Do you have a “process” for studying a race?

[Degaussed]

Hi everyone,

Do you have a particular process or method for studying a race that you stick to, either out of habit or because you find it works for you?

Over the years I’ve gone through various methods of using various form figures (Timeform, RPRs, etc) or Speed Figures, tried to work out tissue prices of my own, created Excel simulations of races, etc. But in the end, I’ve settled on listing the horses in any given race in order of shortest price to the highest price, then studying the form of each, and then I write my own write-ups on what I think of each horse, then re-ordering them by their odds from what i think. It can be lengthy, but I’ve found that this generally works better for me.

[Lonesilver]

I have a method of eliminating half the field in no time whatsoever if I am making one selection per race.
I compare Horse 1 with Horse 2 and make one the “winner” of this two horse race. I follow this with Horse 3 versus Horse 4 and so on. If there is an odd number of runners the last 3 are compared to one another.

In a 12 horse field I have 6 “winners” and the other six are eliminated. Let’s call the “winners” Numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12. I then compare Number 1 versus No 4, Number 5 versus Number 8 and 9 versus 12. Again I eliminate more runners so I now have 3 contenders for the A selection. Guess what I do next?

At times I am splitting hairs in some eliminations but this works well for just an A selection. By this stage I have considered issues like distance, track conditions, racemaps, jockeys et al through the process.

[Gingertipster]

Am only doing one or two bets before I get back to betting seriously. For that I’ll once again be getting a Timeform Race Passes subscription.

WITH TIMEFORM:

The Timeform Master Rating is by no means the be all and end all. To make a profit subscribers should NOT use it to back the horse with the best chance of winning. Bookmaker’s odds compilers also use these form books to come to their opinion of who’s got the best chance too… Instead punters need to use it in order to find horses underestimated by the market / odds compiler. Whether that’s the favourite, the rank outsider or anything in between. The 4/6 fav is a good bet if I believe it has a better than 60% chance of winning (actually 63% once my margin for error is taken into consideration)… And a 50/1 shot is a good bet if I believe it has a better than 2% (actually 3% with a margin for error) etc etc.

The first thing I do is work out which trainers are in excellent, good, indifferent or bad form. Rating them from 10 to 1 (well, from *** to X). How likely a horse is of running to form has a massive impact in what price I am willing to take. Horses who seem themselves out of form have a much better chance of coming back to form if their trainer is doing extremely well… And conversely, horses whose recent form is good are less likely to remain so if the trainer is in bad form. etc.

Note how each horse likes to be ridden. Those who need to lead, front runner / races prominently and what distance the horse has been doing the front running at. A horse going up in trip may not want as fast a pace as one coming down in trip (to suit their stamina / speed requirements). Those that track pace, race mid-div, held up or dropped out. From that it is possible to work out how the race is likely to be run (overly strong, strong, mediuum, fair, steady or slow)… And who the likely pace is likely to suit.

imo A mistake many punters make is to have a rock solid opinion – seemingly wanting to be “proved right”. Fact is it is not that a horse will or won’t stay the trip, act on the ground, get the run of the race etc. It is the probability of doing so that counts… and the smaller possibility should be taken into account as well as the bigger probability.

I make notes of the probabilities of positives and negatives about each horse. Including the obvious distance and going. However, often it is a matter of stamina and speed rather than the distance and going. A horse may have stayed the trip before in a slowly run race and / or on a sound surface and may have acted on a soft surface at a lesser distance… But – with the added stamina needed – will it stay / be suited by the longer trip on soft ground and / or in a strongly run race?

Horses for courses. As well as a horse that has a particularly good record at a certain track. This may include whether a horse goes well or badly at right and left handed, sharp or galloping, undulating or level tracks etc.

If Flat racing there’s things like draw bias (including in a big field on straight course whether a hold up horse is drawn near a prominent runner, to help it get into the race). But it is not entirely straightforward. On the round course a poorly drawn front runner may be able to get across if he’s the only pace in the race. Whereas a poorly drawn hold up / dropped out horse can sometimes bide his time and come through if there are too many pace horses in the race and an overly strong pace favours those dropped out the back.

Flat or jumps – if running at a different trip then how free the horse has been in his races and breeding will be taken into account. ie Horses that pull hard or take a keen hold at a lesser trip often don’t stay as far as their breeding suggests and lethargic horses often stay further than breeding suggests. “Breeding” is not about Sire stamina index + Dam’s stamina index ‘/, 2. Some sires stamp their stock. eg Galileo got a lot of horses that stayed middle distances well even though they were out of sprinters.

