- This topic has 82 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Deleted.
Sorry lads, decided don’t want to give away too many secrets.Value Is EverythingIt is always something I consider, though probably not the most important ingredient in the punting soup.
I have a big (and badly organised) database where I note trainer trends, typical MOs and any repeated seasonal fluctuations in overall form. I also look at the 28 day form and focus on a few things in particular:
1. How have (relevant) horses fared in relation to market confidence?
2. How have their exposed handicappers been performing?
3. Have they had any big disappointments?
I find it impossible to convert this into numerical data as so much is based on my opinions and how I define expectations in different contexts.
As you said GT, the key is finding trainer angles that have been underestimated by the market. One of the edges I try to open up is to pinpoint the earliest signs of a ‘cold’ trainer beginning to rise from their slump. It might just be a horse finishing their race well or a rank outsider hanging in there longer than you’d expect, but if you can spot these things first then you might be able to take advantage.
A question for you too: do you ever feel that some trainers go in year on/year off cycles of hot form and mediocre/poor form. Venetia Williams is my best high-profile example from my records over the last eight years, which I accept is a small sample if you’re looking at annual trends. I wonder if some of the yards most densely-populated with soft ground handicappers find the whole string exposed or well-handicapped at the same time.
A flat trainer having a lot of runners on the turf in April, the first month proper of the flat season is an interesting angle. It can be an indication of the general well-being and forwardness of a string when a trainer has entered up plenty of runners for such an early part of the season.
Below are the returns for April each year from 2011-2016 for the 13 trainers who have run 200 or more horses on the flat in that given period.
GT, Given Timeform’s trove of data and their attention to detail, do you think they fall quite a way short of the method you use, or some way short, a shade short…could you put a percentage on it? I’ve no doubt that customising figures which are simply produced by algos will give a better result, but am interested in the trade-off in the level of work involved in the customising.
I find the whole ‘in-form’ aspect of betting fascinating, not least because it suggests, to me at least, that most yards are actually out of form for most of the season, or at least not getting the best from their charges.
An in-form yard does not have a large batch of horses who have suddenly improved in ability. That ability must be there, and it is only showing during these relatively brief (for most) periods. Why is this? What is preventing perhaps 80% of the racehorse population from showing optimum form except in brief periods? Even more mystifying, those brief golden periods apply to most/all horses in a yard and yet those horses are individuals, not a team.
There must be something happening in those yards in those golden periods which lifts all, or, maybe more logically, outside of those golden periods, there is something happening in the yard which restricts most/all.
Do trainers have these golden periods at the same time each year? (probably not is my guess). Is there any consistent link or links that would allow you (given sufficient ‘inside’ info) to forecast when a golden period might be coming? Say, for example, the soil/grass on a gallop reaches an ideal state to get the optimum fitness/minimum damage once or twice a year? A long shot, I’m sure, but I’m trying to illustrate the challenge.
I doubt that the notion of a trainer being “in form” has any real meaning.
When analysing a race the more relevant issue is which horses are “in form”. If a trainer runs a horse that is “in form” in the right class of race under the right conditions (course type, distance, going, weight and, when relevant, draw) it normally runs well, if any component is missing it usually doesn’t. (I put “in form” in inverted commas because of course that is a matter of definition.)
The best trainers are those who know what their horses are capable of AND place them accordingly. If I find such a situation (and the horse concerned seems to have the beating of the other runners) I’m happy to back it even if the last 30 or more of the trainer’s runners have not won.
Joe, there is data on the ATR website which breaks down trainer form from month to month and also course by course.
These factors help flesh out the picture that the overall percentages present.
The annual average and 14 day averages can be used to compare whether, and by how far, the current form is behind (Or Ahead) of the normal average over the past 12 months.
John Gosden is a good recent example of it paying to follow the figures. He had a good Royal Ascot but thereafter spiralled down the strike rate ladder. His annual average of 21% was soon dropping to half that figure before bottoming out at about 7%, a third of the performance level he would be expected to average.
