- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
…..And what is the best way to identify it.
My views:
Trainer form however you analyse it, is flawed; but surely not as flawed as not taking it in to account at all. My first job when assessing a race is to look at trainer form.
I click on every trainer’s name, on the Racing Post website race card. This gives every runner he/she has had in the last two weeks. With the exception of that day’s racing, which we know or can look up anyway. So the results are slightly out but not by far. Can also look up results during the day and alter the in form / out of form trainers.
Being able to see recent results in detail, (not just a two week summary as in Todays Trainers); gives me the opportunity to find in form / out of form trainers sooner, when nearer the start of a run. And also change their rating sooner if things change. Sometimes a trainer can be in form one week and out of form the next. Or the Hannon’s and Channon’s etc. have so many runners their form is best judged on a weekly basis (sometimes days). Those with few runners are impossible to quantify, unless I believe they should have had more runners, so might have a virus.
I rate each trainer by *** (only one or two trainers get this during the season), **, *, */, //, /, /-, -, -x and x (don’t touch with a barge pole). Do 1-10 if you prefer. Looking up how many wins, seconds, thirds, fourths, etc. and how fancied they were. An 8/1 shot who is 3rd I think has probably run to form; where as an odds on shot that is 3rd probably has not. As with any true value assessment, we are always thinking in probabilities. We do not need to know if it definitely ran to form or definitely did not.
With small trainers I might take thirds, fourths and fifths in to account more for being in form (depending on their prices). But not usually with a top trainer, unless it is a top class race.
When there is a first time out runner some knowledge (from Timeform Statistical Review) of trainers records is beneficial. A fourth placed effort in a large field of Newmarket maidens by a 2 year old trained by Roger Charlton would be a good run.
Say there is an out of form horse, yet the trainer has recently returned to form. I find these horses are much more likely to return to form than one with a trainer who continues out of form. This can pin point good value bets. Conversely, say the horse appears in good form yet the trainer has gone out of form since it’s last run. His chance may not be as big as the form book suggests.
Trainer form is only one part of my form study, finding out (using Timeform) what rating the horse is capable of, going, distance, temperament, course, pace etc. The two questions I ask are: What rating is the horse probably capable of given the conditions? And how likely is it to run to that form? Trainer form directly influences the latter question when working out my 100% book.
The percentage I add to each horse for trainer form is not always the same. Have always found it easier to look at each horse as a whole character when allocating a percentage. Rather than give points for distance, going, trainer form etc.
One who does not need much getting fit will have his chance identified and boosted by the horses record first time out or after a long break. Horse and trainer’s first time out strike rate can also point out a horse which is unlikely to be fit. So those stats may take preference over trainer form.
Taking trainer form in to account is (imo) much better than not taking trainer form in to account. Anyone not doing so is running a big risk of backing too many horses who might be good value bets on speed ratings, or anything else. But stable form means the likelihood of running to form is lower, so it’s true chance is less. So may not be a value after all.
Mark
Value Is EverythingGinger
Interesting topic this one. I’ve got two angles on this. Firstly, I’m a subscriber to Raceform’s Form Book. Each week they publish a table at the back of the issue with a list of hot and cold trainers. Nothing new there. However, they also publish figures relating to how well trainers’ horses have been running in comparison to their starting price. Now, this figure is based on winners only, which obviously some people don’t support. It’s fine for me as I never, ever back each way / place. I also believe it’s a far better indicator of trainer form than the RTF figure which appears in the Racing Post.
In Raceform’s table the ‘neutral’ figure is 1.0 A figure of 1.0 would identify trainers of horses running according to their starting prices. Figures above 1.0 show trainers whose horses are running better than their sps. The period of time, I think, is about 2 weeks or so.
The advantage of this is that it cuts out all the ‘hype’, ‘bluster’ and ‘guff’ which we hear daily regarding trainers in form. For example, in early-mid December it was easy to see how well Henderson’s horses were doing compared to their SPs rather than the bland ‘Nicky’s horses are flying at the moment.’ Throughout the period of December, Henderson’s horses performed (roughly) at the level the market expected them to.
