- This topic has 39 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’m a firm believer that having a "stable" of trainers that you focus your time and attention upon can pay dividends. Researching their "modus operandi" can identify some interesting trends and statistics that are missed by the majority.
They don’t have to be the "big" yards. In fact I prefer to focus my time on yards that I know can do the job but are typically underbet in the market.
Of course trainer form isn’t the be all and end all of form study but it’s an important part of mine.
A simple method I use is to look at a trainer’s 2 year strike rate. If their current (14-30 day) form is well above OR below their 2 year strike rate then I give them higher regard in my race analysis.
Why trainers come in and out of form can be due to various external and internal factors. Trainers hate to admit they have a virus as the negative vibe it gives out is all too obvious. Some trainers target certain times of the year and the prize money that goes with it.
One trend to spot is a trainer that has been cold for a number of months due to the virus. They continue to run their horses throughout this time and the whole string becomes well handicapped. Also the run of poor form figures for each horse means the odds will generally be higher so it only takes one or two winners to make the analysis worthwhile. Emma Lavelle being a good recent example. Alan King was quieter for a couple of years but last season it felt like he was getting a big winner every Saturday.
Happy, healthy, fit horses win races.
Finally any trainer worth his salt wants regular winners to keep them in the headlines. No one remembers who came second.
I’m a firm believer that having a "stable" of trainers that you focus your time and attention upon can pay dividends. Researching their "modus operandi" can identify some interesting trends and statistics that are missed by the majority.
They don’t have to be the "big" yards. In fact I prefer to focus my time on yards that I know can do the job but are typically underbet in the market.
Of course trainer form isn’t the be all and end all of form study but it’s an important part of mine.
A simple method I use is to look at a trainer’s 2 year strike rate. If their current (14-30 day) form is well above OR below their 2 year strike rate then I give them higher regard in my race analysis.
Why trainers come in and out of form can be due to various external and internal factors. Trainers hate to admit they have a virus as the negative vibe it gives out is all too obvious. Some trainers target certain times of the year and the prize money that goes with it.
One trend to spot is a trainer that has been cold for a number of months due to the virus. They continue to run their horses throughout this time and the whole string becomes well handicapped. Also the run of poor form figures for each horse means the odds will generally be higher so it only takes one or two winners to make the analysis worthwhile. Emma Lavelle being a good recent example. Alan King was quieter for a couple of years but last season it felt like he was getting a big winner every Saturday.
Happy, healthy, fit horses win races.
Finally any trainer worth his salt wants regular winners to keep them in the headlines. No one remembers who came second.
Nice post. Thanks
Many good responses on here but I’m not sure if they really answer the question I was attempting to pose. I was trying to understand whether – leaving aside yard illnesses, and allowing for natural statistical variance – trainers really come in and out of form or is it just a lazy banality regurgitated by commentators?
Many have commented along the lines of
x
does well at this time of year, or targets specific types of races etc but surely that’s more
modus operandi
than actual form variances?
To 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.
This is the most interesting post for me as I’m really struggling to find a logical reason why a yard’s horses could actually start running above/below par unless some sort of illness in involved.
Mike
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
This too has a lot of credence. Some years ago now, I was strolling past a certain well-known Lambourn yard (who will have to remain nameless for legal reasons) when I came across the extraordinary sight of Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens at the time) enthusiastically belting out
Kumbaya
to a increasingly ‘relaxed’ bunch of horses.
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
Many of the string were holding hooves around a camp-fire
..kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
which flickered and crackled in time to Cat’s mellifluous tones
..kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
whilst the smell of Moroccan Black weighed heavily in the evening air
..oh Lord, kumbaya..
They were the happiest bunch of horses you ever did see.
As they chilled and dozed, Cat sidled suspiciously up to me and said with just a hint of menace: "The first rule of Mellow Gee-Gee Club is you do not talk about Mellow Gee-Gee Club". He then slung his guitar over his shoulder, hitched up his kaftan and disappeared into the night.
Remarkably, it came to my attention that within four weeks, 87% of the horses involved had gone on to win Group races.
So Drone is definitely not just talking bollocks.
Mike
One trend to spot is a trainer that has been cold for a number of months due to the virus. They continue to run their horses throughout this time and the whole string becomes well handicapped. Also the run of poor form figures for each horse means the odds will generally be higher so it only takes one or two winners to make the analysis worthwhile. Emma Lavelle being a good recent example. Alan King was quieter for a couple of years but last season it felt like he was getting a big winner every Saturday.
