How important is trainer form?

[Gingertipster]

..... and how is it best identified? Don't know if we covered this before but here are my views: Trainer form however you analyse it, is flawed; but surely not as flawed as not taking it in to account at all. My first job when assessing a race is to look at trainer form. I click on every trainer's name, on the Racing Post website race card. This gives every runner he/she has had in the last two weeks. With the exception of that day's racing, which we know or can look up anyway. So the results are slightly out but not by far. Can also look up results during the day and alter the in form / out of form trainers. Being able to see recent results in detail, (not just a two week summary as in Todays Trainers); gives me the opportunity to find in form / out of form trainers sooner, when nearer the start of a run. And also change their rating sooner if things change. Sometimes a trainer can be in form one week and out of form the next. Or the Hannon's and Channon's etc. have so many runners their form is best judged on a weekly basis (sometimes days). Those with few runners are impossible to quantify, unless I believe they should have had more runners, so might have a virus. I rate each trainer by *** (only one or two trainers get this during the season), **, *, */, //, /, /-, -, -x and x (don't touch with a barge pole). Do 1-10 if you prefer. Looking up how many wins, seconds, thirds, fourths, etc. and how fancied they were. An 8/1 shot who is 3^rd I think has probably run to form; where as an odds on shot that is 3^rd probably has not. As with any true value assessment, we are always thinking in probabilities. We do not need to know if it definitely ran to form or definitely did not. With small trainers I might take thirds, fourths and fifths in to account more for being in form (depending on their prices). But not usually with a top trainer, unless it is a top class race. When there is a first time out runner some knowledge (from Timeform Statistical Review) of trainers records is beneficial. A fourth placed effort in a large field of Newmarket maidens by a 2 year old trained by Roger Charlton would be a good run. Say there is an out of form horse, yet the trainer has recently returned to form. I find these horses are much more likely to return to form than one with a trainer who continues out of form. This can pin point good value bets. Conversely, say the horse appears in good form yet the trainer has gone out of form since it's last run. His chance may not be as big as the form book suggests. Trainer form is only one part of my form study, finding out (using Timeform) what rating the horse is capable of, going, distance, temperament, course, pace etc. The two questions I ask are: What rating is the horse probably capable of given the conditions? And how likely is it to run to that form? Trainer form directly influences the latter question when working out my 100% book. The percentage I add to each horse for trainer form is not always the same. Have always found it easier to look at each horse as a whole character when allocating a percentage. Rather than give points for distance, going, trainer form etc. One who does not need much getting fit will have his chance identified and boosted by the horses record first time out or after a long break. It can also identify one unlikely to run to form, unfit. So those stats may take preference over trainer form. It is (imo) much better to take trainer form in to account than not. Anyone is running a big risk of backing too many horses who might be good value bets on speed ratings or anything else. But stable form means the likelihood of running to form is lower, so it's true chance is less. So may not be a value bet after all. Ginge

[Trilobite]

Re: How important is trainer form? The Massey database is very handy for looking at Trainer and other form/stats.