Over jumps whether the horse is a good jumper and how stiff the fences are at the track. For me – a good jumper is not just about whether it falls or makes mistakes but also whether it makes ground at its obstacles when getting them right.

Then there’s how the horses have run recently compared to their Timeform Master Rating and were there any relevant excuses? Looking at the evidence of what happened in the race. I seldom listen to trainers for this because they often seem to make things up or at least have a biased opinion. You never hear a trainer saying “the reason for it running badly is I’m in such crap form at the moment”.

A Master Rating is only what the horse has (probably) proved capable of in its ideal conditions. Each horse also has a rating achieved in each race. So is possible to see how much below its Master Rating it may run in the prevailing conditions.

Also, is each horse in or out of form, improving or on the downgrade? There may not be any excuse for recent below par efforts, so is “out of form”. Some horses are given a “P” or “p” representing an improving horse. But it is possible to identify others I might see have a progressive profile when getting its ideal conditions without a “p” to its name. When viewing Race Ratings some (particularly older horses) form may be on a general downward direction, not capable of what it used to be due to age or other reason. With age, even if it put up a rating just a few months ago, it might not be able to reproduce it.

Temperament can also be important, whether the horse is likely to go through with its effort and consistency. A horse may be proven in the conditions but if its mind only allows it to run to form once in every three times it gets ideal conditions, then that has to be allowed for in the odds I am willing to take. The loud atmosphere at say Royal Ascot or the Cheltenham Festival upsets some horses, while others seem to thrive.

Some horses are best at a certain time of year so a return to form can sometimes be predicted. eg I backed Grand National winner Aurora’s Encore @ 119/1. Not on recent form but because he always came to form in the Spring and therefore was more likely to return to form than his more recent efforts suggested.

Jockeyship might come into it, has the jockey got a good record with the horse? Is it the first time a good jockey has ridden the horse? Although imo jockeyship is often over-played, it’s more that good jockeys are more consistent rather than actually improving horses… And a good jockey is usually allowed for in the market. Identifying a good conditional / apprentice may be better.

Probably forgotten some stuff…

Take all the above into consideration when putting all horses in order of best chance to worst chance.

I like to make a 100% book, giving each horse a percentage chance.

Convert percentages to odds and add a margin for error.

Back anything available at better odds than my prices to beat.

I have my own staking plan “Ginger’s Criterion” which is similar to Kelly.

GINGER’S CRITERION:
G = ((P – A) x 10) + P / 10

Where:
G = The percentage of betting bank to stake.
P = The Punter’s opinion of the Percentage chance of winning.
A = Available odds in percentage terms.

Value Is Everything

[Blackcountry Kid]

Nice write up GT.
I won’t go into how I go about my selections but basically they have to meet a qualifying standard and show they are capable of winning the race contested by dint of past performances or be improving thus make them liable to win the race concerned.
However one thing I do think many punters overlook is what’s called ‘the class factor’ where a horse just hits a brick wall,when moved to a higher grade contest,because it’s not good enough and has reached the limit of it’s potential at that time although the horse concerned may improve later in it’s racing career there are always signs to look for which post the likelyhood that they are back on the upgrade or the handicap mark has been reduced thus enabling them to win again.
good luck to all

[Gingertipster]

Thanks BK.

I resubscribed to Timeform Race Passes just before Cheltenham and things have started well.

Value Is Everything

[nwalton]

All i do is hours and hours watching race videos, i stick to pattern races and major handicaps. Whittle it down to who will win the race (imo) have a price in mind, if it is nowhere the price looking for I sit the race out.
At times its a lonely old life, but remember trust your eyes not your ears.

[bladeblaster]

Thats essentially what I do in my Handicap value selection GT, I just have a spreadsheet to work out the key points then I dive deeper into the 3 to see what I think the value is.

I am still refining it, how to weight each factor is tricky, for instance is trainer form as important as jockey form, is going as important as distance, etc, as you rightly say the answer is that it really depends on each race.

[kasparov]

For me the missing link in most descriptions of form study is relating ratings to win probabilities. I use a rule of thumb that a horse with a rating 5 pounds above another will beat it two thirds of the time, other things being equal. So for example if 9 horses are rated 125,120,120,120,120,120,120,120,120 the win probabilities would be 20% for the 125 and 10% for the eight others.

[Author]

Posts