Tuesday, January 20, 2015

A key, an angle, and a failure. Avoiding the bad beat.

I have never been a pick 4 player. Mostly because I didn't think it was a wise play for my style of betting. But I like to maximize my profit, so I had been looking at it for a while to figure out the best way to go about it. I am not looking for the big score persay, although I wouldn't mind getting some of those as well. I am more looking to get more bang for my buck on my win bets and manage my bankroll better.
I think there is a time and place to take high value win bets and place them within an exotic like the Pick 3 or Pick 4. I would only play the Pick 5 if I had a very likely big longshot that would allow me to play a small upfront bet and almost certainly take down the entire pool with a 20c base bet. Thereby, maximizing my bet by 5 times in addition to the actual odds I get based on a $1 base bet.
But that is the exception. Mostly, I would play mainly Pick 3's, and some Pick 4's. But the circumstances must be right. I have been watching others play it,  and also practice betting them myself. These are my observations, and to some extent, suggestions.  
----------------------------------------------------------
One of the things that any serious horseplayer aims to avoid is the "bad beat." Basically that means picking the right horse, getting value, but then just barely getting beat, usually by another horse you thought could beat you. You have to make decisions in life and as a horseplayer, and you make your choice. 
But do you really have to make decisions like that?
I don't think you do. I will explore how to maximize your chances of avoiding the experience of the bad beat. I have been able to do that somewhat successfully lately, for the first time in the 30 years I have been playing the horses. 
It was actually always right there in front of me, but I just refused to employ a strategy to take advantage of it.
After doing a year of testing and formulating, more testing and then honing my system, I was very confident that I could take all that I do, which encompasses extreme data and statistical analysis, very intensive replay watching and years of experience as a savvy bettor, all added to hands on experience as a horse trainer and owner. I can find value and know how to get the most out of it. I can find weakness and exploit it. And do.
Or so I thought. But I would still experience the "bad beat" way too often. It bugged me, and I wanted to find a way to mitigate that.


The impetus for this came back in November 8th at Woodbine Harness. I had been watching CURATOR for quite some time. He had been knocking on the door after a long period of bad behavior and form. On this night, I made several bad bets and others that just got beat.  But my data told me that Curator's race was going to bring a longshot in the range of 10-1 or slightly above. Curator fit that range, as did Drain Daddy, who was around the same odds. At post time they were both 10-1, with Drain Daddy remaining there and Curator finishing at 11-1. I had to go with my top pick, Curator, because I liked him at any price on this night. But I was mindful that he was beatable enough. In reality, either would have been fine as a 2 horse key in an exotic, due to the value they provided. That is how I should have played it. 
The rest of the race was littered with spotty, mediocre horses at lower odds who figured on paper to have a shot but all knew how to get beat for various reasons. And the track that night was favoring the front end to a major degree. I had figured Curator to take this night to go to the front and try to bottom out the field, which is exactly what he did. Drain Daddy has always been a horse who liked the front or the pocket, and had the gate speed to get that trip. That is exactly how it played out. Curator was on a mission, and Drain Daddy tracked him. At the top of the stretch, it was clearly those two, with Curator looking like he might hold on. 
But he had gone too fast, and Drain Daddy just nailed him on the wire. My friend Garnet Barnsdale's first post right after the race to me was "bad beat."
And it was. I had a 10-1 shot, and unfortunately, I had two of them and picked the wrong one. So, it wasn't really a bad beat. It was a bad play. A bad bet. A bad strategy. I needed to correct that to turn things around. 
How could I have played it? Well, I view a pick 4 as basically 4 different races where you have multiple ways to create value, and adding them together to make a much bigger return, while allowing for some variance in the outcome.  In other words, I don't need to pick a Curator or Drain Daddy, I pick them both and only have to be right about the race and the possible winners. Picking one winner is mostly a fools game. 
Now, I think playing an exotic like a Pick 4, or Pick 3 in some cases, boils down to 3 things,  with some variance on the possibilities. But you MUST have these variables covered to be successful over time. You need a key, an angle and a failure. All of them. If you consistently can get that, then you will win steady and significant money, and your bankroll will be as safe as if you just churned race after race playing show bets. If you do this right, and play nightly, you should hit 40 to 50 percent of the time, and increase your bankroll in the process.
On this night, my key would have been Curator and Drain Daddy as a 2 horse key in Race 10, which was the 3rd leg of the pick 4. I was very confident in that selection, and I might have graded them in some way, weighting higher to Curator, but certainly only used those two. Race 8, the first leg, I had Nickle Bag rated highly on my data analysis, and he was 18-1, but I thought he was an iffy proposition, as you would expect an 18-1 shot to be in the FFA. It was a 7 horse field and I would have only excluded one outsider longshot, Alexie Matoosie, who finished a well beaten last and was just filler to make the race go. The rest were viable. My angle was that it was wide open and I needed to get that leg over with and might hit the longshot. I would have in fact. Nickle Bag did win at 18-1, after sitting back and out of a speed duel. The ticket would have been made right there. Instead, I played Apprentice Hanover for the win, and he got beat. It didn't feel good, and it shouldn't. Betting poorly and getting beat when you know you shouldn't doesn't feel good. The sting of it should slap you into some sort of action and reality. As it did for me later.