Another angle to this is that throughout the flat season, when assessing races and forming my own tissue, I kept a record of trainer form for each race. I would look at the last 25 runners from the stable, or the runners from the last month if the latter figure was greater. Now, I appreciate that these figures were absolutely arbitrary; but what I wanted was a ‘number.’ So, I gave each horse a number based on the criterion mentioned. I only looked at class 2 races and above on the flat, no 2YO races, and no 5/6F h’caps. My sample was a few hundred races.
In those races, horses which had figures of less than ’10’ (effectively 10% strike rate for the trainer) had exceptionally poor records. Far, far weaker than the market would indicate. I would use this in my compiling of a tissue. The problem is the ‘weight’ to ascribe to that ‘trainer-form’ figure. I’m still looking at that, but it was certainly very, very rewarding for me on the Flat to ‘push out’ those horses from stables struggling for form.
I looked at it again over the jumps, from October onwards. My figures show again that those horses from trainers with figures in excess of 20% perform substantially better than the market suggests.
There are obvious flaws here. The figure takes no account of those who believe in trainers for courses and the figure also ignores (to a large extent) form over the last 24/48 hours.
Anyway, good thread, Ginger.
First and foremost i assess the horse and how they are suited to the race. I include trainer form in my handicapping and it may or may not have a significant baring on my final decision. LIke you say Gingertipster, it’s better to take it into account rather than not all
I rate each trainer by *** (only one or two trainers get this during the season), **, *, */, //, /, /-, -, -x and x (don’t touch with a barge pole). Do 1-10 if you prefer. Looking up how many wins, seconds, thirds, fourths, etc. and how fancied they were. An 8/1 shot who is 3rd I think has probably run to form; where as an odds on shot that is 3rd probably has not. As with any true value assessment, we are always thinking in probabilities. We do not need to know if it definitely ran to form or definitely did not.
.. that’s all well and good but how do you assess that a horse has run to form or not? Saying a horse finished 3rd means nothing if it was beaten by 20L or was receiving 15lbs or it was a 5 horse race.
And then, assuming you want to make a book and put some sort of value on the run, what are you going to use as a unit of value?
Lastly and probably most importantly, how can you know that your ‘running to form’ figure isn’t down to luck?
- Total Posts 17716
When does trainer form get to the point where say 8 out of 10 runners in last 14 days have been set up for a handicapp job and have all been tailed off which would show like 20% but infact they are well in form?
I rate each trainer by *** (only one or two trainers get this during the season), **, *, */, //, /, /-, -, -x and x (don’t touch with a barge pole). Do 1-10 if you prefer. Looking up how many wins, seconds, thirds, fourths, etc. and how fancied they were. An 8/1 shot who is 3rd I think has probably run to form; where as an odds on shot that is 3rd probably has not. As with any true value assessment, we are always thinking in probabilities. We do not need to know if it definitely ran to form or definitely did not.
.. that’s all well and good but how do you assess that a horse has run to form or not? Saying a horse finished 3rd means nothing if it was beaten by 20L or was receiving 15lbs or it was a 5 horse race.
And then, assuming you want to make a book and put some sort of value on the run, what are you going to use as a unit of value?
Lastly and probably most importantly, how can you know that your ‘running to form’ figure isn’t down to luck?
On the whole I would not access a horse finishing 20 lengths behind the winner as running to form. But in the vast majority of occasions the price will tell you how close a horse is expected to finish to the winner.
Recieving 15lb would not make any difference to whether I rate it as running to form in a handicap.
Obviously if it was a 5 runner race you probably only rate the first 2 running to form in most races.
It is really a case of common sense, there are no hard and fast rules.
There is no point in giving a unit of value, because every race is different. A horse from a stable in excellent form might have a significant amount added to his percentage if running against a field who’s trainers are all out of form. However, if it is running against a field full of other in form trainers, then it will not be worth much.
