Ah, there's very little 'studying', GC. As in what anyone might consider as 'traditional form studying'.
I'd say the bottom line is a substantial part of it is instinct born of betting in, watching, and knowing the results of (tens of) thousands of races. Maybe hundreds of thousands, I'd have to go calculate.
And, resulting from that, an 'instinctive' feel for what types of horses win (or lose, or run well in) what types of races, and in what circumstances, and against what levels of opposition. ofc, all that incorporates a huge range of factors that it's near impossible to fully quantify.
I say instinct, and sometimes it (or aspects of it) really is/are, but, in reality, it's assimilation and retrieval of a collection of millions of bits of brain-stored data, supplemented with whatever extra data is needed to come to a betting conclusion.
Takes about an hour each day to scan through the runners for 5-6 meetings, maybe anywhere from 30 seconds to a few minutes to conclude if anything that comes up is worth noting to bet or watch. If there is something that appears super interesting in whatever list that ends up with, yeah that might get another few minutes either looking at the horse concerned or perhaps quickly judging the other runners.
It probably helps that Chaumi is very likely on the autistic spectrum somewhere, as a lot of us are.
Of course, following any early checks, there's a whole afternoon and evening (with odd gaps, and sometimes morning meetings) spent looking at markets, watching, learning, placing bets etc etc, plus all the time reading whatever comes up that might be useful or interesting.
I would have to admit that horses, horse racing, and betting take up likely around 80% of my waking thoughts one way or another. Indeed, a regular jibe received from nearest and dearest goes along the lines of...
"you don't know what day such and such's birthday/wedding/anniversary etc is, you don't know when this particular important event x is happening, but you always know what time your f$%^ing horse is running, don't you."
And that would be correct, yes.
So does all that pay off?
Depends on what you expect out of it and what you mean by a pay-off.
For me, in particular, I get tons of entertainment value out of it. For better or worse, horse racing defines me. Without it, Chaumi wouldn't be Chaumi. Or not the whole Chaumi, anyway.
But I think you mean financial pay-off.
In the past, it's paid financially, yes. Fortunately (and I had some luck when it was needed), it's paid enough to make the whole 50 years worth of it worthwhile balanced against any time spent.
Right now, I'd say I'm riding a bit of a lucky run that has to come to an end. Or at a minimum, a disruption. That's where those two key concepts of persistence and resilience will (maybe may) need to kick in. Disruptions are to be expected - this game is deliciously predictable in its unpredictability and its predictability. Always will be, or it wouldn't be what it is. The question is 'can you get enough predictions right, at either the frequencies or the odds required, to get what you want out of it?'
It's worth noting at this point that a super-informed, highly eloquent, and clearly self-actualized punter once said to me 'you make your own luck'. And he was/is right, of course. Though you always welcome any help, and it would be foolish to refuse it!
Does it pay for others, using whatever methods they use?
Yes, I know it does. Several good examples are right here on this forum.
Do they do it with 'traditional' form study?
Partly, maybe. Yes, in some instances, quite likely (though, I'd suggest, only with some form of heavy specialization).
But almost certainly the most 'successful' use methods they've developed that are outside of (or in addition to/as an enhancement to) what an 'average' every day punter might use.
