Question...running to form

[fintron]

When reading up on trainers and horses I've heard the phrase 'running to form' used. What exactly does it mean?

I've stupidly never bothered to find out but my guess is that it is something to do with pounds and lengths?

Say if horse B (rated 2 lbs less than horse A) finishes within 2 lengths of his rival has horse B then run to form?

Thanks in advance.

[Trotter]

I think when most people use the phrase they're not thinking in terms of pounds and lengths but just more generally in terms of the horse's level of ability.........

So, for example, a horse finishes 3rd in the Eclipse beaten 3 lengths, the trainer might say 'we're not too disappointed, he's run to form' meaning that's kind of what they expected if he ran to his best.

On the other hand if he finished 8th beaten 20 lenghts they might say 'that's a boi disappointing, he's ran below form'

[fintron]

Ok, cheers Trotter

I'm sure I once saw a table of trainers though, listed by those with the most runners running to form. Has anyone else seen such a table or may I be getting mixed up with something else?

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by fintron

Ok, cheers Trotter

I'm sure I once saw a table of trainers though, listed by those with the most runners running to form. Has anyone else seen such a table or may I be getting mixed up with something else?

Yeah..........if you look on the Racing Post website racecards there's a little number after the trainers name..........that's meant to represent the % of the trainers runners that run to form.........

Take me ages to work out what it meant !!............

[BillyHills]

Trotter's right, the RP has a trainer rating but beware it can be very misleading.
Its a percentage on how many of the runners run to within a certain position (distance btn by) that they should of achieved, so a 4/6f should win for example and a 66/1 rag should finish near last.
Problem is some trainers get a 100 rating for running 10 horses that finish down the field, those 10 horses would have been right old rags but finished where they were expected to.
Much prefer the old system of how many placed horses in the last 7 days or whatever which can be found in the Post aswell, but I dont think online.

[Cassius Marcellus]

Originally Posted by BillyHills

Trotter's right, the RP has a trainer rating but beware it can be very misleading.
Its a percentage on how many of the runners run to within a certain position (distance btn by) that they should of achieved, so a 4/6f should win for example and a 66/1 rag should finish near last.
Problem is some trainers get a 100 rating for running 10 horses that finish down the field, those 10 horses would have been right old rags but finished where they were expected to.
Much prefer the old system of how many placed horses in the last 7 days or whatever which can be found in the Post aswell, but I dont think online.

Graham, details can be found on the RP website for recent performance for trainers and jockeys.

Find your race, and under the horses name, just click on the trainers name and up comes a table opened at the last 14 days of current form. You can then read that or select Statistics or Trainer Engagements.

Same thing if you click on a jockeys name, you get his rides for the last 14 days, statistics or engagements.

For details particular to the course in question, click on the blue cricle 'Stats' above the Paddy Power logo.

This table is for jockeys and trainers who are there on the day, with their five year record at that course.

[TheRat]

Yea the Trainer % on the RP site is based on how the horses ran to the RP Ratings I thought

[MidasTouch]

Thanks All those posting on this thread!

This apprentice is gaining knowledge every day thanks to you guys.

At this rate I may be able to retire at 65 and take up gambling seriously to supplement my meagre pension? Ha-Ha

MidasTouch

[fintron]

Cleared it up for me too. Cheers all.

[ONEDUNME]

Taking aside the RP aspect, what I understand by "running to form" would be different to that explained above and I'd say you're not far off in your first post Fintron.

Example

The highest rated horse wins the race in a time 1.5 seconds behind standard. His rating suggested that he would run at about that time and the race has not been a tactical affair. Therefore that horse has ran to form.

The second horse's rating suggests that he should be 1.5 lengths behind the winner. He duly finishes 3 lengths behind the winner so this would not represent his form and the handicapper (taking into account the class of the race etc) may decide not to raise his rating even though he's in the prize money.

The fourth horse is a rag and his rating suggests he should finish 15 lengths behind the winner. He actually finishes only 5 lengths behind the winner and therefore even though he's only managed fourth place he can still be said to have ran above himself given that this is classed as a true race.

Incidently, a horse can still win a race and run below form (i.e, what his handicap would suggest) by running a particularly slow time (taking into account ground, tactics, the quality of horses he's up against etc).