- This topic has 21 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Trainers and their habits form part of my general betting strategy. I’m sure they do so for many people, Pricewise, for example, is a clear follower of certain yards at certain times.
However, one question I was toying with earlier when faffing about with a results database is what specific criteria I should use to define a ‘trainer in form’.
I’m sure there are hundreds of potentially useful answers but looking for some ideas, particularly from anyone who has devised a specific methodology around this concept.Good question, Corm.
And how long does a trainer remain in form?
By the time you indentify that a trainer is ‘in form’ that run of form could be coming to an end!
Col
Trainers in or out of form is perhaps the thing that gives me the biggest edge. Trouble is in my opinion it’s been one of the most overly/wrongly used sayings in racing circles. They’re either obsessed by judging every trainer in exactly the same way or C4/ATR/RUK can not resist saying “trainer in form”, just because he/she had a winner that day or even just one important win in the last week. One winner does not make an in form trainer. On the other hand, the racing press is in my opinion guilty of identifying “in form trainers” too late and keeping them as “in form” far too long.
I believe it is best not to have a definite number of races to consider, neither do I go back a definite number of weeks. It’s best to keep it a bit subjective. Three week assessments are fine for trainers with few runners, but those with greater numbers can often be judged more accurately from three days activity or less. eg Richard Hannon, Paul Nicholls etc. (see also*).
Trainer Form should not be judged purely on winners – especially when assessing trainers with fewer numbers – rather let price be a guide. Looking at a trainer’s recent record; a placed 33/1 shot has in all probability run very well, not so an odds-on placed runner. Sometimes a trainer is “in form” without it showing up in the wins column, eg if a trainer had plenty of placed efforts at double figure prices recently – then the horse you’re looking at has (what trainer form is all about) a good chance of running to form or even improving. I also like to look at how far a placed horse was beaten, a 16/1 shot who’s beaten 20 lengths in to third has run ok, but wouldn’t be putting it towards a trainer in “excellent” form. Where as a 16/1 shot who’s a length third has probably run very well indeed. If a trainer has had three long odds-on winners in the last few days beware of over-estimating the trainer’s form, especially if winning margins are small.
Finding out trainers in and out of form is my first job in evaluating a race. I use Timeform Race Passes to form my own TIF ratings. I do not use Timeform’s own trainer in form ratings! For those without a Timeform subscription Sportinglife.com website’s is almost as good (and free). Rating every horse in the race for what sort of form each trainer is in. Clicking trainer’s names on the race card to give a history of every runner the stable has had in order (latest runs first).
Rating trainers:
10/10 unbelievable form
9/10 brilliant
8/10 excellent
7/10 good
6/10 average
5/10 probably average
4/10 just about ok
3/10 below what you’d expect and questions should be asked
2/10 below form, think twice!
1/10 very poor. Don’t touch it!Anything from 4 to 1 negatives and 7 to 10 positives to varying degrees.
Vast majority will be between 8 and 3. Some, (eg 10) appear rarely, only around half a dozen times a season (if that).
1 would be a trainer on a long run of losers and no placed runners either. Any race could have many in-form trainers or none at all.To be a main bet it has to be 6 or better.
5 or less savers only.
1 to 3 are seldom worth any sort of bet, usually representing poor value and are opposable.Trainer Form helps pinpoint winners at big odds. Punters wisely don’t like backing horses who ran badly last time out, especially if no obvious reason comes to light. However, if a trainer was at that time below form and now in excellent or better, then there’s is a far better chance the horse itself will return to form. Conversely; an impressive performance last time out when a trainer was in excellent or better – but now below form – may be one to take on (particularly if at shortish odds). Finding a race where it looks between two horses whose trainers are in contrasting form could easily pay dividends.
Something else I look out for is Timeform give a “Runs in 14 days prior to today” and “Runs in previous 6 months prior to today”. Giving number of runs, number of wins, percentage of wins, number of placed, percentage of placed. Comparing the 14 day record with 6 months can pay, because some trainers have a better strike rate than others and this needs to be taken in to account. Otherwise it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion Willie Mullins is always in good form and someone like Michael Scudamore is never in form. Scudamore does not have the quality of Mullins and therefore his average runner has a much worse chance than Mullins’ average. If Mullins recent strike rate gets below 20% it could easily be a negative, where as a 20% strike rate by Scudamore is bloody good.