Happy, healthy, fit horses win races.
Finally any trainer worth his salt wants regular winners to keep them in the headlines. No one remembers who came second.
That’s one of my key areas. Venetia was the same last season. Emma Lavelle has a small string though and soon i think her horses will be poor value – Captain Sunshine should never have been as low as 3-1 at the weekend. Two or three times she’s had a good Autumn but then failed to have a winner in December or January. Last year it was 8 winners from November to March so she should have good horses lurking below their potential.
However, i think King could do quite well this season with horses being very well handicapped. I think he was still under performing last term
Many good responses on here but I’m not sure if they really answer the question I was attempting to pose. I was trying to understand whether – leaving aside yard illnesses, and allowing for natural statistical variance – trainers really come in and out of form or is it just a lazy banality regurgitated by commentators?
Mike
I think that’s been well answered several times.
I always look at trainer form but it is certainly not the be all and end all for me. It does however pay to know how trainers work.
For example Sir Henry would never have his horses 100% ready for the first run and TQ would certainly be easy on them first time out. He would also lay off his horses a bit after Glorious Goodwood so August/September would often be a time to avoid him.
Similarly I would never back Godolphin horses before Royal Ascot. That doesn’t mean they can’t win just that they seem less likely to do so. I had my fingers burnt by Discourse and Lyric Of Light in the 1,000 Guineas a couple of years ago but then that blinkin Blue Bunting went and won the following year!
Sir Mark doesn’t even start running them til June!
Over the jumps NTD likes to have them close to full fitness at the start of the season (and why not as he picks up plenty of winners) whereas others like to use the first run to blow away some cobwebs.
So I suppose plenty would depend on what they are doing at home and getting that right ie making sure they are fully fit whilst not over doing it. Any small misjudgement either way and the horses can run poorly. AOB has often blamed himself for not doing enough with them at home (although we can certainly take this with a pinch of salt hey Mike!)
So in summary sometimes I suppose it all just clicks for a stable and the horses run consistently to form. They might not all win but you can be pretty sure as a punter that they will run up to their best. Similarly you can sometimes see that a stables horses are not going so well and will factor this in to your decision.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
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.
I’m not really a ‘naysayer’ at all, my reasons are purely practical: I like studying form of horses and there’s only so many hours in the day. Second-guessing humans is not part of the sport for me, but if it gives others an advantage then more power to them.
I think I’ve posited this opinion here before but I generally guesstimate that the ability of the horse makes up 90% of his chance with the trainer/jockey side of things accounting for the other 10%. Obviously this is subject to wild variation. If a jockey rides a stinker or a trainer has a virus in the yard then they could effectively account for 100% of a horse’s chance!
It’s just that over a long run of bets, I generally take the view that on most occasions, most trainers are running fit horses to try to win the races they’ve entered in, and most jockeys are competent enough to give them that chance. Overall, I prefer to use my time on the 90% rather than the 10%.
Having said that, racing is also one of those unique sports where the primary competitors cannot talk, so I do think this considerably over-elevates the human side of the sport as the media struggle to interview the creatures that really count!
Mike
This too has a lot of credence. Some years ago now, I was strolling past a certain well-known Lambourn yard (who will have to remain nameless for legal reasons) when I came across the extraordinary sight of Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens at the time) enthusiastically belting out
Kumbaya
to a increasingly ‘relaxed’ bunch of horses.
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
Many of the string were holding hooves around a camp-fire
..kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
which flickered and crackled in time to Cat’s mellifluous tones
..kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..
whilst the smell of Moroccan Black weighed heavily in the evening air
..oh Lord, kumbaya..
They were the happiest bunch of horses you ever did see.
As they chilled and dozed, Cat sidled suspiciously up to me and said with just a hint of menace: "The first rule of Mellow Gee-Gee Club is you do not talk about Mellow Gee-Gee Club". He then slung his guitar over his shoulder, hitched up his kaftan and disappeared into the night.
Remarkably, it came to my attention that within four weeks, 87% of the horses involved had gone on to win Group races.
So Drone is definitely not just talking bollocks.
