- This topic has 180 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
It’s not form study, that’s a waste of time.
Why, thank-you for that. It’s a very well-reasoned argument.
Mike
Please answer this question : – How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Any fool can produce a list of possible winners in a given race.
How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Woolf
Would you care to offer up a few examples for discussion?
Rob
How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Woolf
Would you care to offer up a few examples for discussion?
Rob
No dont…we will all end up in court.
SHL
Please answer this question : – How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers.
Well, I disagree with your hypothesis – I don’t believe that "horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers". I believe a small number do but they are statistically insignificant over a reasonable number of bets.
When a favourite/fancied horse gets beaten there could be a myriad reasons why. Many of those will reside in the form book, some may not. Sometimes horses just run badly: there’s a world of difference between a horse not running to it’s ability and one not running on it’s merits.
Mike
How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Woolf
Would you care to offer up a few examples for discussion?
Rob
No dont…we will all end up in court.
Simply look for shock winners at generous prices in the Results pages and then trace their performances in previous races.
It’s an eye opener, both the promotion of the winner from also ran to champion status and the reverse for the favourites.
Please answer this question : – How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers.
Well, I disagree with your hypothesis – I don’t believe that "horses are not running on their merits in significant numbers". I believe a small number do but they are statistically insignificant over a reasonable number of bets.
When a favourite/fancied horse gets beaten there could be a myriad reasons why. Many of those will reside in the form book, some may not. Sometimes horses just run badly: there’s a world of difference between a horse not running to it’s ability and one not running on it’s merits.
Mike
It’s always been the case that good horses will run a shocker from time to time, as humans will have a bad day at the office.
Conversely but less frequently average horses will shock everyone with a totally unexpected display of brilliance. Do they really expect us to believe that it is the norm for such inconsistency to occur on a daily basis?
It’s to the delight of the bookie and connections that inconsistency prevails, they would hate to see form readers profit from study of form, they would soon be out of business.
It’s not form study, that’s a waste of time.
Why, thank-you for that. It’s a very well-reasoned argument.
Mike
Please answer this question : – How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in
significant numbers
. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Any fool can produce a list of possible winners in a given race.
But it is not
"significannt numbers"
Woolfie. That’s the whole point. How can it be
"a waste of time"
studying form? When that is exactly what I do and my record on this forum (in Daily Lays And Plays)
prooves
it is
not
a waste of time.
The problem you have Woolfie, is every time you see an outsider win – you think it is because of skulduggery.
I backed Aquilonius at Goodwood this week at 43/1 and 47/1. The horse I believed to have
THE worst
chance of winning of
ALL
the runners. Seemed ("on
form
") to be more exposed than the rest and trained by Stuart Williams, someone a lot of punters do not trust. But it was the
only
horse in the race that usually races anywhere near the front. So quite likely to get an easy lead in a slowly run race (a big advantage). At its best when dictating. Also had form at 10f and was racing this day at 2m, so in a slowly run race and in the best position out in front when the sprint comes – he was likely to have more speed than most. Even so, I made Aquilonius only a 5% chance of winning! But at 43+/1 you only need just over a 2% strike rate to show a profit. A good bet.
The "form" was there for all to see and no doubt many other punters saw the possibilities, backed down to 16/1 SP (I believe around 22/1 on betfair).There are many aspects of "form" that make a difference to who wins Woolfie, it is NOT ONLY who is best in at the weights.
There are two horses in the 4:50 Salisbury Cavaleiro 15/2 and Viking Storm 12/1 (last night). Both ran poorly last time out, but their trainers are in better form now than they were (latter much better). If either wins after being well backed, you Woolfie – might think there was some skulduggery involved, disguising their form for a betting coup. Yet there are good reasons to believe they
might
come back to form.
Lilbourne Lass ran disappointingly last time out, not long ago. But that was at Chester, a course many horses (let alone two year olds) don’t act and unable to lead. It is my belief he’s better out front (did not on penultimate start either). But it is quite likely he could lead today (3:45 Salisbury) and has 5f speed in what might be a slowly run 6f. Just might return to his best in first time cheek pieces. Though I’ve saved on the obvious Joyeuse who may outclass them anyway.
Tantshi (4:20 Salisbury) disappointed on recent starts, but she invariably throws her chance away by taking a strong hold. Apart from Ghanaian (who I’ve also backed) all the other four horses like to front run. So there is likely (not certain but "likely") to be a true early pace, which should help Tantshi to settle/show her best.
Not saying all these horses will come back to form today (and it still might not be good enough). Some won’t, but there are (like always) good reasons why the horse could come back to form Woolfie. It is NOT because they were STOPPED last time out.
Value Is Everything[Simply look for shock winners at generous prices in the Results pages and then trace their performances in previous races.
It’s an eye opener, both the promotion of the winner from also ran to champion status and the reverse for the favourites.
Woolf121
Yes, but could you give a few examples?
Judging by your claim to have such in depth knowledge I assume you would quickly be able to identify ‘shock winners at generous prices’.
I had assumed that 20/1 chances were expected to win occasionally, probably about 1 in 30 races on average, but maybe my ‘O’ Level in Statistics has let me down at this point…
I’ve lost count of the amount of posts you have made professing that racing is totally dishonest. However, the amount of evidence you have presented to back up those allegations amounts to diddly-squat!
