- This topic has 39 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
As an ardent non-follower of those side-of-the-mouth, dubiously-bred mock-farmers known as trainers, I have often been flummoxed by the lazily regurgitated punters’ bromide that the stable is ‘in-form’ or ‘out-of-form’.
This wonderfully oblique explanation for so-and-so suddenly running inexplicably better (or worse) is lovingly ingested with sage nods all round by those who clearly know more about the sport than me.
Apart from the obvious problem caused by ill-health transmitting itself to other horses in the yard (’bout of coughing’ is always a good’un) can anyone offer me an explanation as to why a yard would appear to be ‘in form’ or not?
The ebb-and-flow of statistical likelihood means it is in effect certain that a trainer will have a spike in his number of winners/losers at various points throughout the calendar. In which case, surely this is no different to describing a punter or a tipster as being ‘in form’? That is to say, they’re not, it’s just the natural variance in basic statistics that creates such an illusion.
Mike
Ah yes Mike,
One of the most over-used, wrongly used and yet (imo) most important three words in studying form "stable in form".Will get back to this subject when having time to do it justice.
Value Is EverythingI monitor trainers over a season pinning various times in my notebook as to when they are in noticeably bad or good form. The two can correlate significantly in the future.
The ebb-and-flow of statistical likelihood means it is in effect certain that a trainer will have a spike in his number of winners/losers at various points throughout the calendar.
Completely agree. Mark Johnston is one who fits this bill nicely, he turns out so many runners and can find some typically week opportunities that he can be the best trainer in the land one week to average the next.
It is not such much just winning, or not so. Whether horses are performing above expectation or showing vastly improved form we should be looking to.
How they can correlate is important also. A trainer like say, Twiston-Davies is always strong in September/October but struggles later in the season, simple fact is his horses tend to run up handicap early when his runners are in peak form and others are taking a steadier approach. It would be folly to ignore his form in those early months. There is a reason behind it.
Similarly. A trainer who has struggled form for reason early in the season, illness or other such reason, may start firing runners in as his horses prove to be well handicapped. Roger Varian recently springs to mind. Marco Botti is currently seeing a upsurge in form, find opportunities to place horses in races they are better than.
There can be reasons behind stables performing above or below expectation, this is the time to take note, not when they are just rolling out the standard product line.
Since the subject was brought up:
"How do you tell which Stables are in form or out of form
And what does it mean for the horse in question
"TBRacing has it spot on and I can only add a supplementary pet theory as to why stables ‘return to form’; a theory as intangible as ‘trainers in form’
A happy yard means happy horses. The sullen atmosphere in a yard going through a losing run sours the horses; the cheerful atmosphere in a yard rolling in the winners cheers the horses
A "happy" yard means in theory better execution of work. It doesn’t make the horses happier ….. We don’t need to descend into cheesy "horses have human feelings!".
Perceived stable form will often simply come down to statistical variation. That variation can derive from any number of plausible reasons. Weak races/good placement, favourable handicap marks, recovering from fitness, ground (i.e a Yard has a high % of horses preferring certain ground types), running their better horses, good fortune (competition runs below form) etc etc etc. Stable may also be running horses during a time frame who have a record of inconsistency, which artificially implies the stable is struggling.
You’ll also have periods of time where trainers either can’t stop winning, or don’t win at all, but as a poster alluded to before, without context it’s difficult to know what that means. You may simply have seen a trainer run a few horses who had little realistic opportunity to win. Conversely, farming a few weaker races at particular times of the season with fit or fresher horses doesn’t mean you should back a horse because of the trainer being "in form", rather back it because it’s got a great chance on merit.
This looks like one of those signal/noise statistical issues. How do you separate genuine form changes (signal) from random stuff (noise)? I would guess that a purely statistical approach probably would show that most form changes are noise but I suppose if you have a lot of data and/or insight you might spot a genuine form change before the crowd.
I think there are data on how well a horse has run relative to its form – these might be useful. Or maybe you could simply check the direction of changes in handicap marks for the stable relative to trend. I suspect a lot of work though, for probably not a lot of reward.
A "happy" yard means in theory better execution of work. It doesn’t make the horses happier ….. We don’t need to descend into cheesy "horses have human feelings!".
I wasn’t intending a ‘my little pony’ anthropomorphism: uncontent and content may have been a better choice of words than sour and happy. I do believe that horses like domestic cats and particularly dogs can have their mood modified by the general mood of the humans around them
But I’ve never worked with horses, so perhaps those that have could verify or demolish my theory
I monitor trainers over a season pinning various times in my notebook as to when they are in noticeably bad or good form. The two can correlate significantly in the future.
The ebb-and-flow of statistical likelihood means it is in effect certain that a trainer will have a spike in his number of winners/losers at various points throughout the calendar.
