Irish Sports
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Sep 13
14:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Feb 10
Maybe Philip and the Shark might take some comfort from this article from Kevin Blake considering the battering they take off some on here?.
____________________________________________________
Time To Change The Cold List
There has been quite a bit of racecourse chatter in recent weeks about the Cold List. For those that aren’t familiar with the concept, it is a list detailing the trainers that are deemed out of form based on the length of time and number of runners since the trainer had a winner.
The poor use of statistics is a bugbear of mine and the fact that westill bombarded by such overly-simplistic numbers as win strike rate as a reflection of form is not just annoying to those that appreciate the true value of statistics, but their use can often lead to unfair ridicule and stress for trainers.
The problem with using strike rates as a reflection of form is that there is no consideration for the expected performance of the relevant horses. For example, a 5% strike rate for a trainer or jockey would generally be considered poor, but if the average price of all their representatives was 50/1, a 5% strike rate would be very good. Likewise, a powerful trainer might have an excellent looking strike rate of 30%, but if the average price of his runners in those races was even money, that would be a poor strike rate.
Having worked for a trainer myself, it shouldn’t be underestimated how much negativity and frustration results from appearing on the Cold List in what is an already frustrating situation where the horses are running very well without winning. Not to mention the fact that owners can also become negative if their trainers are appearing on the list whether it is warranted or not.
There are far superior methods of assessing different aspects of trainer form with arguably the best of all being to judge an individual performance in the context of the horse’s rating and/or price in the betting market. For example, a trainer or jockey may not have had a winner for a year, but if their representatives/mounts consistently run close to or better than their rating/price suggests they should have, regardless of whether they are winning or not, they should be considered in good form.
For sure, these statistics take longer to compile than simple strike rates, but this is where racing professionals should be stepping up to the mark and making such information available, not just for the benefit of racing fans, but also in the interest of fairly representing their fellow professionals in the training ranks.
____________________________________________________
Time To Change The Cold List
There has been quite a bit of racecourse chatter in recent weeks about the Cold List. For those that aren’t familiar with the concept, it is a list detailing the trainers that are deemed out of form based on the length of time and number of runners since the trainer had a winner.
The poor use of statistics is a bugbear of mine and the fact that westill bombarded by such overly-simplistic numbers as win strike rate as a reflection of form is not just annoying to those that appreciate the true value of statistics, but their use can often lead to unfair ridicule and stress for trainers.
The problem with using strike rates as a reflection of form is that there is no consideration for the expected performance of the relevant horses. For example, a 5% strike rate for a trainer or jockey would generally be considered poor, but if the average price of all their representatives was 50/1, a 5% strike rate would be very good. Likewise, a powerful trainer might have an excellent looking strike rate of 30%, but if the average price of his runners in those races was even money, that would be a poor strike rate.
Having worked for a trainer myself, it shouldn’t be underestimated how much negativity and frustration results from appearing on the Cold List in what is an already frustrating situation where the horses are running very well without winning. Not to mention the fact that owners can also become negative if their trainers are appearing on the list whether it is warranted or not.
There are far superior methods of assessing different aspects of trainer form with arguably the best of all being to judge an individual performance in the context of the horse’s rating and/or price in the betting market. For example, a trainer or jockey may not have had a winner for a year, but if their representatives/mounts consistently run close to or better than their rating/price suggests they should have, regardless of whether they are winning or not, they should be considered in good form.
For sure, these statistics take longer to compile than simple strike rates, but this is where racing professionals should be stepping up to the mark and making such information available, not just for the benefit of racing fans, but also in the interest of fairly representing their fellow professionals in the training ranks.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 8
|
By:
Silver the excuse maker turns up again.
A poor trainer is a poor trainer. I have given you countless examples of horses moving from bad trainer like Rothwell to good trainers like Elliott and Mullins and improving but you cant offer any explanation only the usual bluster. There will be another example in the next few weeks. A horse gone form Shark to Elliott. Do The Bookies. Watch this horse win at least three or four races over the next year if the horse is not sour yet!! |
|
By:
Silver you are a classic case of a begrudger of excellence and an apologist for mediocrity.
|
|
By:
Tolmi did you read Kevins piece?, maybe what is deemed to be excellent is not as good as the statistics might suggest.
|
|
By:
Silver you can bluff all you want but Rothwell and Shark are still useless if going by Blakes assessment. Change the goalposts again
 |
|
By:
Who does Silver consider a good trainer? Name them please
|
|
By:
I think you well know how I feel about trainers bigwill, I think they're all overrated and their horses underrated (the good ones that is).
|
|
By:
No doubt strike-rates based on wins/runners is a crude enough measurement but so is one based on the alternative of SP. A trainer with a 30% strike-rate such as Mullins or O'Brien will be inevitably overbet and a trainer finding one winner in twenty will most likely be ignored in the market so these horses will take a walk in the market and especially so if they find themselves competing against the leading stables.
The Racing Post do an adequate job already with the "running to form" figures so this information is readily available to "racing professionals". In general, Ireland is very badly served in relation to providing information for the punter and both HRI and the Irish Field are woeful in this regard. Neither have yet managed to migrate to an on-line form database for example so any imaginative systems that can interpret "trainer form" are left to the individual punter. |
|
By:
...
|