September 27, 2005 at 10:41 #2289AragornMember
- Total Posts 2208
I have read this site for quite some time and think the discussion regarding form, speed figures etc is excellent and engaging, however, i have begun to wonder to myself whether or not it’s worth it? I’m a regular punter and generally pick up the RP read the form and pick horses, most of my betting is intuitive and based on bias in my opinion. In the past i’ve never really monitored my betting because I generally bet because I genuinely enjoy watching the game and being involved. After monitoring my betting for the last two weeks I am showing a 50% profit. I’m not betting mega money cos I don’t like losing but I would say that is not a bad ROI. So the question is does expansive form study really provide any more profit?September 27, 2005 at 10:57 #67102MountyMember
- Total Posts 455
I hope so, otherwise I’ve wasted half my life.September 27, 2005 at 12:09 #67103robnorthParticipant
- Total Posts 4568
It’s all down to the method you’re comfortable with. The suggestion is that you look for particular types of horse/selection rather than hammering into each race. If you find that you are able to home in on decent bets very quickly then good luck to you. I find that if I spend more than 10-15 minutes on a race it’s probably too complicated, but are those here who would throw their hands up in horror at that thought!
If your method suits then stick to it, but that doesn’t mean that more in depth study can’t work for others.
RobSeptember 27, 2005 at 12:14 #67104haggerMember
- Total Posts 5
Doesn’t it really depend on what you mean by "form study"?
If you mean collateral form (e.g. horse a beats horse b, horse b beats horse c, so when a and c meet, a should win all other things being equal), then i would consider this study ON ITS OWN to be flawed.
If you are talking about trends, speed figures, assessing likely pace of the race, horse profiles, then no.
So it’s not a waste of time if you take a wide ranging approach from a number of angles. It’s probably not a waste of time if you use a single angle but you are very very good at it.
This relates to a couple of recent similar threads (one started by me with only a single reply – poor me!, continued in a separate thread by McCormack 15) over whether it matters how you get to the right conclusion or if it is just being right, even if you are picking greys raced less than 12 days ridden by jockeys with names that appear in Lord of the Flies (showing 246% LSP by the way)<br>September 27, 2005 at 12:16 #67105haggerMember
- Total Posts 5
forgive me for horrendous over simplification/ignorance, but don’t you do trends?
does that actually entail any study of form or just looking at routes taken by previous winners of the same event?
realise the above might sound a bit offensive/scoffing – not intended to be that way:biggrin:September 27, 2005 at 13:01 #67106KlampenborgMember
- Total Posts 3
Well, Ill spend ages on a race but I have to see one or two stick out reasonably quickly or at least to be able to discount horses quickly. Other then that, I feel like its too competitive.
Tell you what though, took my girlfriend racing recently and she had four winners based on ….colour of the horse, liked the name….and that horse winked at me ;)
Therefore, whatever works…works.September 27, 2005 at 13:52 #67107noreMember
- Total Posts 151
Quote: from hagger on 1:16 pm on Sep. 27, 2005[br]does that actually entail any study of form or just looking at routes taken by previous winners of the same event?
<br>This has to be biggest cliche and untruth re. the so-called trends approach to analysing races ie. it is lazy, less rigorous, a shortcut etc.<br>Remember people who favour this method have to analyse past results to come up with the ‘trends’ to begin with. And then every runner in the race has to be inspected in the light of these findings.September 27, 2005 at 14:16 #67108Andrew HughesMember
- Total Posts 1904
Surely a trend is only useful in so far as it identifies things that exist in the real world – if, on investigation, no rational reason for the trend can be found, then it is meaningless. I think too often we generalise and treat horses as a set of numbers on a page rather than unique living creatures. A trend must correspond to something in the real world or it is just numbers on a page.
If, for example, a horse seems only to win when going left-handed, this might be a coincidence or it might indicate a characteristic of that horse’s racing style. Surely trends serve best as indicators of possible further investigation, rather than an end in themselves.September 27, 2005 at 15:28 #67109
I’m fairly sure Mounty doesn’t treat his trend horses as "number on a page" and I’m also sure he treats them exactly as they are – unique living creatures.
There are so many variables in our racing that the simple approach, whether that be collateral form – speed figures etc.. Is just too one dimensional. The nature of our courses, the contrast in pace etc.. all lead to a more sophisticated approach to form analysis.
I know of Mounty’s methods, and if he’s the astute fellow I believe him to be, he doesn’t just use them blindly. Correct me if I’m wrong.September 27, 2005 at 16:01 #67110GrimesParticipant
- Total Posts 1891
Though I’m prone to overlook them, I think trends are an important factor, among many others, to bear in mind.
What is more to the point by a long chalk, is that, unless I’m greatly mistaken (which, of course, wouldn’t be the first time), our friends, the bookmakers are very mindful of them at all times. Nuff said?
(Edited by Grimes at 5:02 pm on Sep. 27, 2005)September 27, 2005 at 16:10 #67111
But the market, at least for non-ante post races is usually decided by the tissue (coming from RP etc..) and punters early battles on the exchanges. There are a few gems to be found if you do your groundwork early enough :biggrin: :cool:September 27, 2005 at 19:38 #67112ArtemisParticipant
- Total Posts 1736
A systematic approach is IMO the only way forward in getting ahead of the game. You may enjoy a decent return for short periods, but in the long run intuitive methods invariably fail.
The good news is that you don’t have to spend a lot of time being systematic, although there are no short cuts which will reduce the work load to five or ten minutes a day. I spend about an hour per meeting, less if there aren’t many suitable class races, more if there are some large field handicaps.
What I have managed to do is reduce a lot of form study into an algorithm, a set pattern of rating horses according to a prescribed set of rules. It works very well for me and eliminates the frustration of jumping from one method to another. It makes selecting and punting a most enjoyable experience, knowing that I am employing the same method day in, day out.September 27, 2005 at 19:41 #67113
I could never go back to that approach Artemis. Tried it, systems just don’t work.September 28, 2005 at 09:39 #67114SeagullMember
- Total Posts 1708
Sailing Shoes <br>I dont know what systems u used but there are many simple ones that make a profit year after year.<br>Look at Ian Woods record training at Brighton and Ryan Moores record riding at the same track for example.<br>For every positive trend there are also negative ones. Look at Hen Knights poor record at Chepstow for example.Following Bryn Palling at Chepstow is rewarding season after season at a recent meeting a 40/1 2nd and a 50/1 winner.<br>look at flatstas website there are many simple ones to look at all f.o.c.September 28, 2005 at 16:33 #67115clivexMember
- Total Posts 3420
We all use systems of sorts…but perhaps tend to refer to them as factors
picking a horse is a combination of filtering out through a number of systems. Slavishly following one "system" is a waste of time IMO
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.