Completely agree. Mark Johnston is one who fits this bill nicely, he turns out so many runners and can find some typically week opportunities that he can be the best trainer in the land one week to average the next.
That’s interesting tb. I don’t particularly keep records like you do, so may be I am wrong. But I’ve noticed in many seasons Mark Johnston coming in to a rich seam of form in late July/early August. Do realise he targets Glorious Goodwood, but I believe there’s a reason. ie He knows he is usually in good form at that time of year anyway so targets those races. Often does well at the Ascot meeting the week before and a bit before that too.
Contrastingly, it seems to me he’s often out of form by the time his local York’s Ebor meeting comes around later on in August. Partly, one possible reason for this is that York is a poor course for front/prominent runners – but I do think there’s more to Johnston’s poor form at York than just a pace bias.
I wonder, if you’ve got records going back years tb, whether you could confirm or tell me my mind is playing tricks on me?
Value Is EverythingTo the reasons already listed, feed might be a consideration. An owner told me that is is not uncommon for a batch of feed to be carrying some bacteria.
I believe ‘the virus’ is a culprit much more often than trainers are willing to admit.
Perhaps the horses suffer from stress due to hearing their needs changing so often when being unsaddled after a race. ‘He needs longer, shorter, wetter, drier, more time etc’
Seriously, there must be a high likelihood that psychological factors play a big part. Most thoroughbreds are very highly strung and have characters as individual as humans. Look at Olympic Glory; R Hughes is adamant the horse does not like going downhill.
And, the simple act of putting a horse in a horsebox and dropping him off a few miles down the road can unleash previously hidden super powers: Top Notch Tonto anyone?
As an ardent non-follower of those side-of-the-mouth, dubiously-bred mock-farmers known as trainers, I have often been flummoxed by the lazily regurgitated punters’ bromide that the stable is ‘in-form’ or ‘out-of-form’.
This wonderfully oblique explanation for so-and-so suddenly running inexplicably better (or worse) is lovingly ingested with sage nods all round by those who clearly know more about the sport than me.
Apart from the obvious problem caused by ill-health transmitting itself to other horses in the yard (’bout of coughing’ is always a good’un) can anyone offer me an explanation as to why a yard would appear to be ‘in form’ or not?
The ebb-and-flow of statistical likelihood means it is in effect certain that a trainer will have a spike in his number of winners/losers at various points throughout the calendar. In which case, surely this is no different to describing a punter or a tipster as being ‘in form’? That is to say, they’re not, it’s just the natural variance in basic statistics that creates such an illusion.
Mike
Surprised you are such a naysayer when it comes to "trainer form" Mike. It’s one of the major things that (imo) gives me an edge.
Yes, it can be just a statistical coincidence, but just as running poorly/well on a particular surface, distance or draw can be a coincidence.
What is true is that a lot of rubbish is talked about "in form trainers". eg We often get TV presenters saying a trainer is "in form" just because he/she has had a winner that day. One winner does
not
an "in form trainer" make. You also get them remembering the trainer had a few winners a couple of weeks ago and saying "… is in cracking form", where as in practice has had had no winners and no placed from 20 runners since.
"Top Trainers" in the Racing Post is better than nothing, but it can be misleading. Often by the time you can see from the information a trainer is "in form", when the best period has been and gone. ie No longer "in form" at all. Then there’s the exact comparrison… Fact is, often a trainer with numerous runners per day is best judged on record of only the last few days rather than two weeks. Where as with one of few runners it is best to use the full two or even three weeks sample.
With any trainer it is best to judge "in or out" by assending order. A winner yesterday means more than a winner three weeks ago. I now mainly use Timeform’s Trainer Form, but it can just as easily be done using Sportinglife.com. Just go to the race card and click on a trainer’s name. It tells you the last three weeks record with latest first (excluding today).
It is wrong to judge "in or out" by winners alone. What a punter really needs to know is: Are the horses running particularly well? So price comes in to it. Any odds-on 2nd may not have run to form, where as a 33/1 4th of 25 has probably run very well indeed.
I rate every trainer in every race I am interested in betting in. From
*** Fantasticly Unbelievable, only around four times per season does this occur.
** Brilliant, winners outnumber losers and others running well in close to hand results.
* Excellent, horses running well all over the place, with very few poor runs.
*/ Very Good, Good runs far outweigh poor ones.
// Average, speaks for itself.
/, Little below average but probably only a coincidence
/ Only just about OK, think of it more as a saver rather than main bet.
-/ Below average and something to think about opposing.
– Only in exceptional circumstances have a saver bet, strictly no main bets.
x Don’t Touch It!Even to my non-conformation-expert-eye it is often very noticeable how trainers that are truly "in form" have runners with gleaming and/or dappled coats, much more than their horses do when in only reasonable… let alone "poor form". The inward well-being of a racehorse can usually be seen by its coat. Those trainers in poor form or yet to hit form often have horses with dull or (in Spring) woolly coats and sometimes acting dull too.