The next leg, leg 2, had 4 logical horses and they were hard to separate. I didn't bet the race, but the angle was simple. A grab bag. No failures, but possible price. The favorite, Windsun Revenge, ended up winning at close to even money. 
Leg 3, was Curator and Drain Daddy, and I mentioned that I would have used them as a 2 horse key. I would have made it to leg 4 with an 18-1 shot, an even money shot, a 10-1 shot and I would be sitting on the last race and able to cover anything I hadn't used earlier because the profit was locked in. In that race, Race 11, it looked wide open and I would have had to take an all, graded heavily to the top 6, and then weakly to the bottom 4, of which if any of them had come in I would have likely taken the whole pool with a 20 cent ticket for about $50,000. As it turned out, my top 4 picks finished top 4, but the favorite won. It still paid $4638 for a dollar base bet. 
I would have had to lay out approximately $250 to get that $1 ticket. And the point of it all, was that I didn't really get the fail I thought I might in the 9th or 11th race, and if I had, I probably would have gotten $10,000 or more. And secondly, although I had the races figured out somewhat accurately,  I didn't pick one outright winner or key him that way. Which is what I tried to by winning betting Curator and Apprentice Hanover, who finished a very close 3rd, another bad beat, while Curator got nosed out and finished 2nd. I had done some great handicapping and went home empty and a big loser on the night. 
One of the things I discovered through my testing is that I could do much better if I always played 3 or 4 horses as opposed to just one. Anybody could probably make that claim. Having 4 choices is a lot better than 1. But of course, if you bet 4 horses, you need to be right a lot more often, and the return on the win bet must average many times higher than most can with just 1 choice. 
How to mitigate that?
Well, my solution was to develop a system to take advantage of the many bits of knowledge I have. Not just the winner of a race, but a race where I can narrow it down to 2 or 3, and add that to some others where I can't pick the winner, but I am fairly accurate at predicting the demise of the favorite, and in some instances the 2nd favorite. In other words, finding the false favorite. But that doesn't give me the winner in that race.
Here is what it does do. It gives me a decent priced winner in one race, and a big winner in another, although I don't know who that is. Separately, they don't add up to value. But put those together, and add a 3rd race where I have a decent angle, but not a cinch prediction, and I have 3 races of a pick 4 right for a very decent return, and then I just have to make sure I get the 4th leg by using as few combinations as possible without being taken out. 
I do that by grading a race like that, so that I basically have them all and can't get beat in that leg. The more I like a horse in that leg, the higher I weight them and vice versa. I wont get beat in that leg.
It all hinges on the other 3 legs. Now, I wont be right every time. Nor do I have to be. As long as I am right a good amount of the time, and I hit one huge pick 4 and several medium to large payoffs the rest of the time, the few times I am wrong will not matter. The overall return will be very high. Why is that?
Well, here is the first rule I go by.
If I am playing the pick 4, I never key a chalk horse. Never. I have done it before, and for the most part, I wont get a high enough return when they come in. So, while I realize I will get beat a few times by not keying a chalk I think might beat me, it makes poor financial sense to do so. I will take the hit when that happens. If I really can't see the chalk going down, I just don't play. If I think they could go down, I will weight that horse low, and play others I think have a legit, yet risky chance of beating them. If I truly believe the horse can't be beat, I avoid the race, and if it falls in my pick 4 sequence, I wont play it. 
My theory is that the money I am using to play the chalk is another horse I could have bet, and while that means I will get beat sometimes doing that, the time when I am right will make up the difference and then some. Why is that?
Because the majority of people who bet pick 4's key a chalk in a race. They find it easy and it allows them to focus on the other legs. The problem being, they either get that chalk, along with everyone else, and it pays little overall, or they get taken out with the majority when he fails. There is virtually no value in keying a heavy chalk. You will lose over time  doing that. That has been my experience and observation, which I have tested backwards and forwards.
Many people play the Pick 4, or at some tracks, the pick 5, or pick 6.
And the pick 3 is popular. At many tracks,  it is a rolling pick 3, so you can play it almost every race. 
Why do they play those hard-to-cash wagering types of bets?
Mostly, I think they are looking for the big score. It's a lottery type of mentality.
In reality, you will likely lose more over time than win, even if you hit the one big score. And you could go weeks, even months, before you hit one. And there is always the chance that you hit it, and it doesn't pay near as big as you expected.
It can play serious mind games with your confidence and break you. I know a few guys who have really been hurt by it.
I'm not a lottery player. I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life. I am not looking for the big score. I am looking for maximum return overall. I don't play table games in a casino, or slot machines. I play games where my skill matters and I think the public at large make bad bets. Because the reality of making money at the horses is that I have to take your money, not the houses money. I have to figure out where you make a mistake, and put that money in my pocket. Betting and keying the false favorite in a pick 4 is the number way I have found that people do that.
So, I approach the 4 races of the pick 4 with these questions.  I don't know what I will find, or what the answer will be until I look them over. Then I put them together and make a plan to make profit. 

1)In any race, what is your key, and what is your angle?
2)Who can and will likely fail in this race?
3)what does my data tell me that the betting public wont begin to consider?
4)If I'm right, what will it pay so I can gauge what a reasonable amount of money to lay out?

The most important thing is that you have a very solid key. You must have that, and you must be right. You might get the fail elsewhere, you might not. Some nights that will come through, some nights it wont. On November 8th, it didn't. But I had the key right, and my angle in the 8th race was right. That brought enough value to make it pay off. If Windsun Revenge fails in the 9th, or the winner of the 11th, I get more. But I don't need more. It will happen, and it will make up for the times you go home empty. But the basic is getting the key and the angle right, and not loading onto a chalk as a single key. That rarely provides the value you need to win over time.  

If you don't play it this way, in my view, you are loading the gun that you shoot yourself in the head with.

Here are some other key points.

Using the favorite in more than 2 legs of the win 4 is suicide.
Here's why.
Ideally, you should only play when you like 1 favorite, and single him. if you must, play a smaller backup ticket with 2 or 3 of them.
If you need all 4,don't play the ticket. you haven't figured anything out.
If you do your homework, you will know that the favorite rarely wins more than 2 legs, mostly wins 1 and enough times wins none. Playing all 4 or even 3 means you don't have confidence you can figure out which. If that is the case, don't play it.

You need some sort of data advantage.  
That could be numbers, it could be race analysis. It could be whatever it is that you use. But it better be better than what others have, and something they don't have access to. Because if they can figure it out too, then your advantage is negated and the 25% the house will take on this wager will negate the profit you can make. I know I have this, and I have proven it to myself and others.


I view the data as a foundation. 
Before you start, you have to have this foundation to build any ticket.
You cant have more than 2 faves in your pick 4, and you have to figure out which 2 are in, which 2 are out, and possibly if you need less than 2, which is likely. if you need 2 or more, then you have to figure out what it would likely pay, and then see how many combos you need to cash out and whether it is viable to play the ticket in the first place.
The data guides you here. Favorites are favorites for a reason. That reason is that on paper, on the program, they figure. But we all know that favorites only win about 35%, and at most tracks, that is even less in a pick 4. They stack those with races that suggest the favorite is pretty beatable. You need an edge that isn't on the program to figure out which ones those are. So you can load up against them with other horses who can. You don't know which one most times, but if you don't need the favorite, that is one more you can choose to beat him.
What I see with almost every handicapper, even the best ones, is that they included the favorite in every leg, because, as they put it, "you have to use him" and then they go on to give you reasons why he can get beat. And they are usually right about that. That is working against yourself in my view. I have seen that movie so many times, that I routinely now discard the favorites and then work my way back. I pick the ones that I must use, and otherwise, I roll the dice on the others. That means I do get beat at times, but when I'm right, I more than make up for it. It's just simple math if you work the numbers. 

One key thing is to try and always get to the last leg, so you can cover whatever you need to to lock in the profit. A lot of guys wont play it that way, and that is their choice. It's a gamblers mentality. I am not a gambler. I am an investor and if I have $4800 locked in and I have the favorite, I will spend $500 and play all the longshots that can beat me. It is just wise investing to make sure I still win. When I don't, I regret it. It is just another situation where I can avoid the bad beat. Do I give up some profit that way? Some claim I do. I don't think I do. But even if I did, I will gladly do it. I still make a lot, and my bankroll and psyche is protected.
And one last thing.
I play out the entire sequence in my head. what I need to do, how I will cover, what I expect, where I am worried. is it worth
it? It prepares me to make better decisions in the heat of battle.
In the last month, I have employed all of these strategies, and have hit some very nice pick 3's and pick 4's. I am more than willing to discuss actual examples with anyone who cares to see how it played out for real. And I also missed a few, and in almost every case, I didn't stick to the principles I lay out here. Which only further cements that this is the way to go for me. You might want to consider doing the same.
I know it works.

 

Thursday, January 15, 2015

The best fucking rush.....ever!