How do I know my ran to form figures are not just Luck? Well, truth is I don’t, anything can be a coincidence. But as I said, with any assessment it is all about probabilities. If a trainer’s horses are running well it is probably for a reason. It is not perfect but in my experience, better than other ways of spotting trainer form and certainly better than taking no notice to it at all.
Mark
Value Is EverythingFollwing a trainer if he is in very good form can sometimes pay dividends but you still have to work out which are likely to win and which are not and that is not easy……Nicky Henderson being the man so far this season but you could still end up with egg on your face if you back the wrong ones.
The danger of thinking trainers are out of form is not knowing how good the horses he has run over the last month are. Some yard may only have 3 or 4 decent horses out of 30. If none of the 3 or 4 have run for a month then you think the yard is out of form and when nothing could be further from the truth.
In some cases trainers recent form doesn’t mean a thing in others it comes up trumps but unfortunately if you are an every day punter you are going to lose your balls.
If you are waiting for a race where all trainers bar one are out of form you will wait forever and drive yourself mad looking for it.
The only benefit I can see is if you are a punter who waits until you think there is something to really bet on. Then you obviously make sure the yard is in half decent form and that they are not all running like pigs.
I just chose a random meeting yesterday and checked the trainers form out
Kempton
1st race only the 2nd winner for the trainer this season 6/1
2nd race Trainer in good form 7/4
3rd race only winner in 30 days
4th race 6th winner in 14 days yard in very good form 7/4
5th race only 6 previous runners all of which had run badly
6th 3rd winner from 15 runners but too many short priced horse from yard beaten to bet trainer with confidence
To a level stake profit I reckon you would have lost at Kempton.
Take the second race at Newbury yesterday and you have a Nicky Henderson runner French Opera opposing a Phillip Hobbs runner. % wise Nicky is miles ahead whether you look at 14 days or the entire season.
What do you do in a case like that? The form horse won the race despite the fact the trainer isn’t exactly setting the world on fire.
You can get too involved in these hair brained ideas that you think simplify the game but all you are doing is kidding yourself.
There are no hard fast rules in racing and no systems that work to such an extent you are going to make fortunes.
I suggest you spend your time watching races and learning how to spot the good horses that are progressing and throw all your facts, figures and you calculator in the rubbish bin. Mad Max would be one but unfortunately he was odds on but there are plenty like him who are not
Trainer form is only one part of my form study, finding out (using Timeform) what rating the horse is capable of, going, distance, temperament, course, pace etc. The two questions I ask are: What rating is the horse probably capable of given the conditions? And how likely is it to run to that form? Trainer form directly influences the latter question when working out my 100% book.
The percentage I add to each horse for trainer form is not always the same. Have always found it easier to look at each horse as a whole character when allocating a percentage. Rather than give points for distance, going, trainer form etc.
Mark
Fist,
As you can see above, I was not suggesting a trainer in form system, or short cut to a selection. Not saying that trainer form is the most important aspect of form study or to follow an in form trainer blindly. Not trying to "simplify the game", far from it. I am not going to stop watching racing, studying form, or throw my facts, figures and calculator in the rubbish bin.
Stable form is just another thing to take in to account when assessing a race, to figure out the VALUE bet.
Your point that there is a danger of convincing yourself a trainer is out of form, is well made. There is always that. But on the whole it saves me money. Towards the end of December there were an awful lot of Twister’s horses that looked "value" bets on the form book, yet trainer form made them "not value". So am grateful for that.
And my bets on Mon Mome 8/1 (V. Williams) Medermit 20/1 (A. King) and Niche Market 43/1 (RH Buckler) were all backed, PARTLY because of trainer form.
Mark
Value Is EverythingHow do I know my ran to form figures are not just Luck? Well, truth is I don’t, anything can be a coincidence. But as I said, with any assessment it is all about probabilities. If a trainer’s horses are running well it is probably for a reason.