Value Is EverythingHaving researched this extensively, it is clear that only when accompanied with the "Sage Nod" Betlarge refers to, should trainer form be taken in to account.
Viruses (both major and minor) happen all the time and seldom aknowledged by trainers themselves. Even when they do it is only after they’re coming out of the doldrums that we get to hear of it. I’ve heard trainers blaming things like the harvesting of oil seed rape close to their land; or a sole newcomer to the yard who’s a carrier. So us punters need to look out for statistics that point to the probability or even possibility.
It’s not usually the be all and end all, just imo something else that should be allowed for in any decision of whether a price is worth taking or not. Vast majority horses/trainers have (see my symbols above) ratings of between */ and /
With "out of form" trainers I’d be more forgiving the older a horse is. Once a horse has had a particular virus I’ve heard it is often immune. Certainly my experience tells me older horses tend to break a poor trend more often than younger ones.
Value Is EverythingWhen a horse has been running poorly when the trainer has him/herself been in poor form last time out and then is running in a race when the trainer is in excellent form… it can indeed be worth taking a chance Mike. I have several winners every year at big prices primarily due to this occurence, not neccesarily top trainers either. eg Viking Storm was the outsider of the whole field at Salisbury on September 5th. Harry Dunlop had excellent results that very week.
Conversely, when a trainer was in unbelievable form when the horse won last time out and now runs with the trainer in poor form – can signal a favourite that is overbet and I’m able to take it on.
The reason why (I believe) "trainer form" gives me an edge Mike… is not because it is any more important than any other aspect of "form"… But because unlike Ratings, Going, Distance, Draw etc – it seems rarely taken in to consideration by bookmakers when pricing up races and so gives an edge.
Value Is EverythingRuns/wins/sr/sp-p&l/places/place sr/poi/bf-p&l/bflay-p&l
29 July 2013
Mark Johnston
Trainer Form
94 24 25.53% 13.85 37 39.36% 14.73% 19.03 -27.0106 August 2012
Mark Johnston
Trainer Form
73 16 21.92% 53.46 31 42.47% 73.23% 60.01 -68.76Part of two entries I made for MJ, Ginger, around the time you speak of.
Added to that, it was quite an exceptional period as he kept up similar figures in 2012 for over a month with a large sample of runners for the period.
09 September 2012
Mark Johnston
Trainer Form
205 44 21% 14.39 88 43% 7.02% 23.59 -40.94Another interesting
06 August 2012
Sir Mark Prescott
Trainer Form
21 8 38.10% 7.85 15 71.43% 37.38% 8.75 -10.529 July 2013
Sir Mark Prescott Bt
Trainer form
20 10 50.00% 38.3 13 65.00% 191.50% 41.65 -44.75Trainer has a winner, their first in weeks and they’re " in form " Trainer then has a placed horse. Commentator claims the stable is " in fine form ".
" Mark Johnston is absolutely firing in the winners " – i’m not surprised with about 120 runners that month.
" Roger Varian can do no wrong " well why aren’t all his horses winning ?
Tired cliches and platitudes from media and bookmaker commentators and analysts.
Venetia Williams often has a spell during a season when she has several winners with one or two horses running up a sequence. Fair enough, that’s " red hot " form. The problem is that a month later when her strike rate is down to about 5% we’re still told that the stable is banging the winners in.
Several years ago before the recent resurgence to Champion Trainer elect, Nicky Henderson would often be fairly quite during the autumn and winter until November and December. You could then make a profit backing his runners blind, particularly first time out. Now, the prices are short enough on more or less every runner.
Also Twiston Davies – and this season Charlie Longdson – who take advantage of the big two stables not running their better horses at this time of year and they can hit strike rates of 40-60%.It amazes me that experts in the media can’t spend a couple of minutes looking at the Trainerspot page in the RP. That type of information should be essential for them.
"It amazes me that experts in the media can’t spend a couple of minutes looking at the Trainerspot page in the RP. That type of information should be essential for them"
The media (experts??)have no concept of what probability and statistics might mean.
A stream of clichés come out the mouth and join up into weird sentences that have no meaning on this planet.In Eggheads for example the autocue reading robot- sorry, Question Master, regularly gives hope to the gormless ("nuclear physics is not my specialist subject") opposing team that the Eggheads may not be in form today. Unless they are suffering from dementia then they will either know an answer or not know it. The same old line every night "Eggheads who will have the brains to beat you? £20,000 says you don’t". The quiz is about knowledge, picking the right multiple choice answer, but certainly not brains. The prize money is irrelevant it is only about getting more questions right in the edition you actually take part in. Just meaningless words that might appear to vaguely point to something sage.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.