Franking of Form - is it relevant?

My view is that it is relevant.

Franking/Not Franking the form, is merely a phrase which means "Is my horse potentially well/badly handicapped? - nothing more.

Let's use this example:

Lets say three horses dead-heat in the Swinton, and are awarded 150 apiece.

The following season, Horse 1 runs in two successive handicap hurdles off 150, and is well beaten both times. He is revised down to 145.
Horse 2 also re-appears, runs in three handicaps off 150, and is well beaten in all three. He is revised down to 144.
Horse 3 then gets an entry in a handicap hurdle off 150.

After looking at Going, Trip and Weight, I ask myself "Does his form stand-up?". If I spotted the two he'd DH'd with had been dropped as above, I would be wondering whether Horse 3 might not be quite so good as 150 suggests, and that he might be slightly over-rated and badly handicapped as a result.

All form assessment is retrospective anyway, and we are all constantly looking at past races to draw conclusions about future ones. As far as I'm concerned, looking to see whether or not form has been franked, is exactly the same thing as looking to see whether or not your horse is well-handicapped. Where is the drama?
 
Last edited:
It's definitely relevant. If not then subsequent runs by beaten horses have no bearing on the quality of the race winner which is nonsense. However it's not everything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
you have brought a handicap into it Grass..which just gives another reason for a horse to not up to form next tiem...in that system horses are run for the mark..in your example the original race could be solid..but subsequent runs of two of them could be to get the mark down..that doesn#t really damage the original race as the two others aren't being run on their true level afterwards they are being run to get mark down. So they are not reflecting the true value of the original race. Thats could be just one reason why the deadheaters didn't frank the form..there are many other reasons why next time a horse will not perform to previous level on top of that..off colour..inconsistent..couldn't be arsed that day etc

Viking...what do you mean by its nonsense though...did Theatreworld "devalue" Istabraq's first Champion Hurdle win when getting buried next time for instance?..did theatreworld give a bearing on the worth of the CH with that run?
 
Last edited:
By franking of form I presume you mean have winners come out of the race. It depends of course. If a couple of runners come out and win weak races is it really franked? However taking Beuveur D'air as an example you'd have to say the form of his Newbury race has certainly been franked, and you have to take notice.

Essentially as with every other angle it's all relative, and useful as part of a more rounded strategy to either finding winners, uncovering others that might be flying under the radar, or discounting false favourites. Usually it's more useful with novices and juveniles, but as always working out the value of the form and the subsequent races is the key to its usefulness.

Of course sometimes even with novices and juveniles it won't work out because a trainer may regard subsequent runs as a handicapping exercise. That's when it's worth having a close eye on typical trainer behaviour as that brings in another betting angle.
 
Last edited:
I just meant that it's nonsense to say franking the form is irrelevant. The example of Theatreworld means franking should never be used too literally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Sporting Life newspaper used to have a count of future winners/placings/runners from each race in the form. One wonders why this was done away with - it would probably be easier to compile in this digital age.

As for the question - I'm not sure. It wouldn't put me off backing a horse if the subsequent runs of beaten horses turned out to be poor - in fact, thinking about it, there may actually be greater value in doing so if the price has been pushed out as a result. Equally horses can be overbet as a result of what appears to a "solid gold" piece of form.
 
EC1 said:
I'm meaning in races where we know the form Maruco..established form.
Click to expand...

That was never mentioned in your original post, and neither was the exclusion of handicaps.

Maybe you should tell us which races you mean?
 
Last edited:
i haven't excluded handicaps.,,i just mentioned a good reason why they are even less likely to have form franked..getting mark down.

And yes i did mention "established" form in the original post.
 
Last edited:
The manner of a win doesn't lie, whereas the runs of others in subsequent races can. This is precisely where the methods you use give a significant advantage EC.

Subsequent winners can be a good guide, but I wouldn't take that piece of information alone.
 
After last years TH i said then,,,and have said many times since then .i didn't rate it highly from the moment i did figures for it..you seem to have needed 12 months to decide that by relying on what the horses have done since then. From day one..its never looked great imo...so if you trying to show me franking told me something..it didn't in this case. When people were saying P%C for CH..i couldn't have it.

