ARAZI91
Mare
Agree pawras - although there are better metrics than just the "number counting" stats like win % and place % etc. I like % of rivals beaten which i know Timeform use , and there are others - AE (Actual/Expectation) figs against either SP or BF market. WAX - Wins Against Expected market expectation is another. Hard to encompass all that into one figure but could be done and if monitored and tracked from a base point - say last two years and data points tracked like Last 10 runs , Last 25 runs would give a truer more complete picture of Trainer form and identify which trainers are coming in or going out of form - like a running handicap of trainers - could be done with jockeys too. You would have to include some sort of "market metric" as a) a 2nd place finish from a 40-1 shot is better than b) a 2nd place finish from an even money shot. The first is extremely positive but the second is arguably negative but standard rating systems just count it the same.I agree the connections can always pull one out of their arse for what seems like a negative situation, but unless you have some solid evidence I guess you've got to go with the general trend.
I did a quick test and in races where I have given one or more trainers strong ratings , the strike rate for trainers with 0 for my trainer ratings in those races is 5%.
For Geoffrey Deacon himself it's 2%.
So imo this provides a very mixed message for Hepijeu
in fact there are trainer ratings on the Chesham Class Ratings sheets which actually calculate similar type figures!
Last edited: