Are these Trainers bad for the game?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Todd and Stephanie Beattie might be low-profile names right now, but they are as skilled as any trainers in the country at the fine art of improving horses dramatically.

* Todd might be most famous for the job he did with Fabulous Strike. A horse who was soundly beaten in a Tampa MSW race last winter. In his first start for Beattie, he impressively won a Penn National MSW race. It wasn't long until he was a stakes winner at Belmont. He would run a competitive 3rd to Songster and Too Much Bling by June, on the Belmont Stakes undercard. Before years end, Fabulous Strike would run a 119 Beyer, Beattie made this gelding the fastest figure 3-year-old in a strong crop that included Discreet Cat, Bernardini, and Barbaro.

Here's a closer work at the early stages of this surely fine piece of training.



Also note the trainer stats of his I underlined. He was 40-for-100 (40% wins) on the year, at the time. Sadly, he only managed to win at a 32% clip by years end, while making over 300 starts.

* Now we get to my favorite, Stephanie Beattie! Her statistical profile defies all logic---and the more I look at it, the more I wonder if she posses magical powers...or, perhaps possibly might be the female Jesus.

She also only managed to win at a 32% clip last year, BUT, she did so at Charles Town...meaning she did so racing almost exclusively against 10 horse fields. No easy task!

As you can clearly see, the last 949 horses to run for this lady have produced a truly MIND-BOGGLING 21% profit on the betting dollar. When you consider the sample size and the profit...it's beyond remarkable..it's almost impossible.



And it's not like a few 70/1 shots made the ROI stats misleading. She shows a flat bet profit in all three ranges of odds. With short priced horses, with mid-priced horses, and with longshots.

Now, I'm no fool. I've seen these stats a while ago and was excited about the oppertunity to profit from them. However, They bet these Beattie horses off-the-board and I just can't bring myself to betting on a horse who looks to be GROSSLY overbet on form....and yet the beat goes on for them.

Not only do they sharply improve new horses...but their horses often seem to improve with each subsequent start until something physically goes wrong. It's truly incredible.

Todd is winning at a 36% clip and showing a 16% flat bet profit over the last 90 days. Steph is winning at a 38% clip and showing a 21% flat bet profit over the last 90 days...and you just can't bring yourself to betting their horses because they appear so over-bet.

And it's not like you can just single them in P3's and clean up that way, they run at tracks that don't offer attractive multi-win exotics with big enough pools sizes.

Unless you are the kind of bettor who can back a seemingly overbet horse, solely on the basis of a trainers last name, the Beatties can't help you make money from a betting standpoint.

However, Todd and Steph have been polite enough to stay out of the spotlight...and not go to a major circuit and make genuinely good horseman look like pure incompetents in comparison to them. They are also both listed as reps for the Pennsylvania HBPA. I'm sure they are related in some way, perhaps husband and wife.

However, even as we know so little about these two, as they have kept such a low-profile, I think we still have to ask and answer the following question: Are these two really good for the sport?

I personally don't think so. Don't get me wrong, for all I know, they may be great people who've never had a bad test...however, what they are doing defies all logic.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

As you can clearly see, the last 949 horses to run for this lady have produced a truly MIND-BOGGLING 21% profit on the betting dollar. When you consider the sample size and the profit...it's beyond remarkable..it's almost impossible.



And it's not like a few 70/1 shots made the ROI stats misleading. She shows a flat bet profit in all three ranges of odds. With short priced horses, with mid-priced horses, and with longshots.

Great post, DrugS.

I would point out, though, that even though she shows a flat bet profit across the board, she is basically breaking even on the horses 4-1 or less. The 21% ROI is largely due to her success in bringing home the medium- and longshots. Making 4% ROI on the favs is fairly outstanding in its own right, considering there were over 500 starts in that group. I can only be wistful about adding in the 4-7% Pinnacle rebate to that ROI.

I thought the "under 11 days" fig was pretty amazing, too. Interesting that she does much better with the quick return or the longish layoff than with more "normal" spacing. That may be a function of the bettors giving those factors too much weight, at least where her horses are concerned.

Thanks for posting the data.

--Dunbar

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Pretty spot on. I guess my question is what is the difference between these two and Shuman, Lake, Dutrow, etc.

Answer: Shuman saws legs off horses?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Answer: Shuman saws legs off horses?

In all honesty.....IMO, these two are doing a far, far, far more impressive job than Shuman ever did.

Shuman did get his share of big jumps, but he also had a lot that never improved or went backwards. Shuman's statistical profile from a betting standpoint also was dramatically less impressive.

I agree that Gill?Shuman were also probably bad for the game---but for different reasons than why I feel the Beattie sensations are.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

In all honesty.....IMO, these two are doing a far, far, far more impressive job than Shuman ever did.

Shuman did get his share of big jumps, but he also had a lot that never improved or went backwards. Shuman's statistical profile from a betting standpoint also was dramatically less impressive.

I agree that Gill?Shuman were also probably bad for the game---but for different reasons than why I feel the Beattie sensations are.

You seem to have missed that one winter at GP. Once he was caught on to he was never the same. Simply being a "hop up" trainer won't be enough if you are also a crummy trainer.