I am very confident I will win many more great bets over time. Because I know how to do that and I can do it well.
But even if I don't ever win another decent bet, this night will burn in my memory as the culmination of 30 plus years of learning how to play the horses right. 

About 18 months ago I was at the races and my good friend Garnet Barnsdale was there. I hit a decent exactor in the first race. Do you remember that Garnet? You probably don't. I only do because we had discussed the horses earlier that day, and I picked Speed Again  in the FFA and he won, giving me a great exactor in the 1st race. I picked a few others correctly that night, but didn't bet really, because I had a life changing moment. 

That was lightbulb moment number 1. 

Why could I pick a race like that, so right, yet not be making the money I should have been making all along?
Then a month later, I was out for dinner with my 3 high school friends, all of which I had and have known since 1979 when we met in Grade 9.  My best friend Mark noted that I always had a theory about how data could give you an edge and winners. I had dabbled in it for many years, but never really put enough time and effort into it to refine it to the point that it was a really viable system, when added to what I already could do.


That was light bulb moment number 2. 

So, for the next 18 months, I worked my butt off refining my system and re-teaching myself how to bet properly. I had many ups and downs, mostly playing with pretend money so I could learn and not worry about losing real money. Cause that shit can play with your mind as many of us know.
I got it to the point a few months ago where it was consistent system and I was making real money. You have to do it with real money, even if it is small, or it is never real enough. I played very small though. Smaller than even a small time bettor like me normally would. It isn't and wasn't about the money.
But I knew I wasn't there yet. Tonight,  I arrived. It's not about the money. I have money. I don't really need it. I want validation, and now I have it. I got it right because I did it right and I figured it out.
I could easily just stop and walk away now. Die happy. I wanted to achieve a goal, and I have. I wont, because I still enjoy it. I like figuring things out. It's what I've always done.
But if and when the time comes that I just want to stop, and go back to heading out to the races once a week on a Friday or Saturday night, or a fun Sunday afternoon at Woodbine with the sun shining on my back and the smell of the horses in the walking ring, then I can do that. In my mind, I beat the game tonight.
No, that isn't correct. I didn't beat the game. Nobody beats the game. I solved the part I always wanted to solve about it. To me, that is beating the game.

It's the best fucking rush I've ever had. Being right and proving myself is worth more amount of money than exists in the world. I did that tonight.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Woodbine Harness Notes: January 3-8

Previous weeks list. 

Possible plays: 

BADLANDS LOVE, 2nd
 THE REV, scratch sick
 GRIN FOR MONEY, won
AMERICAN GI, lost
URBANA BAYAMA, won
 ULTIMATE RED, broke, lost
 CANT STOP, 2nd by a nose
MISS POPPYCOCK , lost, no good
BADLYINCLINED, 4th, flat

 CANADIAN EDITION,  won easy
 BLUE CHIP SUNSHINE
 TELLEMHOWYOULIKEIT,  won easy
 WINDSONG JACOBA, won easy, then 8th, bad trip
 
Likely play against:

 DINNER AT THE MET,  scratched
  IDEAL JET
VIP BAYAMA, 8TH, well back 
SURPRISE HANOVER
 SOUTHWIND TERROR
STUARTS DYNASTY, finished 2nd as chalk
VAL DI NOTO, stopped badly
MAPPOS MOENHAY, won but wasn't a play against that night 
  NIPPY W HANOVER, scratched sick
BRIGHT FUTURE, no good OTB

 
Horses to watch for improvement and value:
 
ER ZACH ATTACK, raced okay, didn't like track. over his head
TIGHTEN UP
DOUBLE JOY, won easy
RANSOM DEMAND
 MISTRESSTOTHESTARS, 2nd by a nose, still steppy
 FLIGHT LIFTED, scratched judges 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New list, with carryovers.

Possible plays: 

SOMEWHERE FAMEOUS
WEATHER HANOVER
MORNING BLUE CHIP
OZZY OZZY
HES A SENSATION
ALWAYS THERE 
 AUTOMATIC SLIMS 
NIRVANA SEELSTER
JAC SPADE 
ALEXAS JACKPOT  
MUSSELSFROMBRUSSELS 
GEAR BOX 
GD AIRLINER
 CANT STOP
BLUE CHIP SUNSHINE
      
Likely play against:

MAPPOS MOENHAY
 KEYSTONE DALTON
BLACK VINNY
LOST IN PANSLATION
ROCKNROLL BAND
HIT AND GIGGLE
STRONG HOPE 
SAVANNAH SPLENDOR
REAL ROCKER
  DINNER AT THE MET
   IDEAL JET
     SURPRISE HANOVER
 SOUTHWIND TERROR
 NIPPY W HANOVER
  
Horses to watch for improvement and value:
 
ALL THE LADIES
TERROROFTHENITE HOUSE OF CASH
SEA DONKEY
ER ZACH ATTACK
TIGHTEN UP
RANSOM DEMAND
 FLIGHT LIFTED

January 8

SOMEWHERE FAMEOUS bad luck and bad drive. Left hard from the 9 hole to get away 3rd, then didn't pull when he could have cleared a 99-1 shot and got a shuffle, then tried to go up the rail with tons of pace and got shut off and interfered badly by Hudon who got taken down. Better post and more assertive drive next time and she goes down the road and will only take a 2 hole. She is ready to win.


ALL THE LADIES 
is a tiny filly, but she is speedy, handy and willing. Looks to be improving and could be very dangerous in the next leg and final.

MAPPOS MOENHAY bearing in really bad in the last turn and there is trouble ahead. False fave next time. 
 
WEATHER HANOVER another solid effort. He is coming along and certainly fits well at this level.

KEYSTONE DALTON
not a WEG horse. Has no finish at the end and was chased out of there to get in contention.


January 5

BLACK VINNY looks like he will make a decent B track horse but he will continue to burn money at WEG. He simply doesn't have enough go.

MORNING BLUE CHIP got caught in a terrible blindswitch and simply gave up in the lane. I would give him another chance if the price was right.
TERROROFTHENITE steers like a snake, but he has go when he goes. A better post and hopefully some adjustment and he will score in the next 3 or 4 starts.

LOST IN PANSLATION
doesn't look right and was a very poor claim. Stewart is tricky and I expect this horse to continue to burn chalk money, although on the right night once this winter he might step up.

ROCKNROLL BAND
didn't look right the whole way, Fillion gave him a perfect trip and he was flat. Claiming off Cirasoula is iffy at any time anyway, and this horse wasn't even that good for him. Hard to like him going forward all winter.

HOUSE OF CASH
didn't look like he was travelling right and P Mac never drove him. He was keeping him together. He must be watched to see which way he goes. As of now, he is a no play, but he could come back around like a lot of the CASH HALL's do.

OZZY OZZY
looked to break a trotting hopple and also was rammy in the Post Parade because of all the delays. I will give him a pass for that and hope the odds are higher next time. Still a solid play based on what he has done the last month.

HES A SENSATION
got away dead last, had a world of traffic trouble back him right out of it off a soft half and then could not recover. Big play next time, hopefully a better post and more aggressive steer. Not J Mac's finest hour there, but it wasn't all his fault. He was bearing in a bit in the turns and coming out of the last turn. Hopefully Fletcher takes care of that and gets him even better.