Rob
It cannot be too onerous a task to check the results pages and trace back the performances of sudden shock winners. Yesterday saw a smaller than average total of such incidents for example.
Exactly, so maybe you would care to ‘check the results pages’ and give us a few of the examples to which you refer. We can take it from there.
Rob
Exactly, so maybe you would care to ‘check the results pages’ and give us a few of the examples to which you refer. We can take it from there.
Rob
I’ve checked. Thank you.
Please answer this question : – How is it possible to select based on form when some horses are not running on their merits in
significant numbers
. It’s impossible to compare performances thus rendering any attempt to pinpoint a likely winner a waste of time.
Any fool can produce a list of possible winners in a given race.
But it is not
"significannt numbers"
Woolfie. That’s the whole point. How can it be
"a waste of time"
studying form? When that is exactly what I do and my record on this forum (in Daily Lays And Plays)
prooves
it is
not
a waste of time.
The problem you have Woolfie, is every time you see an outsider win – you think it is because of skulduggery.
There are many aspects of "form" that make a difference to who wins Woolfie, it is NOT ONLY who is best in at the weights.
There are two horses in the 4:50 Salisbury Cavaleiro 15/2 and
Viking Storm 12/1
(last night). Both ran poorly last time out, but their trainers are in better form now than they were (latter much better). If either wins after being well backed, you Woolfie – might think there was some skulduggery involved, disguising their form for a betting coup. Yet there are
good reasons
to believe they
might
come back to form.
Lilbourne Lass ran disappointingly last time out, not long ago. But that was at Chester, a course many horses (let alone two year olds) don’t act and unable to lead. It is my belief he’s better out front (did not on penultimate start either). But it is quite likely he could lead today (3:45 Salisbury) and has 5f speed in what might be a slowly run 6f. Just might return to his best in first time cheek pieces. Though I’ve saved on the obvious
Joyeuse
who may outclass them anyway.
Tantshi
(4:20 Salisbury) disappointed on recent starts, but she invariably throws her chance away by taking a strong hold. Apart from Ghanaian (who I’ve also backed) all the other four horses like to front run. So there is likely (not certain but "likely") to be a true early pace, which should help Tantshi to settle/show her best.
Not saying all these horses will come back to form today (and it still might not be good enough). Some won’t, but there are (like always) good reasons why the horse could come back to form Woolfie. It is NOT because they were STOPPED last time out.
Viking Storm 12/1 and Tantshi 13/2 came back to form today Woolfie. Aren’t Harry Dunlop and Roger Varian utter rogues?
Running their horses down the field before magically returning to form to win. Value Is EverythingOn Wednesday last these horses won, both at 10/1 :
3.00 Bath PETERBODEN
8.30 Kempton AEGAELUS
Ginger, you may have a ready explanation for their amazing
turnaround in fortunes. I look forward to hearing it.On Wednesday last these horses won, both at 10/1 :
3.00 Bath PETERBODEN
8.30 Kempton AEGAELUS
Ginger, you may have a ready explanation for their amazing
turnaround in fortunes. I look forward to hearing it.There’s no "amazing turnaround in fortunes" here.
In the second race you mention I backed Infinite Hope with small savers on Royal Dutch and Aegeus (13.9/1). The horse had run poorly recently on Turf but he’s obviously much better on Polytrack, now having a 31-21 career record. Also had Ryan Moore up not that I’m particularly influenced by jockey bookings. The other two I backed just looked like nailed-on improvers to me. I was probably wrong.
Your first race looks like a rank bad handicap with inconsistent horses all finishing in a heap. Petersboden ran to a mark of 52 according to the RP; he’d done similar on at least five occasions including three outings ago under very similar conditions so no improvement there. You could run this race five times and get a different winner.
The above’s just off the top of my head as I never studied the Petersboden race. Irrelevant really as anyone can see the winner after the race, Ginge has just pointed out a couple of cracking bets beforehand.
Mike
On Wednesday last these horses won, both at 10/1 :
3.00 Bath PETERBODEN
Ginger, you may have a ready explanation for their amazing
turnaround in fortunes. I look forward to hearing it.PETERSBODEN:
4th Sept:
Held up
off a
good, possibly overly strong
gallop. Ran to form. 1st of 6. Improving his Timeform rating by only 1 lb.
31st Aug:
Tracked pace
off a
slow
gallop. 7th of 7. Well below form.
20th Aug:
Racedmid-field
off a
good
gallop. 6th of 13, but (according to Timeform) running to his best.
7th Aug:
Held up
off a
fair
pace. 2nd of 8, at that point a career best performance.
16th July
One of 4 who went offtoo quickly
,
tracking
an
overly strong
pace. Well below form but still did best of the prominent runners. 2nd of 6.
Not saying it is definitely the case Woolfie, but looking at Petersboden’s form suggests to me he’s best nowadays
held up
(with more than a couple of horses in front of him) where the pace is
at least
reasonable. Position and pace of the race are important factors for many horses to show their form. Certainly means in this case there is no reason to question connections motives.
Value Is Everything
The "form" was there for all to see and no doubt many other punters saw the possibilities, backed down to 16/1 SP (I believe around 22/1 on betfair).- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.