- This topic has 33 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Purely out of interest how long do you all spend checking out the runners for a races, my girlfriend has told me that I spend to much time looking at the form.
my girlfriend has told me that I spend to much time looking at the form.
LOL.
Always too much for the girlfriend, always too little for betting purposes.
Oh and should any classifiaction of races be avoided??
On average, I only bet on races where there are…
* less than 10 runners – better chance of winning and less time studying the form.
*extreme ground preferences – less than good-firm, no more than soft. Good ground throws up varied results, as does heavy.
*NO apprentice races. I’m also not fond of maidens, selling, claiming, nurseries etc etc. These consist of improvers, poor and inconsistent horses.I like having a bet on big, feature race fields ie Royal Ascot h’caps, John Smiths, Cambridgeshire etc etc. I tend to go more on form figures, conditions, draw, trainer form etc etc than overall form, which takes forever.
Well, there’s my advice…those who have read this will owe me £2.99. Make a cheque payable to…
* less than 10 runners – better chance of winning and less time studying the form.
*extreme ground preferences – less than good-firm, no more than soft. Good ground throws up varied results, as does heavy.
*NO apprentice races. I’m also not fond of maidens, selling, claiming, nurseries etc etc. These consist of improvers, poor and inconsistent horses.I like having a bet on big, feature race fields ie Royal Ascot h’caps, John Smiths, Cambridgeshire etc etc. I tend to go more on form figures, conditions, draw, trainer form etc etc than overall form, which takes forever.
Well, there’s my advice…those who have read this will owe me £2.99. Make a cheque payable to…
Fair enough, but you owe me £5 for pointing out that it’s “fewer than 10 runners”, not “less than”.
So, please send me £2.01.
Steve
I don’t assess races at all but unlike the previous posters I am being completely honest .. I find it a mind numbing waste of time. That’s why systems are handy.
Having hit a brick wall of late when assessing races it looks like I need to get myself a decent system.
And i suppose there in lies the problem
I tend to stick to non-handicap races, with the odd exception. I am very selective and mainly concentrate on horses who have previous winning form – preferably over the distance they are now being asked to run.
I also think too much studying of the form book can be detrimental, as it can often over complicate matters and steer you away from your initial selection.
Ground is a crucial factor when considering your selection or selections.
When your selection ticks all the right boxes, and you feel very confident – lump on! … but
only IF you can afford to lose.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I’m a great believer in reading the form, but there is one golden rule I stick to in looking at previous runs: Don’t read things into it that aren’t there! Also, it helps if you’ve seen previous runs, and eye-acatching finish, bad luck in-running, going well when unseated etc. can all help pick out a horse that’s going to go close. In handicaps, I also like to note the mark off which the horse last won.
As for races, I tend not to touch the lowest levels of racing, as they are often the most likely to be crooked, and also a 2nd place finish at that level isn’t a whole lot better than, say, an 8th due to the poor quality of runners.
I’ve noticed when people talk about studying form, the majority talk about how long do you spend looking before the race. For me the most important factor is the analysis after the race, assessing at that stage whether the form is likely to prove strong and identifying then which horses are likely to prove of interest next time. I can say without hesitation, that my best results come from these horses that I’ve been ‘waiting for’.
Such analysis works best in maidens, nurseries, 3yo handicaps and other races where horses are not fully exposed. I find it much easier to identify which horses are likely improvers from looking at their pedigrees, connections and brief careers than assessing whose turn is it today in a field full of exposed six year olds.
Well different people focus on different races, and it would be pretty boring/ strange if people didn´t have their own areas of specialisation (or in my case none at all!). Some people like looking at exposed form, whereas people like DJ (David Johnson) and myself like studying the form of unexposed horses (though he does a much better job than I do obviously lol).
If your looking at a 20 runner handicap then it would probably take me at least an hour to sift through the race, but if I´m looking at a 8 runner 2yo nursery I can be through the race in 15 minutes.
I don´t want to tell you how to study but I imagine you will have an idea of which races you make the most money from and which races you can grasp the form of quickly. If it happens to be the races you make the most money from are the ones you can whizz through, then excellent
, if not then you will need to look at what you study in the races that take a while to get through and whether you are studying things that have a very marginal impact on the outcome of the race. Some people prefer to back favourites, other people back on value at longer prices. If you do the latter then you don´t want to get into a rut when they aren´t winning because you are bound to have periods where you struggle to get any winners at all. Realistically, if you back 6 20-1 shots its very likely you won´t have a winner.
And after you have done this and watched the race, how did your horse do? Why did it lose, did it not do as well as you hoped? Did the one that win win with something to spare and will it be able to follow up in a similar race next time? Did that one that your nag squash against the rail look unlucky in 2nd? Did that one that was having its 3rd run down the field look like it got a very tender ride? If you are looking for betting angles, then watching the race and reading the analysis on the race could provide this. However I can preach about this and bore you senseless most probably as much as I want, but its very time consuming and I don´t do it as much as I could. Its hard work, so this seems a stupid thing to say, but it depends whether your betting for pleasure or betting to make money. If its the first of the 2 then your probably not inclined to do this, but if its the latter then doing this would probably be beneficial.
Right had enough of this foreign keyboard, I´m off!
DJ,
This is something I try to do and learn from my mistakes (I have a lot to learn!). My main issue is catching the horses next time up as I don’t really have the diligence to check every day etc.. Any advice? Websites?
horse alert
They send the horses you pick to your email address every morning when they are due to run Aragorn. Hope this helps.
I think the main problem most people have with assessing a race is that they have no set method of doing it. This might work well for some people who rely on intuition, hunch or inspiration, but for others(like myself), such a haphazard approach wouldn’t be very productive – in fact, it would probably put me off having a bet altogether.
Solving a race is to me, like doing a puzzle even though there is no solution. Puzzles, crosswords (and crimes) are in the past and have a solution if you are clever enough to find it. Races and other sporting events are in the future, so have a range of possible outcomes and an infinite number of sub events that can affect the final outcome.
My method is to apply the problem solving model used in criminology, eliminating those horses that should not win under today’s conditions and being left with as few ‘suspects’ as possible. As in all good detective stories, it is often very surprising who turns out to be the villain: often a suspect eliminated early in the investigation.
My approach is to assign numerical values to factors used in the gathering of evidence and lean towards those horses that achieve the highest scores. Of course, the odds have to be taken into account to locate the most favourable betting opportunities, otherwise you would be backing favourites 80% of the time.
Such an approach has the advantages of directness, repeatability and consistency and with practise, it cuts down significantly on time spent hovering uncertainly over a race. Most people looking for a ‘system’ are already using one: they simply need to step back from the process and try to analyse what they are doing. They are almost certainly doing a lot of repetitive tasks which could be made into a method.
Before anyone points it out, if they are losing regularly, disregard the last two sentences above.
I don’t have much time for "form analysis" these days, so I focus on a small group of horses: G1/G2 8-12f.
When the final decs are in, I’ve already got a clear opinion on the ability and preferences of most of the runners and I start with a look at the odds to see if anything stands out as being far too long or far too short.
If nothing stands out (ie if the market seems agrees with me), then I’m happy to just pass on the race.
Steve
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.