HIT AND GIGGLE
looked awful leaving, lame and whacking a knee. He was off for a long time for a reason, and raced like it. Total pass going forward no matter where he races, and if he takes chalk money at a B track, he is a very solid play against.

STRONG HOPE
scrambly gaited and lame badly in the turns. Solid play against next time if he draws inside and takes huge money again.

ALWAYS THERE
raced huge. Got away last, had suspect and excessive cover but closed best of all to just miss the ticket. Under the right circumstances, with the ability he has shown before, he can be a solid play if the price is there.
AUTOMATIC SLIMS left well enough, sat and didn't pull as you would expect him to sit, then got shuffled back behind two that were going to stop, angled out in the lane and started to come but had one beside him who wasn't stopping or going forward and a wall in front of him all going the same speed. He can be very dangerous next time with maybe a better driver and smoother trip.

SAVANNAH SPLENDOR
closed okay into a very slowing tempo off so so cover, but also gapped the gate bad and wasn't keeping his cover down the backside even though they weren't going much and didn't look that sound overall on the whole. Play against at short odds next time.
REAL ROCKER superb steer by Fillion wasted by horse who is very steppy lame on the turns and flat to the wire. Hard to like next time if he draws inside with this bunch. Good play against.   

January 3

NIRVANA SEELSTER seemed very live leaving and was in contention, but didn't appear to be grabbing the track when asked to go on at the end. He might be better on a drier track next time. And possibly coming from out of it, which is his better trip most nights.
JAC SPADE definitely had trouble with the track from the get go. He has that big flowing gate and that wouldn't play at all on that deep and slick track. Toss this race and count on Campbell to have him ready for a bounce back effort next time.
SEA DONKEY also had serious issues with grabbing the track and had trouble passing JAC SPADE even though he was crawling and being held on to.
ALEXAS JACKPOT clearly did not grab the track and put in some nasty skip steps in the last turn when he finally had room to get out and go. He didn't get the best trip anyway, and he can rebound as he is long overdue to handle the types he has been facing.
MUSSELSFROMBRUSSELS appears to be coming into good form and only got picked off by a classy horse who had the trip and is razor sharp. Top form right now and his soundness issues have improved. Got the worse of it this time when he had to move 3 high very early to only end up first up into some fast fractions and paced right to the wire.
GEAR BOX just loved the track and looked the best of any horse all night over it. I'm not sure if it was just the track, or the horse is that much improved. But you certainly can't knock his last two and he might be one of those horses that is improving leaps and bounds for whatever reason. He must be studied to figure him out to play any race he is in going forward. He is a major wildcard for now.
GD AIRLINER monster mile. Parked out all the way to the half. made the top and came under immediate attack by In Commando, beat him off and paced hard right to the wire only to get picked off by a very sharp back class horse who got a solid trip. Big play next time,  even at short odds.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Woodbine Harness Notes: December 22-27

 Possible plays: 

BADLANDS LOVE
 THE REV
 GRIN FOR MONEY
AMERICAN GI 
URBANA BAYAMA 
 ULTIMATE RED
 CANT STOP
MISS POPPYCOCK
BADLYINCLINED

 CANADIAN EDITION
 BLUE CHIP SUNSHINE
 TELLEMHOWYOULIKEIT
 WINDSONG JACOBA
Likely play against:

 DINNER AT THE MET
  IDEAL JET
VIP BAYAMA
SURPRISE HANOVER
 SOUTHWIND TERROR
STUARTS DYNASTY
VAL DI NOTO
MAPPOS MOENHAY  
  NIPPY W HANOVER
BRIGHT FUTURE 

 
Horses to watch for improvement and value:
 
ER ZACH ATTACK
TIGHTEN UP
DOUBLE JOY
RANSOM DEMAND
 MISTRESSTOTHESTARS
 FLIGHT LIFTED

December 27 

BADLANDS LOVE, horrible traffic trouble but closed strong at the end. Improving mare who reminds me a bit of DG's Pesquero this time last year. Might just get better as she goes along, one class rise at a time. If the post is right next time, she is likely a huge go.

ER ZACH ATTACK looks like a horse that wants to cut his own mile and doesn't like to be rated but needs to until he improves a bit. Watch for a situation where he can do that. The speed is there and likely will improve as he matures. He has a big fast gait.

DINNER AT THE MET is horribly steppy most of the way and sucker money on a drop in class.

THE REV. nice mile off the shelf. Weaved between and was closing best of all. Maybe he is finally becoming the horse he appears to be. Solid play next time if he doesn't take too much money.

GRIN FOR MONEY. super sharp mile to finish up from where he was at the half. He has come back really good from the layoff and can be expected to move up the ladder as he gains even more sharpness.

AMERICAN GI will get the right trip at some point and score when you least expect him to. He seems to be able to go any kind of trip, but needs things to go his way to get to the winners circle. Perhaps a bit of a drop where he can get the front and some kind of breather.

 IDEAL JET. Jody took him back deliberately, even though he is a noted speedball and poor finisher and he was fighting with JJ, but it got him in a world of trouble later when he had horrible flow and cover. He finished very well considering, but you can be certain he will be gunning next time, and likely gets picked off again. He is very one dimensional, to his detriment.

VIP BAYAMA will not try if he isn't put up close to or on the pace, and I would expect that he is sent next time and gets beat. He is not much stock but wins off the right type of trip.

SURPRISE HANOVER..very steppy behind the gate, actually ran and was snatched up nicely by Saftic, then gapped the whole way and had little to nothing to offer in the lane. Seems the long season is catching up with him now. A good play against on any kind of drop in class or trip to the B's.

TIGHTEN UP..perfect 2nd over trip, and didn't have to do any work to get it nor tip early as his cover was good, yet had zero pace behind several well known poor or bad finishers. Likely needs to find a cheaper claimer to be more racey.

URBANA BAYAMA also had limited ability and should be finding a claimer soon. I would say the 15k non winners might suit him well, but he will be no bearcat in there either.

 December 26

STUARTS DYNASTY got progressively sharper and faster for Ben B but has started to decline. One OTB finish and a break at the wire followed by a win but a suspect effort, almost running and looking to interfere badly on the turn, although Mario B kept him going. The post parade would be key next time,  but if he looks off and takes the likely big chalk  money, he is a good play against. Or, if he looks fixed up,  he might be a play if the price is right.

ULTIMATE RED didn't get the cheap fractions this time, had to work for the front and showed where she fits on the class ladder when that is the case. She can rebound for a price if she gets the type of trip she needs. Watch for it.But the price would have to be inflated and the likelihood of the easy trip fairly solid.

DOUBLE JOY continues to get better and better as she races. She is one to watch for the winter as she could easily reel off several wins, and eventually take down a mare like Witch Dali or Mach Some Noise when they tail off.

VAL DI NOTO is still bearing in bad and when she dives into a cheap claimer is a solid play against. 