On saying that..P&C isn't strightforward..that head carriage ain't right..he don't race like a horse that will give his best at end of races.
 
Last edited:
Take a look back at my posts on P&C and you will find I was less than enthusiastic - as I am about all juveniles going into open company (you'll find plenty of evidence of this too).

That's not the point anyway, and you know it. The first three in the Triumph have failed to win in all subsequent starts, and are not worth their current handicap marks. They are clearly over-rated, but you wouldn't know if you took the Triumph (and subsequent ratings) as a measure of how good they are, and ignored what they have done since.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Take a look back at my posts on P&C and you will find I was less than enthusiastic - as I am about all juveniles going into open company (you'll find plenty of evidence of this too).

That's not the point anyway, and you know it. The first three in the Triumph have failed to win in all subsequent starts, and are not worth their current handicap marks. They are clearly over-rated, but you wouldn't know if you took the Triumph (and subsequent ratings) as a measure of how good they are, and ignored what they have done since.
Click to expand...


I'll just say again..i have always said that form didn't rate high on my figures..thats from the day the race was run. I've also stated many times that P&C wasn't a CH hoss

i don't care how others rated him..how he got a 159 is a mystery to me..i didn't get him near that

but when i'm only one of a handfull that never really rated this horse that highly..i find it quite odd you are trying to suggest i did. Its not been a surprise that the form isn't that great to me.
 
Last edited:
Devilment is the horse to take a line on for last seasons Triumph. Some don't train on, and others show normal progression, and he's the one to use to nail the form down in my opinion.
 
EC1 said:
I'll just say again..i have always said that form didn't rate high on my figures..thats from the day the race was run. I've also stated many times that P&C wasn't a CH hoss

i don't care how others rated him..how he got a 159 is a mystery to me..i didn't get him near that

but when i'm only one of a handfull that never really rated this horse that highly..i find it quite odd you are trying to suggest i did. Its not been a surprise that the form isn't that great to me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you personally rated P&C 159 or 59.

The point is that - given the subseqent performances of the Triumph runners - it would be entirely legitimate to take a look at the race again, if someone else had rated it highly......precisely because the form had not stood-up. Far from being an irrelevance, it's a fundamental, imo.

Sorry, mate - but I think your talking mince on this one. Either that, or you have a narrower definition of where it isn't relevant, than was evident in your original post. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
It doesn't matter if you personally rated P&C 159 or 59.

The point is that - given the subseqent performances of the Triumph runners - it would be entirely legitimate to take a look at the race again, if someone else had rated it highly......precisely because the form had not stood-up. Far from being an irrelevance, it's a fundamental, imo.

Sorry, mate - but I think your talking mince on this one. Either that, or you have a narrower definition of where it isn't relevant, than was evident in your original post. :cool:
Click to expand...

i don't care what others rate races though Grass is the point i'm making..and i'm on record from last March saying it wasn't a great race imo.

And yes..to be fair the triumph hurdle ones aren't "established" horses..so subsequent runs can be helpful..but i personally didn't need them to confirm..but when they haven't proved to be that good..thats all it does with lightly raced hosses

I have said established in the original post. That is the type of franking post race i'm talking about..you said you might doubt last years GC for instance..if RTR don't win today..thats the type of franking i mean..with established horses..as mentioned in that first post:)
 
Last edited:
I think it is most certainly relevant but the hard bit is reading it accurately.

Knowing when a good/bad run next time means something is much more important than the simple fact of something having run well/badly next time.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I think it is most certainly relevant but the hard bit is reading it accurately.

Knowing when a good/bad run next time means something is much more important than the simple fact of something having run well/badly next time.
Click to expand...

Exactly, DO. Mitigating circumstances are key.

EC1, "established form" has little meaning - you need to be clearer, on that, because you appear to dismiss 'franking' as a concept in its entirety in the original post, thereafter introducing the "established races" caveat. If it's the former, you're wrong (imo), and if it's the latter, you need to be clear about what constitutes an "established' piece of form. Perhaps form which has been franked, would be a qualifier for such races?

:lol:
 
Back
Top