[Slowhand]

Wednesday

6.40 Kempton: MASONIC LADY lost

Thursday

7.50 Wolverhampton:

MATILDAS WALTZ

[Slowhand]

Icy Blast was a non runner.

Wednesday
3.15 Musselbro:

HOPPYS FLYER

6.40 Kempton:

MASONIC LADY

[Slowhand]

Cheers RH

I know they went fast today but he sat an awful long way back, did seem to have an awful lot to do even though the leaders came back.

I know exactly what you mean about discarding other runners because one you have noted is running Carvills.

Its a bit like you have inside info on a horse and none of the others are trying, which is a flaw for the inside info people as well. Then again actually having inside info should involve knowing if others are actually trying

As in many aspects of weighing up horse form its recognising the significant trend from the coincidence or random.

For instance, a horse might win on slow ground 3 times, so it looks like a slow ground horse, but its actually the course that it performs best on on each of those 3 runs, or its best after a break of so many days.

Some horses have form that is so random you can’t predict anything. I would say if you can find one or two horses a week that are really good profile horses you are doing well.

Then when you find the horse you need the conditions to suit, preferably pace of race to suit, handicap mark to suit.

Thats why i wouldn’t say its a system, more a selection process mixed with general form reading principles.

Handicap marks are a big key to it imo, if i have a horse that fits a race but the mark is to high I discard it as trainers like to keep marks manageable. I take the view that many horses could win handicaps back to back, but trainers make sure that doesn’t happen as once a moderate horse wins 2 races back to back it might take 6 months to bring it back to a level it can win off. Far better to get 1 win, then another one 3 or 4 runs later, it keeps owners more interested as well I would imagine.

Handicap marks and how a trainer manages them is a topic all of its own I think

[Slowhand]

Thats very good of you Cormack, thanks.

I hope it prompts discussion.

[Slowhand]

Buy a stopwatch ? crazy way to try and find winnersIMO

What I do through, after being advised to, is look back the results of the day and compare time for time on that day only………what is good to soft exactly?……damn sure it isn’t the same on a Monday as it is on a Tuesday. So judging horses by time can be a mile off.

If you use the above method it pretty much gives you an idea what the pace of the race is but you will get grade 1 hurdles being run slower than Novice hurdles at time so using it as a beting guide is near on usless most of the time.

Look at the past year on the flat. Some amazing times put up by horses that got stuffed next time they ran…..a few even broke track records……..not my cup of tea.

Fist

There is so much wrong with that post that I don’t know where to start really.

Just picking the last comment for instance, which is my favourite comment from someone who usually doesn’t appear to understand the subject, I read it so much on the Betfair forum. The track record breaker isn’t any more significant than any other winner, its more to do with how fast the surface is, so why would you expect a horse to automatically run well next time out? Same with the horse that puts up a fast time, why does it have to win next time out?

These seem quite naive and simple expectations you have, does every horse that wins easily win next time out? So why expect fast time winners to always win next time out?

[Slowhand]

Great start Slowhand

Thanks Cormack.

Just one tomorrow:

1.50 Catterick:

ICY BLAST

[Slowhand]

Many thanks for putting a good case forward RH. Obviously I wanted people to discuss this as I can keep fnding these for myself without ever posting anything up, as i am sure others can.

I always think that if you throw ideas around then at some point someone will come up with something you haven’t thought of. None of us have all the answers and its surprising how the most simple move can be missed when you are looking at an idea on your own.

I certainly can’t see a stand out tomorrow but there is one I am having a small bet on.

In the 3.20 at Catterick,

Elite Land

could surprise at big odds. This one is a Catterick specialist – 1131 at the course.

He needs a good pace and should get it here with Drop The Hammer & Spear Thistle in the race. Six races ago he was favourite at Haydock off a mark of 65 and was just beaten. Tomorrow he has dropped nicely to 65 again, so is perfectly handicapped here.

His last run was decent as the race wasn’t his cup of tea with the slow pace but he managed to only be beaten 6 lengths in a better race than this.

At decent odds this one has plenty going for him in this.

[Slowhand]

Thanks RH

Its a big subject really imo. Actually removing the wheat from the chaff isn’t systematic at all, it involves judgement calls and general form reading aspects.

For instance, what constitutes a favoured condition? what if a horse has won when not favoured by conditions that now look to be negatives.

I remember the old Profile software that was pretty good at the time. Maybe that broke the form down just a little too much. Which begs another question, how much do you break the conditions down?

A big subject.

[Slowhand]

well I had one of those days todays that most of you have probably had – a nice win with a could have been.

I put the 4 horses here with Lucky Punt from the profiling thread and had a £1 Lucky 31.

I’ve got £1255.73 to come back, if the other one had won it would have been £5340.09.

Can’t complain obviously, but how nice would that other one have been?

[Slowhand]

2.40 Kempton: SPLASH POINT: WON 7/1

2.30 Leicester: JINKY: WON 10/11

4.30 Leicester:SHOW RAINBOW: WON 2/1

Level Stakes profit to £1 =

+£8.90

[Slowhand]

thanks for replies

I was hoping to encourage discussion on the main forum- i didn’t just want to use the thread to post winners or "system" selections.

Cormack has pm’d me to let me know its here – but it is questionable if its a system tbh.

There are no hard and fast rules for instance – many horses could be said to have a pattern when they don’t for instance.

If people want to discuss how they look at this sort of thing then maybe we can do so here.

I’ve had a cracking day, I couldn’t believe they let this drift out so much – won like an odds on favourite didn’t it?

[Slowhand]

I can’t see Emma bothering with Catt – he’s an old man – she must have blokes queueing up.

[Slowhand]

Frankel won because he coped with bad conditions better than the others. Simples! That’s why he succeeded. Let’s face it … the going was shite and horses were bound to get tired in it!

Frankels best performances have been at a mile. Should he improve come the 2011 flat season, I reckon he’ll lay waste to all in the 2000 Guineas.

the going wasn’t that bad – it looked bad but the race time doesn’t suggest desperate ground by any means – we suffer the watered ground syndrome – it flies off very easily when moist – overwatering has trashed most courses – its like layers of carpet sat on top.

Frankel was one of the very few to finish a race from off the pace as well.

His best performance was here, not at a mile, both are enough to win any guineas from the last 10 years though

[Slowhand]

now then John

those things you highlight are sure important

but punters in general are lazy – so any angle that involves putting some work in could give you an edge over that laziness

most punters know about going, course, draw – its factored into prices

whereas aspects of speed ratings and sectional timings involve a bit more – could just be more of an edge there than you think

[Author]

Posts