Amazing stats there. Nicky Henderson’s yard at a guess, as mornings spent hot-knifing resin with Sprinter Sacre goes a long way to explaining his rubicund countenance and selective memory: Hendo that is, not the horse. And I would imagine it’s Peter Walwyn and Barry Hills who lead the singing of Kumbaya
It’s kind of you to divulge such useful ‘inside information’ but it doesn’t come as a complete surprise as I’ve heard a similar tale concerning the Sue Smith stable; one of course ‘that knows the time of day’ is ‘worth keeping on the right side’ and ‘must be followed’
Prior to first lot Harvey joins his charges for a breakfast of Pontefract Cakes and Tetley Bitter followed by a resounding chorus of On Ilkla’ Moor Baht ‘At (On Ilkley Moor Without Your Hat as they would say in Lambourn) . This nobbut middling (Tyke for ecstactically happy) troupe then head f’t’moor content to undergo the stiffest interval training Mr & Mrs Smith can demand of them
I am somewhat sceptical as to the veracity of this tale though, as I’ve long been of the opinion that the sole reason the Smiths do so well with their chasers is due to Harvey putting the fear of God up them by bellowing into the underachievers’ ears "it’ll be hedghog skins on the practice fences for you if you don’t get your act together, ee bah gum lad"
Works wonders, despite them having no bollocks: the horses that is, not Harvey
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.
I’m not really a ‘naysayer’ at all, my reasons are purely practical: I like studying form of horses and there’s only so many hours in the day. Second-guessing humans is not part of the sport for me, but if it gives others an advantage then more power to them.
I think I’ve posited this opinion here before but I generally guesstimate that the ability of the horse makes up 90% of his chance with the trainer/jockey side of things accounting for the other 10%. Obviously this is subject to wild variation. If a jockey rides a stinker or a trainer has a virus in the yard then they could effectively account for 100% of a horse’s chance!
It’s just that over a long run of bets, I generally take the view that on most occasions, most trainers are running fit horses to try to win the races they’ve entered in, and most jockeys are competent enough to give them that chance. Overall, I prefer to use my time on the 90% rather than the 10%.
Having said that, racing is also one of those unique sports where the primary competitors cannot talk, so I do think this considerably over-elevates the human side of the sport as the media struggle to interview the creatures that really count!
Mike
It does not take long to look up the recent record of each trainer Mike, it’s come down to between 3 and around 8 minutes work on a race now that I am used to it. If I did not allow for "trainers in (or out) of form", I’d be backing out of form trainers as my "value bets" all the time.
I agree Mike, it’s the horse that matters, not who the trainer or jockey. I’d probably put it even higher than 90-10. In my opinion the primary advantage a top jockey can give is consistency, less likely to balls it up and more likely to choose the correct option. The improvement a top jockey can get out of the average horse is in my opinion minimal (though there are exceptions)…
But when it comes down to "trainer form", I regard this as still being about the horse itself. ie In with the "90%" not the 10. All part of an assessment of how likely the horse is to show its form, come back to form or even improve.
If a horse is running for the first time on soft ground and shows a round action to post – a punter knows
not
that it
will
go on the ground (could be a
coincidence
), only that its chance of acting on soft is
increased
. A horse running for the first time at a trip has an
increased
chance of staying if bred for the job, doesn’t mean it
will
definitely stay. If a trainer is recently in the winners enclosure (or placed with outsiders) it might just be coincidence, but the probability of running to form is increased because it may not be a coincidence. Like it or not Mike it’s all part of
"second-guessing"
how the
horse
will run.
Value Is EverythingI agree Mike, it’s the horse that matters, not who the trainer or jockey. I’d probably put it even higher than 90-10. In my opinion the primary advantage a top jockey can give is consistency, less likely to balls it up and more likely to choose the correct option. The improvement a top jockey can get out of the average horse is in my opinion minimal (though there are exceptions)…
But when it comes down to "trainer form", I regard this as still being about the horse itself. ie In with the "90%" not the 10. All part of an assessment of how likely the horse is to show its form, come back to form or even improve.
If a horse is running for the first time on soft ground and shows a round action to post – a punter knows
not
that it
will
go on the ground (could be a
coincidence
), only that its chance of acting on soft is
increased
. A horse running for the first time at a trip has an
increased
chance of staying if bred for the job, doesn’t mean it
will
definitely stay. If a trainer is recently in the winners enclosure (or placed with outsiders) it might just be coincidence, but the probability of running to form is increased because it may not be a coincidence. Like it or not Mike it’s all part of
"second-guessing"
how the
horse
will run.
