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.

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

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.