Every trainer has a NATIONAL AVERAGE - but what does that figure signify, and how does it influence a betting decision?

The Racing Horse will attempt to answer those two questions. In general terms, we use a trainer's strike rate over the past five years as a standard - this figure is known as the NATIONAL AVERAGE. This number is deemed to be a solid data-driven indicator against which current form can be measured. By anchoring analysis to this factual metric, we strip away randomness, bias, and subjective opinion from the wagering process, allowing for a more discipline and objective approach to betting.

Secondly, the national average remains consistently relevant, contextual, and highly pertinent because of the cold uncompromising mathematics it's built upon. As a general rule, trainers with higher standard figures must be considered more proficient than those with lower numbers. To part-illustrate this point, we examine the national averages of 20 active UK trainers, inviting the reader to absorb the data and reflect on its relevance and predictive value (Updated 08/08/2025):

• Charlie Appleby 30% 
• William Haggas 22% 
• J & T Gosden 21%   
• Roger Varian 20% 
• S & E Crisford 19%
• Aiden O'Brien 18% 
• Andrew Balding 16% 
• Karl Burke 15% 
• Clive Cox 14% 
• Archie Watson 13% 
• Stuart Williams 12% 
• E Johnson-Houghton 12% 
• Richard Hannon 11% 
• Julie Camacho 11% 
• Ruth Carr 10% 
• Patrick Owens 9%
• Adrian Paul Keatley 8%
• Katie Scott 8% 
• Scott Dixon 7% 
• Sarah Hollinshead 4% 

It is important to note that these figures are not meant to be taken as absolute truths - they are indicators, not verdicts.

For instance, does a 9% higher strike rate (national average) mean Charlie Appleby is a better trainer than John Gosden? Not sure. Is Aidan O'Brien 4% inferior to William Haggas? Of course not! These statistics reflect performance within specific contexts, stable size, race types, horse quality, and a host of other reasons.

Equally, while some trainers consistently post low strike rates, such as Adrian Paul Keatley, Scott Dixon, or Sarah Hollinshead, we are not suggesting they lack a certain skill or dedication. But from a betting perspective, their runners rarely offer the kind of statistical confidence we seek. This sentence is never absolute - price is king!

There are any number 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 races account for approximately 60% of all races, 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 extent to which a horse fulfills its promise depends heavily on the quality of its training, care, and management. Unlocking a horse’s true bandwidth requires the trainer to be deeply attuned to the individual, whether that be physically, mentally, and temperamentally. While a select few trainers consistently achieve this harmony, many fall short. Based on this incongruity we only trust recent form and trainers of some quality or regard. Once again, these levels are contained within the national averages.

In conclusion, we regard national averages as foundational indicators, akin to seeds or rankings, that play a crucial role in filtering and evaluating races. Once a race of interest has been identified, our next step is to assess the trainer’s form. This is achieved by comparing their current or course-specific performance against their national average. It’s important to note that the national average is not a static benchmark. Rather, it serves as a contextual reference point, adapting to the specific conditions and variables of each race scenario. By anchoring our analysis in this dynamic framework, we ensure a more informed and responsive approach to race selection and prediction.

To demonstrate how national averages function as contextual benchmarks, consider the trainers Roger Varian and Richard Hannon. Varian holds a national average strike rate of 20%, while Hannon’s sits at 11%. If Varian were to post a strike rate of 11% over the past month, this would signal a notable dip in form—falling well below his established average and potentially indicating a downturn. Conversely, if Hannon recorded the same 11% strike rate, it would align with his typical performance, and therefore raise no concern.

This comparison underscores the importance of interpreting strike rates relative to each trainer’s historical baseline. The national average is not a universal standard, it’s a contextual tool that helps us assess whether a trainer is performing above, below, or in line with expectations.

We fully recognise that not all professional bettors place trainer form at the heart of their betting strategy as we do, we respect that divergence. The Racing Horse is aware of several accomplished bettors who thrive in both high and low-grade handicaps, where literal trainer form does not carry the same weight. In these arenas, factors such as argument weighting, market dynamics, and price value often take precedence.

However, our personal betting philosophy, and indeed our emotional alignment, is rooted in the pursuit of higher winning strike rates and shorter losing runs. For us, trainer form provides a reliable compass, helping to navigate the volatility of racing with greater confidence and consistency. It’s not just a metric, it’s a mindset.

***