As we approached the July meeting at Newmarket, John Gosden came back into form and rapidly built up what is currently a 27.5 Strike rate.
That begs the question as to why the big lull happened between two major meetings. Was there a problem or was he just running the dross in between and keeping the good ones for the meetings that matter?
A trainer I have pegged as below form at the moment is Michael Stoute. He is 3/34 this past fortnight and 8.8% for strike rate. More importantly it’s not been a case of big priced horses getting beaten. The biggest priced runner from his last 20 was 15/2.
Of course, the Golden Rule is that, whenever you mention a trainer out of form, they immediately come roaring back into the winners enclosure.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thanks, Steve. I didn’t know that data was available. I’m interested in it more for the phenomenon of it than the betting angle, although that matters, of course.
Your example of Gosden throws something else into the mix; do some trainers target periods of the year and, effectively let their animals down (though they wouldn’t admit this publicly) in between?
GeorgeJ’s point of a horse being well placed in the proper class with all conditions suiting, including the horse being generally ‘in-form’ had also occurred to me. Perhaps trainers are getting the basics right…but that would not explain horses winning at big prices for yards who are somewhere on the hot streak spectrum. Nor would it explain the same trainer not getting the basics right at other times (aside, of course, from ground turning against a horse or the horse going wrong somehow).
Or maybe there is indeed no such thing as hot/cold streaks. After all, a yard with a 25% strike rate would get plenty of plaudits even though 75% of its runners, who are all subject to the same ‘streak values’ are getting stuffed. Now that 25% could be above the yard’s average, but is something happening at the yard or is something happening in the perception of the ever-optimistic punter to confer attributes which do not in fact exist?
Fascinating subject
I don’t always look at trainer form as it does put me off if a trainer has a low strike rate and a horse then wins I kick myself. Yesterday Red Tycoon for David Barron 0 from 30+. A month since his last winner. Bolted in
Sometimes you find out by accident e.g. someone put up here MicK Channon had 5/5 Derby Day so I backed a horse of his on the Sunday that duly won.
Also for example Richard Fahey had 7 in the Super Sprint on Saturday so barring a dead heat the best he could hope for was a 14% strike rate in that race alone. Therefore do pundits take this into account for trainers like Fahey who sometimes load horses into a race?
Just one of many, many things to look into when deciding which horse to back.
Joe
“Perhaps trainers are getting the basics right…but that would not explain horses winning at big prices for yards who are somewhere on the hot streak spectrum. Nor would it explain the same trainer not getting the basics right at other times (aside, of course, from ground turning against a horse or the horse going wrong somehow).”
On your first point, there is “in form” and “in form”. What I mean by that is that there is exposed form (for example Golden Stunner in the 2.30 Newbury on Saturday) which is there for everyone to see and less obvious form (for example Robot Boy, who just failed in the 2.45 Ascot the previous Saturday). In truth, quite a few clearly recognised Robot Boy’s chances, but others go unnoticed by many (for example Clear Spring on 13 May). I have no idea whether on GT’s schema either Barron or Spearing were in good or poor form at the time of the two runners but I do know that both are adept at placing their horses and on the two days in question both horses were clearly potentially capable of winning and had conditions to suit.
Your second point is really the converse of the first point. If we take Robot Boy as the example, his career record shows that his best performances have been over 5f on stiff courses on good/firm: indeed they were his performances in the 2014 and 2015 runnings of the 9 July race. After his 4th in the 2015 renewal, Robot Boy ran seven times before 9 July: not once did he run with those conditions. As a result he ran off 95 compared to the 106 he ran off in 2015. True, RB found one too good for him, but the pertinent question is what were connections trying to do in those seven intermediate runs? I am NOT for a moment suggesting that RB was run other than on his merits in those races, but in doing so he was never likely to win any of them, for quite specific reasons that can be described for each race.