CANT STOP got a somewhat suspect drive and then very bad cover which got her angry and bearing in bad mid lane. I would expect an equipment adjustment for next time, likely leaving hard if she draws okay and a much better result. She for sure would have been 2nd if she had live cover or was placed closer to the pace.

MAPPOS MOENHAY  finished okay, but was terrible leaving, ran for several steps and then was just driven with the pack to split horses and take 2nd. Solid play against next time. A Maritime horse like that is likely to get worse, not better as she has to perform to a much higher standard at this track on a weekly basis than she is used to.

NIPPY W HANOVER put in some ugly steps near the backfield before she got rolling and finished well. I suspect she draws better next time and takes major money, which she likely burns.

MISS POPPYCOCK has had lots of chances and good steers and simply cant compete at WEG at the condition level. She either needs to find a cheap claimer or go to the B tracks where her very good gait speed can pay off and not get picked off down the lane when they all finish poorly like she does.

BADLYINCLINED  got a very slick steer from JJ, stayed in and waited while Nine Lives Hanover gapped cover to allow her out and she finished well, while no match for the winner. She can certainly be a major factor next time, and much more so if she could get a pocket trip and sit even longer. 

BRIGHT FUTURE  I don't know where he really fits on the class ladder, but I know it isn't WEG. I am not sure he isn't sucker money even at a place look Flamboro. I would play against him there if he goes that route. He just hangs and wont try, no matter what trip he gets.

CANADIAN EDITION. Hard to get a read on him off that mile. Certainly, for a 6-5 shot with dead cover and a very soft bunch, JJ wasn't in any hurry to pull the trigger 3 deep,  and when he finally did, the horse stopped pretty badly. Possibly he could turn it around at a big price next time. Would need at least 8-1 to consider him.

RANSOM DEMAND. Keeps getting better, just like his older brother did. He is going to put it together at some point, but doesn't have the killer instinct that suggests huge chalk against the types he now faces. Put in some fumbly steps getting into gear in the stretch. Maybe they can sort that out and he can get rolling earlier next time against slightly softer.

MISTRESSTOTHESTARS looks to be interfering badly, likely crossfiring. Watch for signs of a change. Shoeing or rigging and that she can pace better. Looks like the speed is there and a big price could be had if she is sorted out and hits before she tips better form. She was very fumbly in the first turn long before she make the charted break. The issue is not minor, but probably correctable.

SOUTHWIND TERROR. Was kept back off the gate on purpose,  which seems like something he needs considering his history of gate breaks.  That left him exposed for a long trip and it got him late. He is the type that is going to get beat because of himself, and there is little A Mac can do about that.


 December 22











BLUE CHIP SUNSHINE Solid mile start to finish, and unlucky to be behind a bad stopper that killed any chance of making the ticket. Back in that class with a better post, he can score at a decent price.

TELLEMHOWYOULIKEIT. went a monster trip. Had to back off because the 9 horse was running and going sideways to the gate. Spotted the field about 8 lengths doing that. Trotted strong the rest of the way, up the rail with tons to the wire to only get beat a length. Without that interference he wins it easy. He has a big speed pedigree, and also an erratic based one. He must be watched. But could be big value next time or the time after that. Hitching and hiking in the turns though, and looks like he hits his knee hard,  so the price would have to be there.  Likely not next start.

FLIGHT LIFTED. Nice overall mile. Trapped in a shade, but wasn't crying to get out either. Made nice steady gains right to the wire. Might be the type that improves in a start or two and scores at big odds against a false fave chalk. A bit green though for a 3yo turning 4.

WINDSONG JACOBA. Big time improvement and just unlucky in the way the race and trip played out. Big time play next time if there is any kind of fair value price.






Sunday, December 14, 2014

The case AGAINST BURKE for trainer of the year.

I completely respect Perry Lefko and have enjoyed his writing on horse racing for many years. He is a fine writer and knows something about racing.
In the recent addition of the Harness Racing Update, Perry Lefko and Garnet Barnsdale did a point/counterpoint argument to state the case for either Ron Burke or Jimmy Takter to be named the Trainer of the Year. Lefko heralded Burke, while Barnsdale touted Takter. I think it is a third person, but mostly, I take issue with Lefko's points on Burke, and don't agree entirely but partially with Barnsdale's reasons for picking Takter. 
In this blog, I am going to challenge and, in my view, refute Lefko's arguments that support Ron Burke for trainer of the year.
We all have opinions. His are his, and mine are mine.
Nobody will agree with both of us, and I suspect most will agree with him and not with me. It's just how I see it, and what I know from my many years on the inside of racing, and what I still see when I go to the track. Nobody is right or wrong here. These are opinions based on determinations of what we see and what we think we know.
On to the blog.  

Year end awards, and really any type of awards, are mostly popularity contests. I think we all get that. At best, they are highly subjective, and at worst, they are voted on by those who aren't objective, or aren't really capable of being objectively critical. That is mostly because they are critics first, and not former participants who understand what it takes to be the best at the field they are judging.
And that's okay, as long as you understand that. 
Their choices come from a specific place.
When that choice contains Niatross, or Somebeachsomewhere, or even Muscle Hill, it is a no-brainer. But when you are talking trainers, performance and varying degrees of that, it's a tough call. We all have opinions and all come from different places to arrive at that decision. 
So, as someone who did train horses for a few years, and was very hands on at all levels of doing so, I have some understanding of the different levels that compose "trainers" these days.
I will lay those out briefly here.
First, you have the pure horse trainer. This type takes the horse, whatever ability and soundness level he has, and hones that to the best the horse can be over the amount of time he can maintain that. Some horses can do it long term, like say a Foiled Again, some can do it in spurts, like say a Sweet Lou, while others have incredible ability but have soundness and other issues that mean the trainer makes a huge difference in terms of how the horse turns out. Trixton definitely falls into that category, if you know anything about the horse. Others are horses that have a high level of ability, but need something extra the trainer can get out of them. McWicked falls into that category.

Second, you have the conditioner. Most trainers these days are conditioners. They take a somewhat ready made horse, and they get him to be the best he can be in terms of "now" performance. And clearly there is nothing wrong with that, nor  is that the easiest job either. The best trainers do better at this than the guys who are just a cut below them, and the ones who are a much lower level than even those. Most trainers are judged on their ability to condition horses and make the ticket. Burke, Takter and many others are all good at this. If you weren't, you wouldn't stay at the top. It is a minimum basic skill any successful trainer must have.I would say Casie Coleman is the best at it for the last 10 years, year in, year out, with just about any kind of horse. When she had claimers, she could take a 30 claimer and consistently improve them and even at times make them high end FFA horses. That takes talent to do it more than once or twice.

Third, you have the managers and businessmen. These types might have a certain amount of skill from the first two categories, but mostly, their best talent as trainers is finding the good horses, buying them, racing them where they can make money, selling them and getting more stock. They also usually carry very large stables so they have both the clout to do what they do best, and the means to always keep getting more. They are mostly volume trainers. They also can just rotate the good ones in and the bad ones to the farm for the proper rest. It is the best of both worlds if you have this option. Many trainers don't. They must keep working with tired, sore, lame or older horses and try to squeeze performance where it mostly isn't there. That is the reality of the business for the everyday horse trainer who isn't at the extreme top of the food chain. Ron Burke has perfected this system, one that Casie Coleman did before him. She made the blueprint and he improved it to an even higher level.

