Keys: Course trainers, going, distance
This field had so many trainers with a solid record at the course. Five out of seven trainers had eight
or more wins here over the past five years. That is partly why I homed in on the trainer with by far the
best record (32 wins, 36%) but that was a mistake. In retrospect, if I had started by focusing on the
four distance winners in the race, only two out of the four trainers were in this top bracket.
That would immediately have given me a shortlist of two which included my selection and the winner
(whose trainer HD Daly was 17, 14%).
Other than that though, all I can point to is the fact that the winning trainer alone had two horses
entered (his other was a winner on the going but came nowhere). Notably neither of the two horse
in the shortlist were course winners and there were plenty here. This is a strike against normal
NC profile.
Horses from leading stables for the course with going and distance suitability. What if none have won at the distance?
Look for a course leading trainer contender whose best recent performance was at or near the distance.
I'm very disappointed in placing too much emphasis on the one horse in this race. The profile
above is sufficiently vague for inclusion of additional selections. I simply did not know where to place
the emphasis: Trainer, distance or going? Well, the result is clear in that information: Emphasis should
be on trainer and distance.