Does trainer form really matter? Interested in people’s views.

[mlmrob]

If you look at Lizzie Quinlan who is 294 days and 140 runners without a winner you would determine something has been wrong with her horses or she isn't a very good trainer as overall she operates at 6%, much the same as her mother when she held the licence.

Joey Ramsden 68 days and 40 runners since a winner but 0-19 with horses that go off 7/1 or less. Or, if you want, 0-14 that go off in the first three of the betting, five of those placed.

Jess Macey, 143 days and 57 runners without a winner. However, from those that went off in the first threee of the betting the losing run is 0-9.

Basically, Trainerform on its own doesn't line up but coupling it with the market gives a more clearer picture. Timeform's run to form figures are quite accurate. Her current average is just below 50%rtf and she has been a little over lately but her record is much better than what is was in ewarely April. As she averages 50% overall, black line, she really isn't out of form.

 

[tony spencer]

If you look at Lizzie Quinlan who is 294 days and 140 runners without a winner you would determine something has been wrong with her horses or she isn't a very good trainer as overall she operates at 6%, much the same as her mother when she held the licence.

Joey Ramsden 68 days and 40 runners since a winner but 0-19 with horses that go off 7/1 or less. Or, if you want, 0-14 that go off in the first three of the betting, five of those placed.

Jess Macey, 143 days and 57 runners without a winner. However, from those that went off in the first threee of the betting the losing run is 0-9.

Basically, Trainerform on its own doesn't line up but coupling it with the market gives a more clearer picture. Timeform's run to form figures are quite accurate. Her current average is just below 50%rtf and she has been a little over lately but her record is much better than what is was in ewarely April. As she averages 50% overall, black line, she really isn't out of form.

View attachment 166731

 

[tony spencer]

Im Just using it as a warning as you can see from my race review

 

[tony spencer]

I would break it down a bit cos some trainers favour certain types of races over others

I agree and I have that covered i will show a few examples over the next few days

 

[tacker]

If you look at Lizzie Quinlan who is 294 days and 140 runners without a winner you would determine something has been wrong with her horses or she isn't a very good trainer as overall she operates at 6%, much the same as her mother when she held the licence.

Joey Ramsden 68 days and 40 runners since a winner but 0-19 with horses that go off 7/1 or less. Or, if you want, 0-14 that go off in the first three of the betting, five of those placed.

Jess Macey, 143 days and 57 runners without a winner. However, from those that went off in the first threee of the betting the losing run is 0-9.

Basically, Trainerform on its own doesn't line up but coupling it with the market gives a more clearer picture. Timeform's run to form figures are quite accurate. Her current average is just below 50%rtf and she has been a little over lately but her record is much better than what is was in ewarely April. As she averages 50% overall, black line, she really isn't out of form.

View attachment 166731

I keep a close eye on the Gosden yard and "form" is quite difficult to quantify in my opinion, their horses are very often overbet anyway but an odds loser isn't the same as a 10/1 chance. Also if we take FIELD OF GOLD btn even money shot but in truth he still ran a decent race, just not good enough on the day but ran near enough to his ability to not be classed as a negative.
I can't think i've ever noticed timeforms "run to form " but i think the point is well made.

 

[tony spencer]

I pay more attention to recent trainer form, whenever they have a runner that's been off the track for more than 90 days. Theory being, that their runner might be more ahead on fitness and maybe the market hasn't caught on and is not priced in.

If attending the race, then a final check can be made in the paddock for positives on the fitness...etc.

6.15 Musselburgh today - example.

Timeform have the Hot Trainer flag against a runner, off the course for 248 days. The Racing Post has the RTF @ 60%.

View attachment 166717

View attachment 166718

Trainer Insight – Edward Bethell​

Edward Bethell presents a mixed but interesting profile under today’s conditions.


He has shown a clear ability to prepare horses to run well after a break, with runners returning from 200+ days off performing above market expectations. This suggests the yard can have horses ready first time out, rather than needing a run for fitness.