Nobody does it better than Ron Burke and Todd Pletcher in the T-Breds. They have honed it to an art form, with Ron Burke doing what nobody else has ever done, or thought could be done. Casie Coleman tried it for a while but it eats you alive over time, as she found out when she altered her personal and business model. Ron Burke gets off on it, lives for it, and certainly has become a successful and rich man by employing it. I take nothing away from him at all for that. I doubt he will continue to do so. At some point, it will wear you out.

If we were voting for Businessman or Manager of the year, then Ron Burke is the virtual slam dunk there. Nobody has ever done it better, and he seems to do it better every year, and top himself. The industry obviously has issues with that, and they are trying to reign him in, as Gural and others have put rules in place to shut that sort of thing down. Burke didn't like it, but he realizes he has no choice and will capitulate. I doubt you will see him continue to put up insane numbers like he did the last two years. But that has nothing to do with being a trainer. That is the business side of it. 

Highlighted in red are Perry's quotes from the Harness Racing Update piece, with his main arguments in support of Burke.


Perry has based his choice for Trainer of the year on the premise that, in his own words,

"Burke has proven his horsemanship"

I'm not sure what qualifies Perry Lefko to determine that. But lets say he is qualified to do so.
What was his argument?

"Never was his more dominance in this division more evident than in the Oct.31 Hoosier Park Pacing derby when Bettor's Edge led a quarter of Burke-trainees across the wire, sweeping the top four positions in the race."

You don't even have to know anything about horses, sports or betting to know that if you corner the market and have all the chips in the poker game, you will win. You don't even have to be a good trainer at all to do that. That has nothing to do with training. It has to do with monopolies, and its why it is frowned upon in our societies when big telecoms or banks try to merge and squeeze everyone else out of the competition. If anything, it lessens the strength of the argument in favor of Burke. I would be much more impressed if he took one horse like McWicked, had no others in a division, and make him the top horse. That is an achievement. An achievement Casie Coleman pulled off this year, and to some extent, did with Vegas Vacation the year before.

"Burke did a fantastic job with Sweet Lou, who will likely be in contention for Horse of the Year Honors. This was a horse that had been a monster as a two-year-old, winning 10 of 12 starts, but the consistency of his production had fallen off as a three-year-old and four-year-old."

It is here that I had my biggest problem with Perry's argument.
He is giving Burke credit for turning Sweet Lou around, when in fact, he is the one who messed him up in the first place. He even admitted that. 

"It might run counter to trainer Ron Burke’s intuition, but less appears to be more with Sweet Lou.
Burke changed Sweet Lou’s between-race routine and the five-year-old male pacer has responded with a four-race win streak heading into Saturday’s (June 28) $500,000 Ben Franklin Pace at Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs.
It is Sweet Lou’s longest streak since putting together six consecutive victories bridging his two- and three-year-old seasons. Sweet Lou was the 2011 Dan Patch Award winner as the best two-year-old male pacer in the U.S. and earned more than $1 million at age three, but endured a stretch of just four wins in 31 starts prior to his recent surge.
“We’ve backed off on him and he’s become more like a Thoroughbred,” Burke said. “I can’t ask him to race four weeks in a row; I can’t ask him to train in between when he’s racing. I just give him weeks now where he basically jogs and hangs out in the field."

 http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/6-25-14/less-more-sweet-lou.html

Now, good on Burke for realizing, as a trainer, he didn't do a good job with Sweet Lou. As trainers, we all make mistakes and we try to get better. But, it took Burke a long time to figure that out. He actually gutted him as a 3yo when he should have been shut down, and only because the horse was so talented and great did he even grind out a good living after his elim for the NA Cup, when he clearly came out of that with major issues. It showed all the way from then on into the Little Brown Jug, when he got a good enough trip to hang around for 2nd. But he was never good from the NA Cup elim on to his 5 year old year.
I propose that if Burke was a better trainer, and horseman, say like a Jimmy Takter, he would have done better with Sweet Lou. More on that later when I make my case for Takter.

"And then you think about Foiled Again, last year's top horse at the age of nine. He chugged it out 26
times this year, winning six times and finishing in the top three 19 times.


What did Foiled Again win this year?
Well, he actually won 4 legs in the spring for the Levy at Yonkers, when the competition was thin and there was a serious fear factor in challenging Foiled Again until the final, when he got beat by a horse that didn't beat anyone significant the rest of the year, and he won the Quillen at Harrington in September when nobody at the top end of the division showed up, other than Team Burke and his road blocking crew who finished top 4 out of 8. Other than that, he didn't beat the top ones and he hardly won anything. He had an okay year. A good year. He is 10, and he is a great horse. But Burke didn't do much to get any more out of him than he probably had. That isn't a knock on Burke or a pat on the back. It just means, as a trainer, he didn't make a difference. 

Foiled Again is a warrior. Ron Burke didn't make him that. He was born that way. Send him out enough times, and he will grind out money. As he has his whole life. I don't think Burke could take much credit for Foiled Again. He is one of those few, like a Rambling Willie or Cam Fella that simply makes a trainer look good.  No matter what you do. Trainers who have trained understand that. 
The best thing, again, that Burke has done with Foiled Again, was find him, buy him and classify him in the right spots to win as much money as possible. Give him big credit for doing that. That isn't master training though. 

Again, Burke has done a fantastic job with Foiled Again over the years. He found him, bought him, spotted him to make the most of what he brings to the table, and has kept him going for a long time. But as for this year, the year in question we are talking about for the trainer of the year award, Foiled Again didn't beat much of anything and ground out cheques. Because he is talented and gritty enough to just keep doing that, Ron Burke or no Ron Burke.  
Good on Ron Burke that he has kept him at this level this long. But this year, he didn't do much with him other than throw him out there and spot him. 

"There are other examples of Burke's talent, including his first win in the Little Brown Jug. He did so with Limelight Beach, whom Burke had purchased privately back in July. He steadily guided the gelding along, and Limelight Beach came into the Jug strongly. After winning his heat he went into the final as the even-money favorite and took the lead from the start and was never headed."

Again, what did Burke do best here? He found Limelight Beach, used his big time bankroll and clout to buy him, spot him, and he happened to draw really well in the Jug and used that to capitalize on that day. We have seen less than superstar horses do that over and over again on Jug Day. Nicks Fantasy and Fake Left come to mind, two horses that did nothing else spectacular in their lives other than what they did on Jug Day. If Limelight Beach had done something before the Jug, and after, then I might concede to Perry's point on this horse, but he didn't. He did nothing. Just another example of Burke doing what he does best, which isn't being a master trainer. That takes nothing away from him, again, it just states the facts. I think there is a major difference here between great training and doing great business. And basically, its where I differ in terms of what I view as Trainer of The Year material.

