Statistics or Form Reading?

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
anyone fancy discussing pro's and cons of these two approaches?

Personally...i like both approaches and have had periods of using a mix of both and then just focussing on one aspect. I do like numbers...you probably didn't guess:)

Many people think form reading is the best way..others use speed figures...some follow jockey/trainer bookings...so many angles to the game really

I'm not really trying to make a case for which is best...as i think any study from any angle can be interesting and profitable..if done properly and in depth.

Just something for us to post about really...board has been quiet so we might be able to create a thread we can all benefit from
 
Last edited:
Well I don't bet but that doesn't stop me "picking my fancies" and statistics would definitely have a part to play if I did. However that would be in a negative way e.g ruling out horses that stats show haven't won a particular race or type of in years because of their age, eg horses ten years old or older in a Gold Cup. That's not to say they can't win but there's a very high chance they won't. Then hopefully having eliminated a lot of the runners for one reason or another I guess the form element would come into play but using stats like course wins as well as other factors like yards in form eg Haggas at the moment.

Reading that back it's probably rubbish but hey ho.
 
It's a very broad question because there are various ways to read form and a whole array of statistics. I think that stats when well used are a useful short cut but I couldn't imagine making final decisions without going through the form as well.

My methods have evolved over time, which I think is a good thing. You have to keep a fresh eye, and sticking too long to the same approach leads to laziness.

There was a time in the 70s and 80s when I concentrated quite heavily on speed ratings. Back in those days form analysis was a lot more difficult. TV never went to most of the tracks, and neither could I, so interpreting form from places you had never seen was a hairy business, which made speed ratings a useful angle until everyone started using them.

You've shown how useful sectional analysis can be but I think there must be a lot of work in it.

Recently I've been watching a lot more replays than before because the websites have improved. I hope to develop a better eye for judging performances and picking up on things that won't appear in the form book.
 
Grey said:
It's a very broad question because there are various ways to read form and a whole array of statistics. I think that stats when well used are a useful short cut but I couldn't imagine making final decisions without going through the form as well.

My methods have evolved over time, which I think is a good thing. You have to keep a fresh eye, and sticking too long to the same approach leads to laziness.

There was a time in the 70s and 80s when I concentrated quite heavily on speed ratings. Back in those days form analysis was a lot more difficult. TV never went to most of the tracks, and neither could I, so interpreting form from places you had never seen was a hairy business, which made speed ratings a useful angle until everyone started using them.

You've shown how useful sectional analysis can be but I think there must be a lot of work in it.

Recently I've been watching a lot more replays than before because the websites have improved. I hope to develop a better eye for judging performances and picking up on things that won't appear in the form book.
Click to expand...

yes the sectional stuff is very time consuming Grey...and its impossible to do all the tracks due to time constraints and lack of cameras in right places etc.

i think any analysis can be time consuming..not to that degree obviously..but at the end of the day the more you put in etc.

statistics..if logical..very useful..in fact...when you compare 10 years worth of trainer/sire data to a horse's form line that has run 6-12 times..i feel you can draw a better conclusion sometimes from stats. A lot of form reading can be a rough guess at at times because horse form is very small data. I think to study the real form of a horse can be time consuming if you want a true picture..ie you have to glean as much info as possible from each run..thats difficult re the going just for a start..a horse may have run on good ground 3 times in reality..but form book has it GF GOOD and G/S.

Form reading has drawbacks...as do stats..form drawbacks are...20/30% of the going descriprions in the form book are incorrect...and going is probably the most important area of form study.

Stats are more general...but a study of trainer patterns and abilities can be measured...race stats..if done properly can tell you something...and in this game..any tell..is better than none. I don't understand punters who dismiss any angle that has a tell..why would you do that?...its like saying..right this game is difficult..you might only be right 20% of the time..oh and by the way...you have just thrown 5% away by completely ignoring that aspect. stats speed figures form reading..all based on past data..thats all we have to go on..the past....all relevant if used properly

on will hill radio..the 3 most successfull pundits ..all use different methods...Rory seems to broadly encompass different aspects..mainly a form reader fair to say....Andy Holding..speed figure man...Andrew Mount..stats. All are very good..but each has a different way of looking at the game...there is no right or wrong way imo.
 
Last edited:
I'm very sceptical about statistics, as you know.

If I hear or read that "no 7yo has won the race in the last 20 years" I would not let that be a reason to oppose a 7yo if I thought it otherwise had a winning chance. I'd want to know what kind of chance the 7yos to have run in the race in the last last 20 years would have had.

I'd be very wary, though, of backing a 7yo in a race like the Grand National. I would have no difficulty in believing that the unique demands of the race render it a near-impossible task for a 7yo.

A lot of trends sections in racing media I find tedious. What does "7 of the last ten winners were beaten favourites last time out" actually tell us?

I imagine plenty of people would have backed Brando, for example, in the Ayr Gold Cup purely because it was in stall 8. They'd have got lucky if that was the case but I imagine some of them would be bragging later in the pub that it was a certainty because if its draw.

Obviously at certain courses a certain broad-banding of draws can be influential, for example at Chester, and that's where a stat might be influential in narrowing down the field.

As for watching race reviews, I'm still of the opinion that watching a re-run on fast-forward (providing the picture isn't ruined by noise other image distortion) can tell as much as sectional analysis. It gives you a clearer idea of which horses were going faster or slower at certain stages of a race.

I'm not immune to viewing favourable stats or trends as positive support for a selection. I've often had replies to my bumph querying whether I was(n't) worried about a stat that went against something I'd selected. I take each case on its own merits.
 
If I hear or read that "no 7yo has won the race in the last 20 years" I would not let that be a reason to oppose a 7yo if I thought it otherwise had a winning chance. I'd want to know what kind of chance the 7yos to have run in the race in the last last 20 years would have had.

which if done correctly you would have that info..the bare info is pointless i agree..but i think anyone remotely thinking a bare stat like that means anything without knowing what actual chance the horses had is either a novice or easily led tbh

some trainers are better with fillies..some with colts..some in summer some in winter...handicaps or stakes etc...there are a myriad of different angles stats can help you with that form reading won't spot.

when form reading..punters accept they will get it wrong..but those who won't use stats will highlight when a stat is broken..thats a bit mystifying to me...no stat is 100%..and neither is any form reading.

its all about % play the whole thing really...trying to swing an edge your way

if someone gave me selections for a year..and i made a good profit..it wouldn't bother me whether they were form or stats based..profit is profit..use the info available is my motto tbh
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
but i think anyone remotely thinking a bare stat like that means anything without knowing what actual chance the horses had is either a novice or easily led tbh
Click to expand...

I agree but the media that spout these stats/trends obviously believe their audience will find them meaningful and I do suspect a fair proportion of casual punters are happy to be presented with them. I think a lot of them honestly believe the media services in betting shops and C4/RUK/ATR are feeding them influential information.
 
Back
Top