There is also a strong positive when his runners arrive having won two starts ago, with both strike rate and overall performance indicating that horses in this profile tend to remain competitive and well placed.


However, this is offset by a weaker record at Musselburgh, where his handicap runners have historically underperformed relative to market expectations. While the place rate remains reasonable, the overall return and win efficiency indicate this track has not been a strong venue for the yard.

 

[gerry]

I would say when you look at gosdens horses they are running well enough last 14 days at 31% above his average but as there over bet you will always get some beat and i think he is jumping and changing with jockeys now and i would guess the better the jockey he gets the more hopeful he is on the run r moore for example looks like his best so far he even got c t keane for fields of gold so hes looking a round for the best on the day. As for fields of gold two things i feel likely cost it the win friday or at least be a lot closer one it bleed from nose and two the ground just not fast enough for it and will be better on quicker ground.

 

[pawras]

I agree some trainers are very overbet

 

[markfinn]

Matters more when haven’t managed a pos =<2 in last 30 days one the season gets going stable size to positions gained is informative - if they can get their owners horses firing they won’t keep them - there are some exceptions T Easterby for one seems to totally disregard all norms

 

[pawras]

View of Easterby, Quinlan, Gosden & Bethal

 

[pawras]

Stats for trainers at Punchestown this week, showing strike and prb2 over different time periods to get a view of their current and long term performance which also gives a view if they're in or out of form. Data up to & including 25/04/26.

 

[Kraldrew]

Is it not about being handicapped to the hilt rather than being out of form ? As soon as they are dropped a few pounds they start winning

 

[AustinDillon75]

I can't believe something as easy to discern as trainer form isn't going to already be factored into prices. If the 30% trainer and the 5% trainer are both prices 3/1 its because the 30% horse is crap and the 5% horse is seeking a hattrick while on the improve.

Yes recent trainer form is important but the market already knows that just like it knows almost everything else. Your edge in the above example is more likely with the 5% one because everyone has already backed the 30% trainer down to an unrealistic price.

Simplistic view I guess but can't see it any other way

 

[pawras]

Is it not about being handicapped to the hilt rather than being out of form ? As soon as they are dropped a few pounds they start winning

That report covers all races , stakes and hcaps, and all their horses. So yes what you will be true in some cases but not all.

 

[pawras]

I can't believe something as easy to discern as trainer form isn't going to already be factored into prices. If the 30% trainer and the 5% trainer are both prices 3/1 its because the 30% horse is crap and the 5% horse is seeking a hattrick while on the improve.

Yes recent trainer form is important but the market already knows that just like it knows almost everything else. Your edge in the above example is more likely with the 5% one because everyone has already backed the 30% trainer down to an unrealistic price.

Simplistic view I guess but can't see it any other way

I see the market as the weight of money attached to people's subjective opinions, so I don't really believe, maybe naively, that every metric is pricisely factored into the price for every horse in the market.

Also I think more people will be looking at trainer % win strike rates than there will be the metrics percentage runners beaten and percentage runners beaten squared, which I think are rather more granular assessments on how the trainer has performed over a given time period.

But yeah I would say some trainers do tend to be very overbet.

 

[tacker]

I can't believe something as easy to discern as trainer form isn't going to already be factored into prices. If the 30% trainer and the 5% trainer are both prices 3/1 its because the 30% horse is crap and the 5% horse is seeking a hattrick while on the improve.

Yes recent trainer form is important but the market already knows that just like it knows almost everything else. Your edge in the above example is more likely with the 5% one because everyone has already backed the 30% trainer down to an unrealistic price.

Simplistic view I guess but can't see it any other way

I wonder just how easy it is to discern "trainer form " AustinDillon75 ? MY opinion is that trainer form whether that might be considered to be good or bad is largely subjective, pluck a name out of the blue and ask the question of members of this forum and i suspect you'd get many varied opinions because in truth you might want to look at every single runner to properly arrive at a judgement rather than a casual 3 from 33 or whatever which we often hear from tv pundits.

 

[AustinDillon75]

I wonder just how easy it is to discern "trainer form " AustinDillon75 ? MY opinion is that trainer form whether that might be considered to be good or bad is largely subjective, pluck a name out of the blue and ask the question of members of this forum and i suspect you'd get many varied opinions because in truth you might want to look at every single runner to properly arrive at a judgement rather than a casual 3 from 33 or whatever which we often hear from tv pundits.

Well yes but the OP asks a quite specific question and I feel there's little grey area to it. To answer otherwise implies that one would think the market disregards trainer form.

The one thing I do think is that bad form isn't an indicator of an upturn and good form is harder to sustain so I'd always give more weight to bad form to rule something out than good form to rule out other opponents. Others can form their own view

I see the Racing Post has an RTF figure which presumably tries to remove some of the subjectivity around what is good or bad form.

I see the market as the weight of money attached to people's subjective opinions, so I don't really believe, maybe naively, that every metric is pricisely factored into the price for every horse in the market.

Also I think more people will be looking at trainer % win strike rates than there will be the metrics percentage runners beaten and percentage runners beaten squared, which I think are rather more granular assessments on how the trainer has performed over a given time period.

But yeah I would say some trainers do tend to be very overbet.

I can't believe a market as informed and as accurate as the UK one would not factor trainer form into it.

Whether the market factors in other metrics and what weight it applies to each seems to me to be a seperate question.

 

[pawras]

Well yes but the OP asks a quite specific question and I feel there's little grey area to it. To answer otherwise implies that one would think the market disregards trainer form.

The one thing I do think is that bad form isn't an indicator of an upturn and good form is harder to sustain so I'd always give more weight to bad form to rule something out than good form to rule out other opponents. Others can form their own view

I see the Racing Post has an RTF figure which presumably tries to remove some of the subjectivity around what is good or bad form.


I can't believe a market as informed and as accurate as the UK one would not factor trainer form into it.

Whether the market factors in other metrics and what weight it applies to each seems to me to be a seperate question.

Obviously the market factors in trainer form but your post #33 seemed to imply it was completely factored in, but I would say only to a degree given the various ways of measuring and viewing trainer form

 

[AustinDillon75]

Obviously the market factors in trainer form but your post #33 seemed to imply it was completely factored in, but I would say only to a degree given the various ways of measuring and viewing trainer form

I based my answer on a reading of post #4 which is what you do with trainer form "once the market has had its say", so it'd be interesting to know what you'd do with trainer form at that point - and what you think you'd use that the market has failed to spot.

Lazy punters might point to strike rates etc, but trainer PRB and similar metrics are bound to find their way in there, even the system I've got in development uses it and over different time periods.

 

[JennyK]

One can reasonably easily identify whether a trainer is having less winners in, say, the last four weeks than one might expect from the pattern over the last five years, but when considering a bet on one of his or her horses, I can think of only two possible situations which would concern me, and I very much doubt that I would know if either applied. First, if there was some debilitating issue among the stable's horses, such as coughing, which so far has not been so severe to be a matter of public gossip/knowledge. Second, if there was an issue in the trainer's life - an unexpected bereavement or illness in the family, marriage breaking up, that sort of thing - which was distracting him or her from full concentration on their work. Both, I should think pretty rare, and short term dips (or rises) in the "usual" number of winners in a given period are much more likely chance and mere blips taking the long term view.

I pay great attention to how trainers place their horses, but when I think one of my selections has been placed to win, I don't worry that it will get to post ill-prepared because the trainer might be distracted by personal problems. Years ago, I had a relationship with someone in a well-known NH stable, where the trainer's wife was having an affair with his main jockey, something apparently widely known in Lambourn. But it didn't stop the horses I was tipped from winning.