*Sometimes smaller stables can also be judged by looking at a comparatively small segment. eg. If a trainer had twenty runners in the last three weeks; up until the last couple of days had no winner and no placed and yet since then has had four runners, two wins at 7/2 and 10/1, one 16/1 length third and one 2¾ lengths 33/1 fourth. According to the three week figures that’s 2 wins (8%), 1 placed from 24 runners. And yet to my way of thinking the trainer is in “brilliant form”. If sticking to the “three weeks” information the trainer could have come in to form and out again without registering as being “in form”.
In contrast, if a trainer has a particularly good few days and then suddenly losing his form; the three week record can seem a lot better than the trainer’s actual current form. I know with all of this it is possible figures are just a coincidence, but (as always) I am working on probabilities.
“In form trainers” do not make a horse THE SELECTION, other positives AND negatives need to be allowed for in my assessment of value. Still needs to stay the trip, act on the going etc. But it does give the horse a much better chance of winning than if the trainer is in poor, moderate or even reasonable form… And – most importantly of all – to a degree which in my opinion is often under-estimated by the Early Market.
Value Is EverythingRating trainers:
10/10 unbelievable form
9/10 brilliant
8/10 excellent
7/10 good
6/10 average
5/10 probably average
4/10 just about ok
3/10 below what you’d expect and questions should be asked
2/10 below form, think twice!
1/10 very poor. Don’t touch it!Anything from 4 to 1 negatives and 7 to 10 positives to varying degrees.
Vast majority will be between 8 and 3. Some, (eg 10) appear rarely, only around half a dozen times a season (if that).
1 would be a trainer on a long run of losers and no placed runners either. Any race could have many in-form trainers or none at all.To be a main bet it has to be 6 or better.
5 or less savers only.
1 to 3 are seldom worth any sort of bet, usually representing poor value and are opposable.0/10 equals Jonjo or Noel Meade
Couldn’t disagree with any of Gingertipster’s considerations. I’ve always tried to take into account how trainers horses have run compared to how they should have run, using the market as a guide, much along the lines described above. I also look at trainers form over the last week/fortnight/month ensuring I take account of Wins and Placed runs. Anyone with a win and place strike rate over 50% will grab my attention.
Can’t claim I’m overly rigorous with all this but I definitely try to take trainer form into account when looking at a race even if only to narrow big race fields down to size.
how do/can people factor in trainer form when backing AP?
Big believer in trainer form that’s why i very rarely get involved AP(plus i’m a tight g1t and want a run for my money)
how do/can people factor in trainer form when backing AP?
Big believer in trainer form that’s why i very rarely get involved AP(plus i’m a tight g1t and want a run for my money)
Sometimes it’s impossible NWalton – not exactly “trainers in form” – but it is sometimes possible to take probable future form in to account. Lot of trainers are often in or out of form at roughly the same time each year. eg Doubt whether I’d consider backing a Jonjo O’Neil horse for any Ante-Post race in January, invariably in very poor form in late winter. But has a great record in the Spring and particularly at the Cheltenham Festival.
Value Is Everything0/10 equals Jonjo or Noel Meade
Couple of days ago I’d have agreed, but seems to be improving.
Admittedly Rose Revived ran poorly, but Set In My Ways ran well to be 2 1/4 lengths second.
Ivy Gate would’ve run well but for unseating two out.
Another Hero improved to win a handicap.
Princess Tiana ran 5th of 7 finishers, but was a 50/1 shot.
Suit Yourself the 5/4 fav was a bit disappointing.In my book has gone up to a 3.
Value Is EverythingI can only concur with all the points made by fellow posters above.
Right now, at the time of writing, John Jenkins seems to be enjoying a fairly good run with the few runners he has on the AW Flat, and he is showing a healthy level stakes profit over the last couple of weeks, as is the case with his NH Flat and AW Flat runners for the past 12 months. His runners are definitely worth a second look at the moment, particularly at Lingfield and Southwell. Seemingly Mr Jenkins has his string in pretty rude health as we speak! Strike while the iron’s hot is my motto.
Another trainer whose runners are worth a second look is Malcolm Jefferson, imo. But only NH, mind! (particularly at Sedgefield). Definitely not Flat Turf, though.