MarkAssigning a probability to something, by definition means that it has a numerical value. So the first thing you need to work out is what is the probability of ‘Trainer Form’ being down to luck. If you can’t do that then you are wasting your time, looking for logical patterns in random events.
Three words – Nigel Twiston Davies
Classic example of a trainer who’s horses, when in form, run probably ten pound better than when he is out of form.
I am hoping that he re-discovers his form quickly as I have been investing in Imperial Commander quite heavily for the Ryanair!!
How do I know my ran to form figures are not just Luck? Well, truth is I don’t, anything can be a coincidence. But as I said, with any assessment it is all about probabilities. If a trainer’s horses are running well it is probably for a reason.
MarkAssigning a probability to something, by definition means that it has a numerical value. So the first thing you need to work out is what is the probability of ‘Trainer Form’ being down to luck. If you can’t do that then you are wasting your time, looking for logical patterns in random events.
Not true,
When I work out my 100% book, I take in to account distance, going, rating, temperament, headgear, pace in the race, jockeyship, course, breeding and probably a few other things too, as well as trainer form. Now, I don’t put a numerical value to any of these things individually.
For one thing, every race is different. For example Pace, in one race it probably will not have a much effect on the winner. But one that looks like being a slowly run race or too strong; will have a big impact.
Another thing, the only thing that matters is the percentage chance of each horse; or in other words what price I am willing to take about each horse. So I prefer to view every horse as a whole character, to work out the only numerical value that matters which is his percentage chance.
I rarely say this David, but you are over complicating things. To have to put a numerical value on the chances of all the things I take in to account being "luck", under every individual circumstance. Would take 100 years to work out one race. For example: A horses stamina is effected by so many things, going, distance, temperament, pace in the race, jockeyship etc. So every one of those aspects would be effected by the next.
You can see to a certain degree when looking at results in a fair amount of detail, how those results are likely to be down to luck or not.
Trainer form is as random as any other aspect of form study.
If a punter can make a good profit by working out a 100% book, without the time consuming work of asigning every aspect of form a "numerical value". He’d be wasting his time if he did work out numerical values.
Mark
Value Is EverythingThree words – Nigel Twiston Davies
Classic example of a trainer who’s horses, when in form, run probably ten pound better than when he is out of form.
I am hoping that he re-discovers his form quickly as I have been investing in Imperial Commander quite heavily for the Ryanair!!
Exactly Aragorn,
Though isn’t that two words Nigel Twiston-Davis?In late december the form book indicated many of his horses were good value. But by including trainer form in analysis made them poor value bets.
Mark
Value Is EverythingI thought by the thread title that you were asking for opinions on this crack-pot idea, rather than trying to bring everyone around to agree with you. Sorry about that.
.. btw, it’s not hard to work out if it’s luck or not, or more importantly, if 14 day trainer form is already factored into the SP or not. A simple regression model would tell you that.
I thought by the thread title that you were asking for opinions on this crack-pot idea, rather than trying to bring everyone around to agree with you. Sorry about that.
.. btw, it’s not hard to work out if it’s luck or not, or more importantly, if 14 day trainer form is already factored into the SP or not. A simple regression model would tell you that.
Dave,
I do want other peoples opinions about what the best way is to identify trainer form. And I am not trying to get everyone to agree with me. But you have done little else but criticise the way I go about things. Not the other way around. I don’t mind criticism at all, in fact I love a debate. Besides, when you ask me questions, should I not answer?
If you try to point out flaws in my way, I will defend it. My ears are always open to another way. Always Learning.
Apart from your last few words you have said nothing about how you would go about making trainer form work for you. If you think it is a "crack pot-idea" then that is fine. You carry on backing Twister’s horses when they are so out of form. But before you go, Please tell me what this "simple regression model" would do / look like? Explain yourself.
