They once asked Warren Buffett, the world's richest and most successful investor how he'd managed to turn each $10,000 investors had deposited with him in 1965 (in his Berkshire Hathaway Fund) into $55,000,000 today. His answer was charmingly simple "I look for undervalued companies with smart management". That's all!!!!
Now, when I'm looking at a horse and it's "connections", this is what I see: a company!!. The owners (whether individuals or partnerships or syndicates) are the capital. The strappers,stablehands,track riders etc are the employees. The vets and farriers and race-jockeys are the consultants and contractors and the horse is THE PRODUCT. This product will either make them wealthy or will "burn" the capital. Sometimes this company will have a large number of products (ie Crown Lodge), and sometimes it will be big enough to turn the contractors and consultants into employees (ie stable jockeys). Sometimes the profits from one product will cross-subsidize the others (until there is a cull!!) But,no matter the size or the diversity of the product range, Mr Buffett had no illusions about where the "extraordinary profits" lay; with SMART MANAGEMENT. So, fellow Forum Members, if you are not giving plenty of thought to the persons MAKING THE DECISIONS in your particular "company" (and especially WHY?) on race-day, then successful "investing" may be a long way off.
We ALL know who this person is; he or she decides THE LOT. Where will I place this "product", they are thinking. Where will we get the best "return" on our dough. Where and in what class and on what day and in what conditions? What will I do and who will I get (contract) to achieve the desired outcomes? AND, most importantly, the CEO of this outfit is thinking "How will I earn the biggest bonus for myself?". So, everyone; who is this person?
There are many amongst us who think the owners are the decision-makers and because thay hold the "purse-strings" that they are "important". There are others who look at the "employees and contractors" and try to win by following THEM. Yet we ALL know that the employees are "chosen" and not the one's doing the choosing (generally); that the owners are only there to pay the bills or to stump-up when a "capital injection" is needed (ie for that $50,000 trip to Australia from NZ)., and that THE TRAINER is running the show. They are the management and they are almost ALL THAT COUNTS. Ask Warren!!
What this means in practice is that we have no need for complicated formulas and ratios (ie systems and ratings). HIH the failed "insurance giant" was looking pretty good (according to all the "ratings") until it CRASHED. As was One Tel and a host of others throughout the decades (remember Quintex and Mr Skase?). The slightest glance at management would've saved a lot of tears if you cared to read between the lines.
So to racing. On Saturday, let's say, there is a Group 3, 1400 metres at Randwick. There are ten horses; four of which (horses A, B, C and D) are under 7 or 8 dollars. If you ask yourself "Why are they in the race?" then the answer will be obvious as the odds have already told you that they are probably thought to be "up to the class" or "suited by the distance" or "on the improve" etc etc and IN WITH A CHANCE. But, the others?
Some might be in it for fun. The trainer doesn't care about winning and has no plan. This seems unlikely as the MANAGER is in it for himself, don't forget, and is trying to make money from racing. Even if he's an owner/manager (ie no shareholders to answer to) he won't be there to LOSE money (his costs).
So horse E is at 12s and has come 100metres from his stable (at Randwick) for this race, and is a very well-performed 2000metre horse Well...two weeks later there is a G2 2100 metre race coming up. Hmmmm, it's a practice run. Horse F is at 16s and has won many times over 1400 but not lately, and he too is from Randwick (or nearby). Maybe he'll come good (maybe!!) but today the jockey is a 2nd-stringer (why couldn't the trainer talk one of the better jocks into riding it: did he try?): suggestive. Horse G is also at 16s and similar to F, but he's down from Newcastle, where there is a MUCH easier Open over 1400 today as well. He has never run in a Group race before. Hmmmm. WHY ISN"T THIS HORSE WINNING MONEY FOR THE TRAINER AT HOME? because there's plenty more to be had following an upset "in town"?? Because 4-1 for 3rd is still a lot better than a win at evens on "The Hunter" for all concerned?Horse H is at 20s, is First Up and has good form over the distance (and longer)and in even higher classes, but is pretty poor FU. Ok, the trainer has to start the campaign somewhere (suitable) and is unlikely to "push too hard" (if this was Makybe Diva in Melbourne last week you might have taken on board the whispers that she was being aimed MUCH SHORTER this time in). Horse I is at 25s and is trained by the same bloke as Horse B (2nd fav) . This horse has OK form at the distance but is greatly up in class AND has a leading jockey on board (if this sounds like Shania Dane winning two starts back in a G2,you've got a good memory). Wonder what the trainer said?? And finally Horse J at 50s. This has very average form over the distance and in the class and has been going around for the last three months. This looks like 'the last roll of the dice" especially as it too has come only 100 metres from it's stall for this one. It's costing the trainer hardly anything and maybe this nag can squeeze a 4th or even 5th (remember it's a group race) since a few others won't be trying too hard. And then the spelling paddock.
That's all. No form "study" necessary. We already know that 80% of winners come from among horses A to D so let's look at what "management" is up to, with the rest. Cheers.

Hi Punter 57, thanks for the great article..I like it.

there is another factor also..sometimes the owner, rather than the trainer, wants a horse to run at a certain meeting..not given a chance of winning but will be fun for the owner who plans on being at that particular meeting....

I lost count of the number of times that the longer priced stable runner cleaned up a big race in which the fave stablemate would fail...Trainers Bart Cummings and Colin Hayes are two campaigners who readily "spring" to mind...I always enjoyed listening to the after-race interviews to hear how the trainer would explain this "upset" result..LOL

Just as an exercise. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why Hawkes has got Portland Spirit in MR3 tomorrow (and why Gauci is on it) Or, why Ms Markwell has got Sea Search in SR9. Or what the plan is for the 2 Japanese horses MR6 #6 and MR7 #3 (this latter may be aiming at "the WFA championship of Australasia", but what of R6?). Anyone got an idea?