Is there any evidence that trainers cannot tell when any horse in their charge is fit and well? Well, probably when they exit the training ranks because they, and/or their staff, keep damaging horses by exposing them to severe exercise when they are unwell or injured. So if a trainer is still in business after three seasons, he or she is not making that mistake, and the conclusion that can be drawn is that if a horse does not run to form it is likely to be down to a horse’s preferences not yet being fully appreciated (ground, distance, large field size, even pace, front running, etc.) or something spooky on the day (bad journey to course, noisy stables, getting bumped, jockey judgement). It is sometimes not until a horse has had two years of racing that its preferences are sorted out, even by really good trainers (Noble Mission as a five-year-old?). So when you look at the numbers in the results database about horse form and how it relates to trainer form, is it telling you anything meaningful? You could look at a horse’s current overall rating (OR, RPR, Timeform, etc) and subtract that from the race rating that it achieved in its last race; if the answer is positive, or negative by less than 5%, you can say it ran to form, or better. Otherwise it did not run to form. Do that for all the trainer’s runners in your chosen timeframe, and calculate the average percentage below par for the trainer.
The trouble is that with the normal variation in the form of a horse, you need a big sample to be sure that a high variation from a trainer’s normal form is significant in statistical terms. Richard Hannon had 1089 turf runners last season and 151 winners, almost 14%. They will not come as a regular pattern of six losers and then one winner, there will be clumps of winners and longer tracts of losers, all because of natural random variation. If you add on the difficulty of deciding in any individual poor horse performace whether it is solely down to the horse or not, then that just adds to the uncertainty of whether you are seeing a signal or just random noise. Seeing the results of forty consecutive Richard Hannon runners, noting that there were no winners in the first twenty, and six winners in the last twenty, it is still more likely to be random distribution than it is that the final twenty results are significant in saying that Richard Hannon was in form then, but not in form for the first twenty. The statistics that apply to winners also applies to placed horses, and horses that run within 5% of their best form, etc, etc.
Why speculate, agonize and ask for advice when you have in front of you the means to find out? You mention “faffing about with a results database”, and I know that you have been tutored in statistics and probability. You could run some models on significant sample sizes of various trainers to see if past performance (eg. X% of runners within Y% of best form over Z number of runners) has any correlation with future performance over any chosen number of future runners. You would be also able to discover whether regression to the mean is as true in horse racing performances as in most most natural activities, and if it were so true, then concluding that a trainer having a purple patch recently is more likely than not, statisically, to have a poor patch fairly soon.
I reckon that a person such as yourself, steeped in racing, would use your experience to more accurately assess “trainer in form” that any set of numbers would tell you.
You cannot win consistently with so called ”in form ” trainers as most experienced backers will know. The secret is to find trainers who excel at winning with horses that have not shown sparkling form in recent outings but hose up when the price is right. These are the chaps who beat your even money shot time and time again.
Like looking for ‘small’ trainers in good form, usually means they are underbet.
J O’Shea has had 5 winners from his last 8 runners, I know Clement accounts for 3 of those and on todays showing under the excellent Georgia Cox will likely win again.
Based on last seasons flat, Ruth Carr hit a period of very good form about six weeks into the campaign, others that stood out were J R Jenkins, Dascombe, Goldie, A Carroll with sustained periods of good form and good value. They seem to prepare a string of horses to provide a series of good wins starting at a preordained time. It could be worth getting in on the ground floor with these and waiting for signs of consistency.
With Cheltenham approaching I think it’s safe to say Alan King is a trainer in form right now, a treble today, and Nicholls could be hitting form, also with a treble today….could be two trainers to follow outside of the Mullins juggernaut.
Indeed Alan King is clearly in form, the polar oposite to Nick Henderson who whilst still having winners some of his horses appear to be running below par.
Indeed MV. I was throwing this out for ideas really. I completely agree that separating ‘trainer in form’ from ‘trainer in favourable patch of normal results sequence’ is tricky. It’s probably much easier to identify trainer out of form than trainer in form.
I’m in the middle of composing a lengthy piece on variation, mainly to order my own thinking, which I’ll hopefully publish here unless it is a hash, which it may well turn out to be!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.