I am sure that trainer form is factored in to prices, but so are all the other things we look at when trying to find value. It is (imo) up to us to find a horse who’s trainer form is not taken in to account TOO MUCH or NOT ENOUGH. Some of those Henderson horses last month were still poor value even when he was in good form. Am sure there was the odd Twister horse that was value too. However, I do think it is an aspect of form that is often overlooked (to a degree) by bookmakers and punters alike.
Mark
Value Is EverythingGinger
Interesting topic this one. I’ve got two angles on this. Firstly, I’m a subscriber to Raceform’s Form Book. Each week they publish a table at the back of the issue with a list of hot and cold trainers. Nothing new there. However, they also publish figures relating to how well trainers’ horses have been running in comparison to their starting price. Now, this figure is based on winners only, which obviously some people don’t support. It’s fine for me as I never, ever back each way / place. I also believe it’s a far better indicator of trainer form than the RTF figure which appears in the Racing Post.
In Raceform’s table the ‘neutral’ figure is 1.0 A figure of 1.0 would identify trainers of horses running according to their starting prices. Figures above 1.0 show trainers whose horses are running better than their sps. The period of time, I think, is about 2 weeks or so.
The advantage of this is that it cuts out all the ‘hype’, ‘bluster’ and ‘guff’ which we hear daily regarding trainers in form. For example, in early-mid December it was easy to see how well Henderson’s horses were doing compared to their SPs rather than the bland ‘Nicky’s horses are flying at the moment.’ Throughout the period of December, Henderson’s horses performed (roughly) at the level the market expected them to.
Another angle to this is that throughout the flat season, when assessing races and forming my own tissue, I kept a record of trainer form for each race. I would look at the last 25 runners from the stable, or the runners from the last month if the latter figure was greater. Now, I appreciate that these figures were absolutely arbitrary; but what I wanted was a ‘number.’ So, I gave each horse a number based on the criterion mentioned. I only looked at class 2 races and above on the flat, no 2YO races, and no 5/6F h’caps. My sample was a few hundred races.
In those races, horses which had figures of less than ’10’ (effectively 10% strike rate for the trainer) had exceptionally poor records. Far, far weaker than the market would indicate. I would use this in my compiling of a tissue. The problem is the ‘weight’ to ascribe to that ‘trainer-form’ figure. I’m still looking at that, but it was certainly very, very rewarding for me on the Flat to ‘push out’ those horses from stables struggling for form.
I looked at it again over the jumps, from October onwards. My figures show again that those horses from trainers with figures in excess of 20% perform substantially better than the market suggests.There are obvious flaws here. The figure takes no account of those who believe in trainers for courses and the figure also ignores (to a large extent) form over the last 24/48 hours.
Anyway, good thread, Ginger.
Good stuff there RFF,
Have a few questions.
With these trainers in form etc. Having to allow for the book to be published and get to you, do you find it a bit out of date? By the time you get it, it could be a few days out.
With the how well a trainer’s runners have been running compared to SP’s. Isn’t there a good chance the SP’s reflect a lot of trainer form anyway. An in form trainer can be well backed in to a shorter SP, or the SP might have included the good or poor form in the price already. Everyone was told how well Henderson was going, so prices in most cases reflected that. Some might have been value but others might be overbet because of it. Suppose what your stats do show are those trainers the market is likely to under / over estimate, either now or in future; when in form / not in form.
I rarely bet each way either, but it confuses me. To find trainers in good form, why do you think it is o.k. to just include winners? Whether they were 6/4 chances who won or 100/1 shots finishing fifth; they still might have ran to form. If a horse finishes 4th in one race and 1st in another, the form may be the same.
Do agree the rtf figure does not look reliable enough.
Is 25 horses or a month too long a period? We are looking for trainers in form. If you give equal significance to the form just under a month ago, as you do the latest 7 runs; Do you will miss a change in form? e.g. looking at David Pipe’s stable form; it appears from recent runs he’s turned the corner and is now in (at least) very reasonable form. Looking at the last month he’s far from it. The opposite can also be the case. I am sure your work was rewarded as it will show good results but (imo) there are times the very recent form should overule "later" form? Though of course, one winner does not make an in form trainer.