"Now consider another of his three-year-old pacers, JK Endofanera. He started his sophomore season with three consecutive wins and came into the North America Cup as the 11-20 favorite in his elimination. He finished third after leading for much of the way, but a week later in the final
when the big money was on the line, he won at 12-1 odds, coming from off the pace. Burke made some equipment changes after the loss, which combined with a brilliant drive by Brian Sears, contributed to the upset win."


But this is really where I diverge from Perry's point on Burke. I was at Mohawk for the Somebeachsomewhere and NA Cup elims. I can tell you that JK Endofanera wasn't right at all, and Burke didn't seem interested or care to even do anything about it. It was only a stroke of luck that the horse made the final at all. The final he was able to win. Burke almost screwed his owners out of a chance for the big payday because he wasn't doing his job as a trainer. 

"JKEndofanera...locked on a line in the stretch."

That was Ken Middleton's call in the NA Cup elim, one which JKEndofanera got a very soft half which allowed him to barely hold 3rd. Otherwise, he misses the final. If you watch the Somebeachsomewhere, he was bearing out bad as well in that, but also got soft fractions. 
It was very easy to see when he warmed up for the Somebeachsomewhere that he was having serious issues. 
 How do I know that? Because of a discussion I had prior to that race.
Garnet arrived a bit after me to the track, and asked me if I liked anything. I said I didn't like anything that much, but I didn't like JK Endofanera off the way he was bearing out in warm up. He was already hurting then. I told him he might even get away with it that night, which he did, but the next week, in the NA Cup elim, he was even worse, and got beat as the heavy chalk, as Perry noted above. If anything from the pack had any pace, he misses the final. And obviously, those issues were fixable, as Burke took care of it AFTER  the elim. Great trainers don't let that happen. Takter didn't with Trixton.  
After the NA Cup, he got 6th in the final of the Meadowlands Pace, 5th in the final of the Cane at Tioga, and 3rd in the final of the Breeders Crown after the top 2 picks were scratched the day of the race and from the post parade. Otherwise, he won a few here and there, but didn't really perform to what he showed as a 2yo and leading up to the
Somebeachsomewhere. 
Is that Burke's fault? Maybe not. Horses fail all the time. But he certainly didn't appear to be on top of it. Not from what I saw. I would argue that he consistently got out-trained by Casie Coleman on McWicked all season with regards to those two horses. If McWicked didn't get locked in in the final of the NA Cup, he would have won that too, and Burke wouldn't have even won that race with this horse. At least he was smart enough to figure out he didn't have much left, so he went out and bought Limelight Beach and won with him. It's what he does. And does best. One isn't good, don't fix him. Just get another one. That isn't good training. It's good business. 

"And Burke proved he can handle a temperamental trotter in Mission Brief, who won nine of 13 starts in her first season of racing. In each of her losses, she broke stride, so Burke's patience was tried by this fleet filly that was purchased for $150,000 as a yearling."

What? You have got to be kidding. 
The best thing Ron Burke did with regards to Mission Brief is figure out she was a great buy and make sure he bought her. She is a freak of nature, and he figured that out because he had trained her mothers brother the previous year. Good on him, again, for figuring that out. 

"A daughter of Muscle Hill out of the 2007 Breeders Crown-winning mare Southwind Serena, Mission Brief was purchased as a yearling for $150,000 at the Lexington Selected Sale. She is owned by Burke Racing, Our Horse Cents Stables, Weaver Bruscemi LLC and J&T Silva Stables.
Southwind Serena is a half-sister to Southwind Spirit, a Muscle Hill-sired colt that Burke also trains. Last year at age two, Southwind Spirit won the American-National Stakes and Kindergarten Classic final.
“It was the reason we looked at Mission Brief,” Burke said of the family connection. “And she was beautiful. That ($150,000) was the most we ever paid for a yearling and we thought we got a bargain.”

http://www.theharnessedge.com/story.asp?Mode=View&Story=60232
 
But as for training her, she lost several huge paydays because she wasn't prepared mentally to handle the racing she was asked to do. Is that Ron Burke's fault? Probably not. She is a very temperamental 2yo trotting filly. Burke can't be held responsible for that. But he also didn't do anything to make it better. He just tossed her out there over and over again. Sometimes she behaved and sometimes she didn't. That has zero to do with Burke as a trainer, either way.
If any credit goes to anyone there, it is Yannick Gingras, who figured her out on his own at the end of the year on how to keep her mind on racing and get her to the gate just right. I doubt Burke had anything to do with that. Burke's smartest move, again, was not as a trainer. He is shrewd, and figured out that having Gingras on her consistently would pay off due to his overall talent. That was correct, but that isn't good training. It is good management. 


Gingras expert handling of Mission Brief in the final of the Breeders Crown, and to some extent the elim was one of the greatest driving feats I have seen in terms of a driver making a big difference. If anything, it sealed him as the driver of the year. For me anyway. I doubt Burke had anything to do with that. Other than putting Gingras down, which as I said, was a smart move, but not a training feat.


"But, he made 28 million. he's got to be the best trainer." 

That is the argument you hear over and over. Really? How much money your horses make determine how great a trainer you are? If that is all that matters, then Burke gets it. Hands down. No discussion. He clearly makes more money training than anyone else on the planet. And he probably could not touch a horse and continue to do that.


From the Harness Racing Update article. It shows that Takter had a much higher win percentage and almost 4 times the earning per start. So, he is better on both of those variables as well.


Now, lets look at Takter. I could certainly make a strong case for him, based on all he did, but mostly one thing he did very well that had everything to do with training the actual horse.

 "But most of all there is the "Taktertonian" which surely will stand out in the mind of voters. That race was a microcosm of Takter's brilliance and dominance and that's why he is your 2014 Dan Patch Trainer of the Year winner."

-That was Garnet Barnsdale's main argument in favor of Takter.



In his argument for Takter as the trainer of the year, my friend Garnet Barnsdale argues that Takter was so dominant with all his trotters, at all age levels, that he should get it. There is something to that argument, but again, while I am certain that Takter as a horseman has a lot to do with those horses successes, I would also argue that if Trond Smedshammer or a handful of other trainers had most of those horses, they would turn out as good as they did with Takter. Takter also has huge clout like Burke, and the types of owners who put up big bucks to buy the best out there. For sure, that is mostly because of Takter's ability and his track record. He earned his status and place at the top of the mountain. No doubt.
Father Patrick, Nuncio and Trixton didn't come cheap.
Neither did Lifetime Pursuit, Shake It Cerry or a handful of others. Takter isn't working with a host of 10k yearlings here. 
But wait. That isn't entirely true. Nuncio was a 7k yearling, and while Trixton was a 360k yearling, he was a major project and challenge to become what he did. Trixton had major issues. That is common knowledge and an understatement. 

 "After the race, Takter said he was concerned about Trixton. "Trixton, here I'm a little concerned over him," said Takter. "He had bad hind ankles, he had to have surgery in that one, and I didn't like the way he went behind the gate there and he got really rough. I think it could be the end of him [racing]."

http://www.harnessracing.com/news/fatherpatrickjogsastrixtonbreaksstride.html 

Takter managed Trixton to a T. He drove him himself, and he raced him pretty easy relative to how much he could have gone with the horse several times. He did just enough to win and never pushed him. He got him to the Hambo and capitalized when Gingras had a brain cramp that day with Father Patrick and decided to try something new on the gate. Otherwise, Takter would have won the top 3 in the Hambo, with Trixton or Father Patrick being 1-2.
Takter is a great trainer. There is no disputing that. Or shouldn't be. You could even say he is a master horseman. But that wouldn't get him trainer of the year for me if that was all he did this year.

