Analyze this!

And the things I mainly focussed on were:

Going preference
Track preference, including similar track preference. A horse might have run well at Carlisle, so other r-handed undulating tracks could suit him.
Stable form

I used RPRs, but had seperate RPRs for left and right handed tracks. I found it amazing how much of an edge this gave me.
 
I'm surprised you say it was as boring as fuck. To me, form analysis is just about the most satisfying "intellectual" pursuit I know of, and that has been the case for over 30 years. I would get a kick out of it even if I never had the pay off of a bet.
 
Bar the Bull said:
The only time I have ever cleared a profit consistently was when I was prepared to work at it. I remember one period where I was focussing on staying northern handicap chases for the winter, and I did very well. It was boring as fuck, though.
Click to expand...

The unfortunate reality of punting :)

I've devised a very lazy method lately using combined adjusted RPR's and topspeed for when I can't be bothered to review the form and i'm just having a few sheckles on a saturday. This approach works in handicaps but not in other races. For instance last night (apologies for this blatant aftertiming) it found me super duplex and Vino vino cavo.

I'm far too busy and also too lazy to put the time in that some people do but I think hard work and a logical, analytical approach is the way to make money. Margins are so tight though that making a decent profit is going to require a very large turnover. You should also specialise because trying to punt everything is a quick way to the poorhouse. I limit my proper form study these days to maidens and graded races because I can't keep up with the rest.
 
J Alfred; have you ever seen Ken Reveley's horses battle through the mud at Catterick or Hexham?

I suppose I found playing football and socialising to be more fulfilling forms of entertainment, reading and crosswords to be more fulfilling intellectual pursuits and working to be more financially rewarding.

I am not slagging it off, it just wasn't for me.
 
:lol:

Simon, your Ferkometer's getting into the red zone, so be careful! :D

Dosage is a desperately mathematical formula which really needs someone like SteveM to come on and kindly, gently explain over several evenings!

The bounce factor, as is most commonly portrayed, is a horse 'bouncing back' from a long lay-off with a win. However, I've also seen it hotly debated that it was NOT that but, rather like the Barnes-Wallis bouncing bomb, its winning on its second outing after a lay-off. If anyone can correct either of those assumptions with another one, please feel free!
 
The bounce factor is usually used for a horse after winning or putting up a big performance coming off a long lay off from injury. The bounce being that he will not be able to produce the run the second time of asking. A high profile example would be Looks Like Trouble.
 
Last edited:
Ah, that's the second theory binned, then, Gearoid. Thanks for that - Simon will thank you, too, as he adds that info to his betting armoury.
 
Thanks to both of you. What is there about Looks Like Trouble that shows bounce, Gearoid? I can't work it out myself :P
 
For some reason Looks Like Trouble was the first horse I thought of when I saw the bounce mentioned. His win at Wincanton in the John Bull after a year layoff was spectacular and a bit emotional. It left racing fans thinking a real champion was back but he bounced to the moon. He also landed a gamble 6/4 (from 5/1) in a charity race much to the joy of few regulars on here who were on course having £50 a pitch down the line of bookmakers.
 
Aragorn said:
You should also specialise because trying to punt everything is a quick way to the poorhouse. I limit my proper form study these days to maidens and graded races because I can't keep up with the rest.
Click to expand...

Well said. Unless you're going at it full time, there is surely far too much racing to be able to all analyse races in the depth you need to if you want to turn a profit.

It's never something I've been able to properly knuckle down to if I'm honest (bar one very profitable spell analysing Irish summer jumping a couple of years back). I've always thought that, given the debate trip/ground preferences evoke on the forum for top horses, that if you can form a strong (and informed) opinion about a particular body of horses (say Irish staying handicap hurdles - which I have studied in the past) it's almost an edge in itself given the paucity of serious study it receives in comparison to higher class horses.

I'm slightly surprised race standardization hasn't received a mention on this thread.
 
Last edited:
One of the better threads on here over the summer was EC1s thread on overall race pace and finding an oppurtunity to back closers in the right races. It got me watching a few northern sprint handicaps I would not give the time of day too.
 
I guess that's also another card in the suit: run style, as the Americans say. Important to know how a horse runs best (I realise it's much easier to grasp when the US horses are just dirt runners and therefore on standard ground) in order to know if the track and going will suit the style. It took me a few races to understand what a 'deep closer' is, but no doubt American punters know these specialists and can make a few dollars out of that trait.
 
Back
Top