As already said, I see no reason to give a numerical figure to the trainer form. If your pushing in or out of trainers in your 100% book is working why change?
Why can’t you take trainers for courses in to account in you pricing up as well, seperately. As you would going or distance.
Hope you don’t mind me asking questions RFF, anyone can do the same with my work.
Mark
Value Is Everything[b:35btzijq]Custom Report[/url:35btzijq][/b:35btzijq]
.. click on this link, try and work out what exactly it is you think ‘trainer form’ is and then find out if your idea is a good one or not.
No need to try and work it out yourself.
Apart from your last few words you have said nothing about how you would go about making trainer form work for you
.. I hope that is a good starting point for you.
Mark
I’ll take your points one at a time.
Yes, you’re right about the issue of how up-to-date the figures are. My form book inlay gets to me on Thursday. Already it’s 72 hours out of date, so it’s obviously an issue to consider.
The point about the SPs is interesting. The figure which Raceform publish is worked out in the following way: (very ‘crude’ example this)
Trainer ‘x’ has had 10 horses running in the last week at the following prices:
3@6/4
3@3/1
2@9/1
2@14/1If you convert those prices to percentages (as I know you can) you will get just over 228%. Or 2.28. The market indicates that from that trainer’s runners s/he can expect 2.28 winners. The number of actual winners let’s say it is 3, is then divided by the ‘expected’ or ‘anticipated’ figure according to SPs. In our example 3/2.28 = 1.32 (to 2 decimal places). What you do with that figure is upto you obviously, but it is a historical figure because it’s based on the statistics of the last fortnight or so etc. Just as an aside there was a period during December, about 3 weeks I think, when NTD was recording a figure of 0.6, obviously indicating a huge disparity between what the market expected him to do and what he actually did. So despite people feeling his stable was out of form the market still overpriced his horses compared to how they performed – something which you already spotted.
Take your point about my ‘win-only’ approach. Obviously a horse at 6/4 is expected to run better than a horse at 50/1. Certainly trainers of horses which only return SPs at 25/1 + can’t be expected to produce results like that of Nicholls et al. But the reason I do it? Simply because I can’t be bothered trying to work out any sort of ‘value’ to placed horses. I’m interested in horses which win and trainers who train winners. I realise this bit is totally arbitrary Mark, but that’s obviously my little thing so to speak!
I don’t like the RTF figure simply because I’m not a fan of RPRs and I don’t really care if a trainer with 25 consecutive losers has 80% running to within 5lb of their RPR or whatever the criterion is.
Your dead right about the ‘method’ I use for collating the stats. Undoubtedly I’ll miss some stables returning to form in the last 48 hours or so because of my 25+ plus rule. But to be honest I just have to accept that and stick with what I’ve been doing. I appreciated that the approach is vulnerable to this.
Trainers for courses? Yes I respect that approach, but I guess it’s just one other variable to add into my assessment. I suppose I’ve taken the view that relatively recent trainer form is more valuable than trainers’ records at courses. However, it’s just a feeling and I’ve no evidence for this ‘feeling’ whatsoever, lol.. just the way I go about things.
Again, like I mentioned in my original post, the question is – what do you do with this information? It reminds me of the American punter who produced his own speed figures, may have been Andy Beyer, who was asked – ‘Mr Beyer, what do you do when you’ve compiled your speed figures? … ‘I look at them’, he answered!
I suppose you could develop hard and fast rules. Maybe you could exclude all horses whose trainers have a certain ‘rating’.. you could check your won records to see if that’s fruitful. Or, maybe you could take off a certain percentage score from your horse if it comes from an out of form stable or add on percentage points from an in-form stable.
My overall feeling is that trainer form is very important, but I think you have to plough your own furrow. I think you have to ignore the comments from tv, radio, internet sites as to who is and isn’t in form and stick to the facts. What you do with the ‘facts’.. well, that’s the difficult bit!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.