 I worked with this horse (Trixton) every single day, I handled him from day one. He had to come a long way, I have to thank (Dr.) Patty Hogan, who fixed him up after he got hurt (sesamoid fracture at the end of his 2-year-old season). There are so many people behind you that have a big part. I’ve got a great team and I thank all of them for what they’ve done for me.”

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/templates/grandcircuit.aspx?articleid=60237 

No, what he did with Trixton is what puts him over the top for me. If you know something about the history of Trixton, and what it took to get him to where he was and get what he did out of him this year, then you have no choice but to pick Takter over Burke, when you add it to all the other things he did, which Garnet laid out well in his argument for Takter. But, if you take Trixton out of the equation, then its a complete toss up. Burke? Takter? Casie Coleman? I would say all 3 are right there if not for Trixton. As a trainer, Takter made the difference for his owners. They won the Hambo because of Takter's training skills. That is why he is trainer of the year to me. 
Many won't agree with my take. And that's fine. They are wowed by Burke's numbers and the races his horses won. I'm not. Not as a trainer. As a businessman yes. He is the best there was to this point in terms of making money at training horses. Not because he is a great trainer. Because he is a very smart guy. He is a master manager. Takter is a master horseman. That is the difference. The difference for me.

Ron Burke wins more races than any other trainer in harness racing. So what? He also loses more. He wins 20%. That's great. But, he also has multiple entries in stakes races, buys fresh live horses and can rotate horses all over the country to find spots for them. He doesn't have to be much of a training genius to win races if he can do that. 
But he won 28 million. Yes, that's true. and that is a great accomplishment. But in terms of earnings per start, Takter has him by quite a bit. And I would say Casie Coleman has them both by a bit more than that. 
Just because you make the most cars, like GM or Ford does, doesn't mean you make better cars than Honda or Mercedes. Its a flawed argument to begin with. Volume and sheer numbers don't make a great trainer. Performance does. And in terms of performance, I would say Takter outperformed Burke, and Coleman outperformed them both. Coleman only slightly more than Takter, and that is a toss up which I would concede could go either way.

Is Ron Burke a very good horseman? Probably. You don't get to his level without being one. Is he a great horseman? I don't think so. Is Takter? I don't think there is any doubt about that. His track record speaks for itself there. As for Coleman, I think she has proven with all sorts of horses that she gets results. Because she is the best of both worlds when it comes to Takter's skills and Burke's eye for horses and management skills.
So, my case for Coleman as Trainer of The Year. I know she isn't going to be. But she is my choice.

"Then, McWicked came Coleman’s way last spring. Owned by Ed James, one of her longtime friends, McWicked was a well-regarded but underperforming 2-year-old. James asked for help. Coleman liked the horse and agreed to train him."

 http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2014/09/17/coleman-in-position-to-make-history-with-jug-win.html

McWicked is a very nice horse. But Casie Coleman made him a great horse.

 “Casie said, ‘This is a real good horse. I can make him a great horse.’ So she did. I’m not that smart as far as horses go. But I’m smart as far as people go. And I’m fortunate enough to know good people and I’m fortunate enough that they’ll take my horses. I’ve had very good luck.”

http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/12-3-14/james-mcwicked-coleman.html

McWicked is the type of horse that danced every dance he could this year. The type of horse that won more money than ANY other 3 year old this year. And she only had one 3yo male pacer of that caliber. She didn't have a barn full. She didn't go and get a few midseason to try and replace him. Her was right there in the NA Cup, won the Adios and was right there in many others. When he tailed off a bit, she fixed him up and won the Breeders Crown and Progress Pace. He was near or at the top of his game from May until mid December. When he needed shutting down, she did that, and brought him back when he was ready to perform again, and perform he did. It was master training, start to finish.
In addition, she dominated the Ontario Sires Stakes with a host of Sportswriter colts, none of which she paid that much for as yearling. Bob, Ben And John, Southwind Mischief, and a host of others took home several big paydays for her and her connections. In addition, she saved the best for last, bringing out Reverend Hanover to win out and prove that he is a likely contender for the big dances next season. She and her owners didn't pay much for him either. Her patience and skill as a trainer really showed on him. He was certainly ready to come right out of the box and dominate, which he did. Nobody would dispute that he was very well prepped to win every race that he ended up winning. It was training mastery. Something she has done many times over. She won two jugs in a row with Michaels Power and Vegas Vacation. One of those was a very lame horse, while the other was terrible gaited in his elim and she made a shoeing change between the elim and the final which was the difference maker. She had one chance at the 3 peat, with McWicked and got him there and he was competitive, although not good on Jug Day. Unlike Burke, she couldn't just go out and buy another one. 
She also did a great job with Major Dancer this year, who was probably not in the top 3 or 4 3yo fillies this year in terms of talent. She was 2nd in the final of the Breeders Crown, and spotted well all year to earn more than 400k. She won the Town Pro final at Mohawk and many NYSS races, and was right there in many of the big dances. 
I don't know her overall average earnings per horse this year, but I suspect per start she is far ahead of Burke and probably well ahead of Takter. 
And when she did have a huge stable like Burke, she had just as good numbers in terms of percentage winners and earnings per start. But its a tough lifestyle, and not one she wants anymore. That doesn't make her less than a trainer like Burke who seems to live for that. 
 
"Last winter, Coleman began training her own self. She had long been overweight, which, combined with her fast-paced and pressurized lifestyle, was turning her into an irascible boss. She took a sabbatical, hired a personal trainer, changed her diet and lost 74 pounds.
The backstretch is regularly fueled by coffee, cola, beer and stronger spirits. Coleman now drinks water and green tea.
“I’ve got about 10 more pounds I want to take off, and it’s still a struggle,” she said. “But I am a lot more refreshed. I feel better. I have more energy. And I’m not such a (expletive deleted).”
She is drawing lines in her early prime. Another line: No more claimers, and no more new owners or new horses. She has a share of most of the horses she trains. She owns valuable studs that draw healthy fees. She neither needs nor desires any other business."

In some ways, Casie Coleman was Ron Burke before Ron Burke was Ron Burke, in terms of the business end of training horses. She still is, she just doesn't have big numbers anymore. But her performance is just as good, and I would argue, this year, even better. 

So, my choice for Trainer of the Year is Casie Coleman. But, if you only gave me Burke or Takter, I take Takter, hands down. 

I guess, at the end of the day, I think Trainer of the Year should be based on something you actually did as the trainer of the horse. Burke does a lot of great things, but my view is that mainly they aren't training related. If you think the things he does are training related, you vote for him. If you think making a big difference on a great horse like Trixton or McWicked is what matters here, you vote for Takter or Coleman. I vote for Coleman, but I would concede Takter is the logical choice.