No the databases don't differ but the basis for data in each differ. In the runs-based profile, left side, if the trainer and horse qualify, the run is tabulated. For instance, let's the horse is 2nd off a layoff, if the trainer had the horse prior to and up through this particular run, then the 2nd off the layoff criterion is achieved and the run is counted. Now, if the trainer claimed the horse in the preceding race, then the trainer DID NOT have the horse the entire time to satisfy the 2nd off the layoff criterion. (Be mindful, the horse itself, is 2nd off a layoff, but the focus and measure is trainer prowess, not what the horse does, individually.) Some of the criteria are race-specific and as such are counted every time for the trainer--the odds category for instance. But for other categories, 1st time lasix, is another, to satisfy the criteria, the trainer has to have the horse before and after.

The TG figure-based trainer profile, the right side, is predicated on more stringent criteria. The profiles are based on the "effective top' of each horse which is defined as the horse's best figure from its last 6 runs or within the last 12 months if it ran less than 6 times in that period. So for categories measuring how a trainer's horses do following a top, a pair of tops, etc., only horses that have run at least times for the trainer are used. Sequences where there was a trainer change in the last 3 starts are not used (except for the "trainer change" studies).

So for the figure-based profiles, we have to generate the patterns first and since the runs have to be for that trainer (for the most part), and trainer changes within the 6 runs, can invalidate lots of patterns, the quantity of observations that meet these criteria are much less.

TGAB