A typical Mark Johnston - finished last, on last 2 outings - Winner

Haven't been looking for a bet tonight but in hindsight the prescott horse was a terrible price and therefore I guess it wasn't a great race. Rated 80 so it must have had form. But as you say nobody is a bigger OXO trainer. Lightly raced youngish  horses with little form from his yard priced at 8/1 + you have to consider imo especially as many northern races at the lesser tracks are not strong.  But at least they are always trying. Not kidding btw.

btn 6l after a 6 month lay off last time + gelded  and on a new surface

Onlooker simply won't have it that other trainers he'd probably consider easy to read get rabbits from hats far more often!

Onlooker I think you are a very intelligent and knowledgeable poster with regards this sport and industry and I enjoy reading a lot of what you have to say. When it comes to MJ though you are like a bear with a sore head over this topic and no matter what evidence from the real world I try to put up on this subject showing that his runners don't recover from poor runs lto (ie stuffed then facing similar conditions again) nearly as often as the media or punters like to exclaim.

If you are always looking then you will no doubt find it more often, this example tonight was not a good one at all in any case.

What his runners do plenty is plateau and then improve for a new trip, the progression in trip is the at the heart of many of his runners that appeared to have stalled for a while and then gone on again. Like all trainers some just don't age well and go on but the plan is to squeeze out what's possible through their development whilst eventually maturing into their middle distance trips or beyond. From reading this forum it often appears that other trainers frequently run up sequences with their horses and improvement is always very smooth and transparent (which of course is nonsense) but when it comes to Mr Johnston they cannot go off the boil and come back as it's heavily frowned upon and signifying that he just chucks random darts.

dalileo was very keen last year when i tipped it up in one of its races, think that was for its fist ever run on the AW and it drifted like a barge that day, you dont get many galileos running on the AW, they are usually just the useless ones, think its just another well bred donkey, was a great price tonight

striding - Thanks for your input - You appear to have reasoned his modus operandi more than others.

As much as I - and many, many, others find his methodology infuriating, and consequently irritating; you appear to adopt the polar opposite approach and defend him to the hilt ... as in your past threads re: M Johnston.

However, if I interpret your rationale correctly, are you claiming that EVERY ENTRY made by Johnston is a meticulously planned well thought-out exercise?

There are not enough hours in the day - given the amount of horses he trains - also leaving aside the other claims on his time, such as Morning Gallops and travelling to the races - for him to do his all Entries as such.

Thorough, well-reasoned, SPECIFIC placing of ALL his horses must, therefore, be a time-constricted physical impossibility.

I would be interested to know just how many hours a day he actually spends in front of a computer screen, and with his head in the Programme Book.

Still, you seem to have him sussed - or do you? - given the many, "darts," that you yourself had to throw guessing whether one of his would go in next time, on your past 2 years 'Mark Johnston Flat Turf' threads ... this year's being conspicuous by it's absence.

I am not being sarcastic, nor vindictive, in posting that - rather, merely using those/your threads example in highlighting how DIFFICULT EVEN YOU found it trying to fathom Mark Johnston's runners - quite often letting a Winner run unbacked, because you were not sure whether today was a/the day, or not ... and by your own admission.

I agree with onlooker and stridingedge on this thread

Onlooker I have said before the 2 years threads were break even it was an experiment nothing more as the stakes would imply.

Defending him to the hilt, I don't actually bother to comment on a lot of the rubbish on here but I have posted plenty of real world data which obviously ios not as good as yourself and others just saying words that often have no substance whatsoever!

I'm not saying every entry is meticulously planned and of course he has a huge operation but there is a general theme with his MO and if you cannot see it then that's perfectly fine as is your insistence that he stands out with regards his erratic results.

Onlooker are you still looking at that example tonight and scratching your head over how it won or how this is somehow a typical MJ thing not something that every trainer has to do when getting a horse that's had issues back on track?

as an aside

interesting that he is a qualified pilot


also that he still 'breaks in' the awkward ones himself

AND recently got on [himself] a problem stall horse to sort


credit where its due imo

I'd also finally like to add that defending an MO does not mean it's easy to profit from a trainer in any given year, as is the case with any trainer. If you follow a single trainer they are not going to be consistent every single season whatever MO they have.

Following MJ specifically is a hard task as he has so many runners it takes a lot of time to look at them all and then you still might not even have a selection that day it actually can become quite ball breaking at times.

striding - I acknowledge that you have studied his 'methods' in much more depth than most others have, as proven by your threads - and admire you for it, as I would have found such a task to be absolutely soul-destroying ... as is wondering whether one of his is going to 'come out of nowhere', when in opposition to a strong selection of your own.

Backing his horse practically 'blind'- often purely because they are stepping up in trip, and off the back of unplaced outings, is definitely NOT for me.