Analogies are seldom really helpful, but I think football may offer one. A player can be out of form – maybe carrying a niggling injury, maybe having lost confidence, but a manager can’t be, really. Some days he may read the opposition correctly and find a strategy to defeat them, on others he may make errors of judgement. But it is safe to think (in my view) that he is always doing his best. Similarly a trainer might need to pursue a strategy to get a horse ready to win a given race some months hence which leads to a series of apparently poor runs, but that in no way indicates the trainer is “out of form” – actually it is the mark of a skilled handler going about his business in the owner’s interests.
Fair points, George.
Much will come down to whether one believes a ‘batch’ of the type of good results you mention happening in an undefined (or individually defined) period has an explanation beyond coincidence.
I pay virtually no attention to who trains or rides a potential selection as I believe such matters are ‘priced in’.
I don’t have the time or interest for such analysis either.
Mike
I pay virtually no attention to who trains or rides a potential selection as I believe such matters are ‘priced in’.
I don’t have the time or interest for such analysis either.
Mike
I think this is an exaggeration to the point I am now going to try to make.
What exactly is meant by trainer “form”?
I mean what are the underlying reasons for being in good form or bad form? Given that some trainers mentioned on this thread (for example michael stoute) have long ingrained habits of training horses that are unlikely to change, to what extent are his horses vulnerable to vagaries of form?
In other words is it environmental factors that are causing a decline in form (ie a virus) or other factors, like going in and out of fashion with owner/breeders meaning they are less likely to be sent good horses (like what happened to John Oxx for example) or just a lack of motivation on the part of the trainer and/or his staff?
What I find slightly confusing is how you are supposed to be able to work out that one trainer being out of form on a particular month, is not out of just a statistical quirk, rather than being some underlying reason?
I think another thing to mention which probably explains why it’s so hard to win as a punter in the long term is when you look at the level stakes table for trainers. On most stats, you’d get pounded if you backed Hannons/ O’Briens/Gosdens to a level stake.
Take Richard Whitaker today. He has a horse running in the 540 at Ayr called Totally Magic. His form is 0/27. Last winner 2nd June. The horse is up against an in form 3 year old for Keith Dalgleish who has had 3 winners today, Toffee Apple who is a shade odds against whilst TM is around 5/1. I reckon TM, who has been running over 7 furlongs needs further and today runs over a mile and hopefully has her going if it hasn’t dried out too much. The trainer form of both horses is putting me off TM. She will now bolt in
It is an important part of the process that takes literally seconds to look at. Would I be put off a horse trained by an out of form trainer? Not necessarily but it would certainly affect my stake. It is also worth knowing the modus operandi of the big trainers who tend to target the big meetings (as Steve said). I know Sir Henry would always use the first run of every season to get his horse race fit and then build towards the classics and Royal Ascot. He tended not to be a trainer to follow in August when he usually took his holiday! Similarly it used to be that you should not back a Godolphin horse before June. John Ferguson has helped change that this season. In my experience the best trainers are the most patient and I expect to see some like Sir Michael start to thrive again now that the ground has dried out.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Deleted.
Sorry lads, decided don’t want to give away too many secrets.Value Is EverythingI don’t agree that trainer form is priced in.
I think the bookies are pretty lazy in that aspect and I think it is because punters are generally lazier still than the bookies.
A good recent example was Grand Inquisitor from the Michael Stoute stable who was early favourite for a handicap last Saturday.
I immediately wanted to take the horse on because the Stoute stable was so quiet. I backed Franklin D and he was my nap of the day on another forum at 6/1. I am generally not putting my tips up on this forum now, because it has caused ill feeling.
Franklin D was representing Michael Bell, who had only had 14 winners this season, but 6 of those had come in the past fortnight and he was sitting on a 25% Strike rate.
The money came for Franklin D and bookies had obviously ballsed up the initial odds, as punters, not bookies, tippled where the value lay. Franklin D hosed up as 7/2 Fav.
Equally, during Gosden’s bad spell, the horses were still going off at prices that suggested everything was hunky dory. I don’t think the stable form was priced in at all and several were beat short enough in a blank weekend for the stable.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.