Couldn’t argue with any of that.
In Flat racing, I’ve always thought that there’s probably nowt much between the journeyman jockey and the champion. It’s the latter’s absence of mistakes and sharper tactical nous rather than any great ability advantage that separates them.
Over jumps, even my untrained eye can see a palpable talent/timing/strength difference between the top jockeys and the rest. Sharply noticeable in many cases.
Mike
I am somewhat sceptical as to the veracity of this tale though, as I’ve long been of the opinion that the sole reason the Smiths do so well with their chasers is due to Harvey putting the fear of God up them by bellowing into the underachievers’ ears "it’ll be hedghog skins on the practice fences for you if you don’t get your act together, ee bah gum lad"
Works wonders, despite them having no bollocks: the horses that is, not Harvey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBaYHw0huzY
Raymond Brooks-Ward:
"Well, I don’t know what that sign meant"
Let me explain it to you Ray…
Mike
Timeform claims to have a unique measurement tool to help judge the success of trainers.
"Using our ratings to match performance against expectation (with various adjustments for context) for each runner, then collating the data for any given stable and comparing it to the average of the trainer population, expressed in + or – pounds – the language of ratings. It is very complicated, but this way is, we feel, the best statistical barometer. A plus figure means the trainer’s horses run well more frequently than the average stable."
Here’s their top 5 from the 2012/13 NH season:
Willie Mullins: +6.13
Dessie Hughes: +6.05
Keith Reveley: +5.77
David Bridgewater: +5.67
Harry Fry: + 4.90Interesting stuff Joe, although imo to rate trainers the same throughout the season is not the best way of doing things. Willie Mullins is more often than not rated as a "trainer
in
form" in my workings out. But there are times when even he is (comparitively) struggling. I say "comparitively" because the amount of runners the likes of Mullins and Hannon mean they’re always going to have a certain amount of successes.
Noticed Harry Fry was usually in my "in form" lists too. Not what you’d expect from a novice. Champion Trainer material imo.
There were others eg Charlie Longsden who seemed to have long periods in both camps, all or nothing… Which makes just giving trainers one rating (like your example Joe) in my opinion problematic.
I realise by rating trainers at the time of race has its drawbacks too, eg. coincidental winning or losing runs. But there are ways to try and get around this by using price and place – my own "expectation" guide. As said earlier, an odds-on 2nd may not have run to form, but a 33/1 4th of 20 runners has probably run very well indeed. There are no failsafe rules though; Top trainers horses may be short odds due more to the stable’s "reputation" than true "expectation", so it may be wise to bear this in mind too.
Value Is EverythingGinger, I suppose what Timeform are silently saying is that they agree with Mike. There is no mention of taking ups and downs in form into account, so I’m assuming they do not do so.
To some extent, there’s an argument for consistency being more valuable than peaks and troughs in form. And perhaps that consistency in itself conveys the true worth of a trainer’s skill.
If all of the factors mentioned in this thread apply, then the skilful trainer will do all he can to ensure bad lots of feed don’t reach his yard, stable staff treat their horses in the optimum manner for ‘happiness’, the sources of viruses are monitored and avoided etc. These are just the features of good managers in any business. If you can add to that some intuitive equine ‘magic’, you’ll avoid the Hot & Cold, and just stay nicely warm throughout the season.
Having said all that, I believe there is merit in following Hot trainers from a betting viewpoint. They might not have the Mullins touch; they might, indeed, be dunderheads, but if there is any edge to be had when they are in form, it should be grabbed.
But there might be even more of an edge, and a longer term one, in following Reveley, Bridgwater, and Fry, especially when up against the bigger names.
How would you judge the likelihood of an Emma Lavelle horse running well right now Joe? Is it best to judge her on a whole year? Or the past couple of weeks? Or a shorter time maybe?
Had a spell of 6 winners from 9 runners between October 6th and 11th. Winners at 7/4, 11/2, 1/3, 3/1, 7/2 and 11/4. The 3 losers being 6/1 3rd, 9/2 2nd and 33/1 6th of 15… Yet went months without a single winner last season.
I’d have been rating her as "in good form" even before that sequence started. Yet by some methods it would not even be a big enough sample to register and others as being "in good form" only after the sequence is finished.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.