I have to stress it really wasn't an issue of his winners coming from nowhere in reality, it was a bit of paranoia on my part that with new conditions they might suddenly leave a stuffed run well behind and it just wasn't happening very often at all.

It was more a case in year 2 of giving some poor types too many chances than leaving them only to see them win at big odds.

You are quite right about blind stats on that I fully agree with you and it's certainly not something I'd be part of again but I will probably look at his runners a bit differently knowing what he has done so many times before with similar types especially 3yo's with regard their plateaus and going on again for a new trip.

I actually left one such horse today when it was 25/1 earlier, Aquarium (posted  on Andrew's lay fred). It ran a huge race not btn far in 3rd despite being a bit free today and I've no doubt that would have caused a rumble if it had won by many despite it only being the 2nd try at the trip!

It's definitely dangerous writing off his runners (especially 3yo's) as being too exposed because they've had 10-15 races and gone up the hcp with a few wins already when facing runners that have only had 5 or 6 tries in the case of the MJ horse being unexposed at today's trip, Aquarium today was a prime example.

^3rd try, I didn't actually count the first one at Beverley when claimer ridden it just didn't have a race that day despite only btn 5l.

MJ is an interesting trainer because of his methodology, and he does train some good types every year,
especially the multiple class 2 handicap winners, as far as trainers goes, he would be way down on most
peoples lists of trainers to follow, there are so many more trainers, who train there horses in a more
orthodox way and are more accessible and profitable to follow in the long run.

I am with onlooker all the way on this one.

In the last 8 years MJ has had 185 horses that have finished last on both of their last 2 starts: -

Only 8 of those 184 have won their next race at a strike rate of 4.32% and a level stake loss of 64 points.

In the last 8 years or so MJ has had a total of 1130 runners that have finished last in their race, of these only 87 - a strike rate of just 7.7% have gone on to win their next race at a loss of, at SP to level stakes of -384 points.

As I have said before Johnston is a Danger to Punters.

Tiger I have put plenty up over the years including this season but there are a lot of acey dacey's who don't regard facts as evidence, they can't fathom him so he's useless to punters!

acey deucy...Get it right.

Yes I agree, I like MJ as a trainer, you have to look at his methods of training and take them at face value. Not saying I make any money overall of following MJ but I certainly don't have any gripes. He's done me a good turn quite a few times over the years and one of my favourite trainers.

Apologies Deucy

He certainly doesn't scare me if I fancy a runner in a race and he's got one in a race with really poor recent form and I can't see much reason for improvement at prevailing conditions as much as some trainers

I tend to stick to the better races these days with MJ's unexposed runner + decent prize and a few of the normal signs of possible progression.

The lower classes with his runners rarely for me anymore , there are plenty of better bandits at that level to side with.

He is certainly a  ost progressive trainer, since 'Novice'races became more popular his 2 year olds have some good stats - this season in 'Novices' races where the going is good or better - 32 winners from 74 runners and a lsp of 36.5 points, more at bfsp, even better was last season when he averaged a strike rate of 47% in these type of races. Let them knock him. Each to there won though.

*most

I'd say beware of his 2yo runners that have run close on their first start without winning, btn 1l or less.

since BFSP

Bets	Wins	Win%	P/L(SP)	Place%	Race%	ROI(SP)	P/L(BF)	ROI(BF)	Lay(BF)	ROI(L)	Plc(BF)	Plc%(BF)	P/L(Plc)	ROI(BF Plc)	AvgOddBF	BF A/E	BF chi	BFExpWins	AvgWinOdd
62	12	19.35	-39.77	41.94	19.35	-64.15	-38.8	-62.58	35.71	13.46	28	45.9	-23.64	-38.76	5.28	0.5	9.54	23.83	1.85

if you have to blindly back all of his 74 runners to achieve only a 36 point profit margin, then its
not worth the effort in the first place, all your really doing is just guessing all the time, yes the
statistic will show it was profitable, this kind of style of betting and mundane thinking is the gamblers enemy.

Yes I agree roadrunner

???? You being serious here?

74 bets and you would turn down 36 points profit at SP?

You must be a multi millionaire then.

Blind backing is dangerous Tiger.

Of course it is, but you have to start somewhere. I never back anything without studying the form lines. You still though have to have a starting point and at a growing number of bets each year in these events then MJ in Novice races is a good point at which to start. Imo of course.

I never back anything without studying the form lines

The MJ winner was the saviour of my lay thread selection yesterday and although outsider of 5 at 9/1 it couldn't be ignored. Ran well enough in 2nd at Chelmsford last year and the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 7th have won since.

A Galileo colt, lightly raced, 3rd run of the year but 6 month lay off previously, up in trip slightly, could still be improving and getting 2 lb from the runner-up who was the original tissue 6/4 favourite in what was essentially a poor field. As far as my lay went i had 4 running for me.

Would i have backed it ? No ...... but I don't see this as a shock result at all, it happens every day.