[MisterB]

Who knows why. Like chuck said, he could win at 40 -50 percent if he brought his stock to Washington, but doesn't make him a better trainer, just better stock.

[The Bid]

Look at some of the out of form crows the beattie clan turn around. It takes more than Great horsemanship to win with some of the plugs they gallop with.

Yeah I kinda agree with MisterB. These two could really be honest, outstanding, hall of fame-esque trainers. In fact....




wait...


you'll have to excuse me. There's a talking dodo bird at the door trying to sell its eggs.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Well yeah there's that, but other than that is there anything?

it's like DrugS pointed out...these 2 have been under the radar...whatever game they are playing they seem content to do it at 2nd tier tracks (unlike the one's you mentioned)...but winning at 40% at 2 slot driven tracks must pay quite well...

[The Bid]

They have the magic fairy dust.

I wish I knew what they used because Ive always wanted to run a 4.4 40, and slamdunk a basketball.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Also maybe you or someone else knows, but I noticed that when Scott Lake is suspended some of his horses run under Ryan Beattie's name. Relation??

They were lab partners in their high school chemistry class.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

They were lab partners in their high school chemistry class.

and from the looks of things they got an A

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Also maybe you or someone else knows, but I noticed that when Scott Lake is suspended some of his horses run under Ryan Beattie's name. Relation??

That's a good point---Lake's horses ran under his name at GP while he was under suspension last year.

Lake was also based solely at Penn National back in the day (Like '98 or '99)---and really rose from their quickly in meteoric like fashion.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

That's a good point---Lake's horses ran under his name at GP while he was under suspension last year.

Lake was also based solely at Penn National back in the day (Like '98 or '99)---and really rose from their quickly in meteoric like fashion.

Thanks for your post. It's interesting reading. I watched the Fabulous Strike race at Mountaineer and he did look very fast and I look forward to seeing if he can step up. Personally, I don't put too much emphasis on his Tampa loss or his 119 speed figure.

It sure seems there is a lot of smoke here. I guess the thing to do is wait for one of Stephanie's to go off at 6-1+.

[saucon17]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Also maybe you or someone else knows, but I noticed that when Scott Lake is suspended some of his horses run under Ryan Beattie's name. Relation??

Ryan "Buck" Beattie is Todd's nephew. He was Todd's assistant at Penn
National until he went on his own a couple years ago. Todd has always been high percentage trainer and I do think he is honest because he has a lot of better quality horses. Most of Todd's horses are bought at sales or homebreds by their owners. Steph Beattie also runs horses also under her assistant name Donald Wells at CT and Penn. My friend has horses with Steph at Penn the horses show vast improvement when in her training routine. He said they do a lot of treadmill work and long gallops.

You should the miracle Steph did on a horse named Holiday Peak that
ran at Philly Park in the 2nd race on Feb 13, 2007 and this HORSE WAS
12/1 MORNING LINE. This was off the claim

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/insta...7-02-13&race=2

I forgot to tell you check out the double payoff. They didn't bet the double with a
3-1 winner in the first

[MISTERGEE]

i thought pinnacle stopped taking plays from the U.S.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Here is a side-by-side comparison with Steph Beattie and Todd Pletcher, comparing their win% and ROI in the three diffrent odds ranges.

4/1 OR LESS:

Beattie: 35% wins. $2.08 ROI
Pletcher: 32% wins. $1.73 ROI

BETWEEN 9/2 up to 10/1

Beattie: 17% wins. $2.37 ROI
Pletcher: 13% wins. $1.81 ROI

GREATER THAN 10/1

Beattie: 10% wins. $3.88 ROI
Pletcher: 5% wins. $1.58 ROI

Beattie wins all the win percentage categories between 3-to-5%. She also sweeps the ROI categories by 35 points, 56 points, and 230 points.

You'd see similar mis-matches with all the other big name move-up guys.

I just think it's pretty damn perverted, when you have to make the trainer the #1 factor in your handicapping--as you'd certainly have to do in certain low-profile ares of the country. That's not what handicapping horses should ever be about.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Here is a side-by-side comparison with Steph Beattie and Todd Pletcher, comparing their win% and ROI in the three diffrent odds ranges.

4/1 OR LESS:

Beattie: 35% wins. $2.08 ROI
Pletcher: 32% wins. $1.73 ROI

BETWEEN 9/2 up to 10/1

Beattie: 17% wins. $2.37 ROI
Pletcher: 13% wins. $1.81 ROI

GREATER THAN 10/1

Beattie: 10% wins. $3.88 ROI
Pletcher: 5% wins. $1.58 ROI

Beattie wins all the win percentage categories between 3-to-5%. She also sweeps the ROI categories by 35 points, 56 points, and 230 points.

You'd see similar mis-matches with all the other big name move-up guys.

I just think it's pretty damn perverted, when you have to make the trainer the #1 factor in your handicapping--as you'd certainly have to do in certain low-profile ares of the country. That's not what handicapping horses should ever be about.

Apparently they handed out the Eclipse to the wrong trainer.

No amount of treadmill work, or long gallops, produces these kinds of percentages. I can't believe it to be possible.