably show great stats in the mid 90's and then a big fall off during the last 5 yrs - becuase the good horses got taken away from him

D. Wayne Lukas from '96 through '01 ....

810-for-4,661 (17% wins) $1.37 ROI


D. Wayne Lukas from '07 to present ...

104-for-914 (11% wins) $1.45 ROI


I would agree that the hit with the win percentage reflects a monumental dropoff in quality of stock.

I would also say that his 8 point rise in ROI reflects that he's not as overbet as he was because his reputation as a trainer isn't what it was at the time.

[gales0678]

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

LOL. Ok, takeout his one 49/1 winner from one sample ... but leave in his MANY wins with bombs like Spain (56/1) Cat Thief, Charismatic, etc. etc. etc. from the other sample. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

LOL. Ok, takeout his one 49/1 winner from one sample ... but leave in his MANY wins with bombs like Spain (56/1) Cat Thief, Charismatic, etc. etc. etc. from the other sample. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

How many 50/1 madiens did he put over from '96 to '01 - come on drugs that point being his madiens were always heavily bet , he won with bombs in big stakes races

but again explain the 35% drop off in acutal win % , was he a magician in the mid 90's or did he simply just have better stock back then??

where beyer's article about him to explain these big % movements

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

Redboard alert....it was Be Smart and I had her!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Redboard alert....it was Be Smart and I had her!

I need a valium.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It would be extremely irresponsible to
pretend that he doesn't.

"Doesn't" what?

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006.

That's the point: What changed? You seem to be implying that it's likely that what changed is something nefarious. Perhaps. But isn't it also possible that what changed in that 2005-2006 period was the impending introduction of slots to Florida -- which brought an influx of trainers and owners to the state to "cash-in"?

And if you're new to the Florida circuit and you're looking for a trainer -- wouldn't a 20% guy attract your attention.

So isn't it possible that Wolfson attracted new owners who perhaps had more money and better stock.

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before. And, particularly in the winter, isn't it possible that many bettors across the country would still ignore him when he's up against higher profile trainers and horses. So an It's a Bird wins at 11-1 -- which certainly skews the 2009 ROI...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy[B

]"Doesn't" what?[/b]



That's the point: What changed? You seem to be implying that it's likely that what changed is something nefarious. Perhaps. But isn't it also possible that what changed in that 2005-2006 period was the impending introduction of slots to Florida -- which brought an influx of trainers and owners to the state to "cash-in"?

And if you're new to the Florida circuit and you're looking for a trainer -- wouldn't a 20% guy attract your attention.

So isn't it possible that Wolfson attracted new owners who perhaps had more money and better stock.

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before. And, particularly in the winter, isn't it possible that many bettors across the country would still ignore him when he's up against higher profile trainers and horses. So an It's a Bird wins at 11-1 -- which certainly skews the 2009 ROI...

have an edge

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before.

Getting better stock certainly isn't something that is to going improve ROI stats.

These are the stats for Larry Jones from 1997 through 2005 ...

246-for-1,193 (20% wins) $2.32 ROI


Here are his stats the last 3+ years ('06-to-present) when the much better stock came to him ..

273-for-1,261 (21% wins) $1.86 ROI


The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 46 points from a GOD LIKE $2.32 down to a rock solid $1.86


Here are the stats for Kiaran McLaughlin from when he just was strating to go out on his own in 1996 through 2003.

176-for-891 (19% wins) $2.21 ROI

From 2004 until today McLaughlin's stats look like this...

496-for-2,459 (20% wins) $1.90 ROI

The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 31 points from a GOD LIKE $2.21 to a rock solid $1.90.

Better horses don't translate into higher ROI's ... but higher ROI's often do translate into evenually getting better horses because owners eventually take notice of the magic and respond to it by supplying said trainers with better stock. Just as bettors take note of the magic and bet there money on these trainers which drives there ROI downward.

And go ahead and just ignore all of the unlogical form reversals ... after all ... Bill Mott doesn't know how to shoe them. Todd Pletcher doesn't know when they're very sore.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Getting better stock certainly isn't something that is to going improve ROI stats.

These are the stats for Larry Jones from 1997 through 2005 ...

246-for-1,193 (20% wins) $2.32 ROI


Here are his stats the last 3+ years ('06-to-present) when the much better stock came to him ..

273-for-1,261 (21% wins) $1.86 ROI


The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 46 points from a GOD LIKE $2.32 down to a rock solid $1.86


Here are the stats for Kiaran McLaughlin from when he just was strating to go out on his own in 1996 through 2003.

176-for-891 (19% wins) $2.21 ROI

From 2004 until today McLaughlin's stats look like this...

496-for-2,459 (20% wins) $1.90 ROI

The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 31 points from a GOD LIKE $2.21 to a rock solid $1.90.

Better horses don't translate into higher ROI's ... but higher ROI's often do translate into evenually getting better horses because owners eventually take notice of the magic and respond to it by supplying said trainers with better stock. Just as bettors take note of the magic and bet there money on these trainers which drives there ROI downward.

And go ahead and just ignore all of the unlogical form reversals ... after all ... Bill Mott doesn't know how to shoe them. Todd Pletcher doesn't know when they're very sore.

Drugs- can you breakdown the numbers for Kiaran further ? can you get the ROI for west point horses that he trains only , my guess is that the ROI is extemely lower than his avg as they way overbet their 1sters and don't play them as much in the gimmicks (pic 3's and 4's)