Every trainer has a NATIONAL AVERAGE – but what is it?

Posted by Paul Moon in Blog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Every trainer has a NATIONAL AVERAGE but what is it, and what relevance has it to a wager?

.

The Racing Horse will attempt to answer those two questions. We use the strike rate recorded by the trainer over the last five years, this number is deemed to be an honest indicator against which current form can be measured, this is called the NATIONAL AVERAGE. This figure is natural, fixed, and factual, automatically removing random, bias and opinion from the wagering process.

This mathematical BASE figure is TOTALLY ignored by punditry despite its core and significant VALUE!

Secondly, the national average must be relevant because of the hard-core mathematics contained within them. Context is all-important in racing, but as a general rule trainers with bigger numbers (over time) must be better/more skilful than those with small numbers.

We look at the national averages of 20 trainers currently competing in the UK and ask the reader to consider the relevance of them:

  • Charlie Appleby 28%
  • John Gosden 24%
  • William Haggas 22%
  • Saeed bin Suroor 21%
  • Michael Stoute 20%
  • Hugo Palmer 17%
  • Mark Johnston 16%
  • Andrew Balding 15%
  • Clive Cox 14%
  • Aidan O'Brien 13%
  • Richard Hannon 12%
  • Richard Fahey 11%
  • Simon Dow 10%
  • Phil McEntee 9%
  • Gay Kelleway 8%
  • Scott Dixon 7%
  • Ali Stronge 6%
  • Sarah Hollinshead 5%
  • J S Moore 4%
  • Nikki Evans 1%

 

  • Do we believe Charlie Appleby is a better trainer than John Gosden? No.
  • Do we think Aidan O'Brien is only 1% superior to Richard Hannon? No.
  • Would we back a Simon Dow juvenile to beat a William Haggas horse on debut? No.
  • Would we be back an Evans, Moore, Hollinshead, Stronge, Dixon or Kelleway horse in any race? No, they simply do not have the commensurate figures conducive to profit (from a backing point of view)!
Trainer form is a decisive and indicative test and removes a concatenation of random factors, opinion and bias. In a general sense it suggests/confirms/proves the well-being of the stable’s horses whilst delivering an up to the minute litmus test on a horse's readiness to run positively. Conversely, and assuming one does not have specific inside information (which may contains an edge), backing the horses of trainers on the cold list must be at least unwise.

There are any amount of random factors that can affect a result and it takes small margins to win most races. These issues are more likely to be compounded if the horse is not ready or prepared for the particular task! Furthermore, if one accepts that handicap racing forms more than half of all races on the cards of UK race meetings a few pounds of improvement or decay can mean the difference between winning and finishing down the field. These margins are contained and embedded within the national averages.

Each horse has a potential ability level, whether they achieve that is another matter. The better the horse is trained and looked after the more it is likely to achieve. Finding the bandwidth to which each horse can aspire needs the trainer to be totally in tune with his charge and, whilst some achieve, most fail in this regard. Based on this incongruity we only trust recent form and trainer's of some quality. These levels are contained within the national averages.

In conclusion, we believe the national averages are a form of seeds or rankings and definitely matter when processing/filtering a race. Once we have identified a race of interest we seek to confirm the form of the trainer. We do this by simply measuring his current form against the national average. Remember, this is not a fixed position, the term national average is always used in context.

For example, John Gosden has a national average of 24% and Richard Hannon has one of 12%. Had Gosden shown a current strike rate of 12% over the last month or so, that would be a cause for concern, if Hannon had shown the same strike rate there would be no cause for concern, because he is replicating his natural average.

We know there are many professional bettors who do not consider trainer form as the cornerstone of betting (we do), but if it is not that, then surely the trainer national average compared against current form of the trainer must represent some/huge significance?

***

Our information and betting advice is for educational purposes only. Please exercise caution when acting upon our advice and remember that gambling carries risk. No liability is taken by the site or product owner following any of the information given or sold to you. Betting always involves a level of risk and you should never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Proven mathematical laws are the governing force of horse racing betting. Consequently every bet we place is conceived then predicated from statistical analysis protected by a math-based edge with perceived value attached. Our formula is simple because we are yet to be convinced that a complication of a system is proportional to profit. So what do we mean by a math-based edge? It means finding something with a solid mathematical core, something historically profitable and something that is unlikely to change or suffer fatigue going forward. Then, if we can filter negative influences from the original proposal and provide a sound rationale for doing so, we can claim that betting edge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *