The Betting Lab- Is trainer form real?

Interesting, my opinion of it is that even if it is a true phenomena it's applications for punters is very minimal ... how do you separate true form from natural variation of probability, how long does a form period last and at what point is it detectable.  In my opinion it is best to keep your punting as simple and free of too many variables as possible.  I don't think it can improve your punting to incorporate this and will put you off winners as much as losers.

can see how trainerform is hard to quantify statistically but i'd be surprised if most people who follow form closely doubt it exists...had a friend who would follow the Whillans stable a while back and they would always have their winners in clusters, nothing for 11 mnths then a 3-week hot spell...he used to get some big-priced winners from that yard. To say 'I don't think it can improve your punting to incorporate it' is nonsense imo, tho it depends on your methods..if you're a stats-based, number cruncher, it probably wont

its not just about backing winners anymore though, its about laying and trading. You cannot deny that when trainers go through these good spells that people take notice, perhaps even overreact. When people overreact in a market there is always potential for profit before the price finds a more realistic level.
As for when a form period is detectable, well I don't see why there has to be a finite point. A trainers dip or surge in winners above or below his normal strike rate becomes significant when you think it is, its subjective. Having said that you could put parameters of your own and I am sure many people do even subconsciously. For example a trainer who normally has a strike rate of 20% could be deemed to be in form if his strike was double its norm in the last 14 days.
All variables are significant if they affect the market whether they are real or not and for that reason alone I take notice of trainer form

Duncan that is true for many yards,it is trainer behaviour and tactics, many revert to a default setting season after season to get their winners.

What is considered form and what is considered a planned lull, i would say usually the latter is the case.

The bottom line for me is that this is a highly unusual and a complete outlier of form for this yard in any 6 week spell so however you term the period form wise, not being weary of it is not that sensical.

MJ runners on flat/aw for October and November since 2003

October	Date (Year)	Bets	Wins	WinStrike	SP_PL	Places
flat/aw	2003	53	7	13%	4.13	14
	2004	100	14	14%	-3.27	32
	2005	72	13	18%	12.03	24
	2006	114	10	9%	-31.00	24
	2007	132	14	11%	-48.52	51
	2008	145	17	12%	-34.88	45
	2009	122	14	11%	-47.50	32
	2010	142	16	11%	-48.36	43
	2011	141	25	18%	30.54	43
	2012	155	15	10%	-47.48	46
	2013	182	10	5%	-68.72	38
	2014	102	3	3%	-90.00	22
November	Date (Year)	Bets	Wins	WinStrike	SP_PL	Places
flat/aw	2003	24	2	8%	-7.00	5
	2004	28	5	18%	3.25	9
	2005	24	4	17%	3.00	9
	2006	61	16	26%	58.17	26
	2007	46	7	15%	-27.69	20
	2008	50	13	26%	14.43	17
	2009	32	9	28%	15.72	14
	2010	41	4	10%	-28.75	12
	2011	31	3	10%	-24.14	9
	2012	35	2	6%	-23.50	9
	2013	55	4	7%	-34.57	20
	2014	25	0	0%	-25.00	5

Caution with the sample sizes but a down turn does appear to have set in late season over time.

any one really into racing and wins regularly knows how much a stable in form means to them I cant believe anyone like wilko can have got it so wrong, still he talks a good game but think we know now he isn't a winner but is a good writer and has different opinions

not sure Wilko said it dont exist, rather that statistically it is hard to prove it does (because randomness would have a similar effect, so it's hard to differentiate between what's randomness and what's stable form)

s/e - looking at those stats, one thing that stands out to my eyes is the proportion of places to wins in the last 2 years, compared with earlier years. I read that as (most likely) a drop in quality of horses running rather than a drop in form.

And to the OP, I think you're misrepresenting what Willoughby said about stable form - I don't think he said he doesn't believe in it - just that there's a difficulty in measuring it. And he certainly believes in the varying merits of trainers - even though it's hard/impossible to measure, as he's always going on about certain trainers and how they improve horses.

Willo talks the biggest load of bolloxs on any racing station,that takes some doing

Im typing this again because my post got moderated (I mentioned the W name_ - so apologies if it comes out doublish...

s/e - what strikes me about your stats is the ratio between places and wins in the last couple of years. That suggests to me a (most likely) drop in quailty of horse running rather drop in stable form.

And to the OP - I think you're misrepresenting what JW said - I don't think he said he doesn't believe in stable form - but just that it is difficult/impossible to measure. he certainly believes in the varying merits of trainers, because he often mentions the improvement in horses wrought by certain trainers.

I'd rather listen to Willo and his false crankpot theories though than the alternative which is dullards regurgitating the form book ad nauseum.

I don't agree with his continuous depressing assertion that you can't get an edge in racing nowadays because the markets are so efficient, there will always be edges you just gotta put in the effort to find them

I think you misunderstood me DI, I was referring to 'in-form' trainers as opposed to trainer trends.  I myself use trainer trends a lot for my punting.  What I was meaning by 'in-form' trainers was periods where a trainers representatives were having an above average success rate which was largely unpredictable from the said trainers usual rate ... I would put your Whillans example in the trainers trend category as it is a usual trend for that trainer and not a pure 'in-form' example as it is contrived.

Yes grendel i think most of these patterns would be contrived

MJ may just be winding down the season in a more pronounced fashion these days, it's perfectly possible for this to be the case as the flat ends and autumn aw begins.

Was willow saying punters should not worry about backing his horses or that they should not be backing them, i thought he was giving a mixed message. I know he said that he thought this set of runners was a 'subset' to the usual general sample, so that means he must concur that this lack of winners was planned?

by the way, when was the Betting Lab .... I recorded last nights Kempton card and didn't see it anywhere, last week it was during the last two races

If he believed as i thought he was saying, that the runners in this spell were a separate subset, i'm not sure why he was arguing with Hoiles who has suggested a cautious approach the last couple of weeks.

I don't think Hoiles was trying to say the yard had a problem necessarily and he did say that whatever the reasoning the end result of his cautiousness has been deemed right.

I don't really get what Will0w's actual argument was?

Perhaps he's deliberately running horses that he's think of getting shot of, and giving a last chance to show they're worth keeping. The thing that ran 2nd to the Balding odds-on shot certainly didn't run like a horse from an out-of-form stable. It beat the rest of a 10-runner maiden field by 7 lengths, so the 'losing run' is basically a statistical quirk that keeps some schadenfreuders happy.

grendel - duncan started a 'betting lab now' thread in caps last night - so the time of that will tell you when it was on.

thanks ged, earlier than last week .... missed it

i think this thread will end up being a headf*ck as everyone seems to have a slightly different idea/definition of what trainer form actually is...so for that reason, i'm out

The only meaningful measure is surely something along the lines of what the RP does with its RTF figure - horses running within x lbs of their Rating (however you want to measure that), within the last y days - and play around with x and y as suits your tastes or the circumstances.

On that basis, MJ's horses are not as out-of-form as several other trainers who have had winners in the last fortnight.

If form truly worked out, their would be no Bookie Chappies or BetFair.

"There are lies, damn lies, statistics and then there is form". From The Sayings of Dr Slicer, available at all not very good bookshops, nowhere in the country.