Read on Twitter
Q). What do you think is the most overlooked (i.e. under appreciated) factor in form analysis?
I’ll start by saying any answer I give here is my opinion and there is no right or wrong answer.
I’ll start by saying any answer I give here is my opinion and there is no right or wrong answer.
I see so many views on here these days where someone who uses one method (sectional analysis or ratings or form study and so on) dismisses the other methods as being useless for finding value. This is bullshit.
If you give Joe Punter and Simon Rowlands access to sectional timings, I know who I would trust to draw the right conclusions from the data. Likewise, the same is true for the form book. Give me and Joe Punter access to the form book and I’d back myself to be right more often.
How you use the factors or analysis are more important than the factors themselves in many cases. Many ways to skin a cat as they say. Great example is times. I’ve seen so many bad takes on times on here in the last few months, it’s scary!
I saw someone trying to compare the time of Bristol De Mai at Haydock to the time of Royal Pagaille on bottomless ground months apart! If anyone really thinks that comparison gives them an edge, I’d suggest they find another hobby to spend their money on!
Anyway, getting back to the question. I’ll give 5 factors that I believe are overlooked in form analysis but all 5 are obvious. Even so, I strongly believe most wannabe form students miss some these or don’t quite get how important they are.
Track Bias - Definitely more relevant on the flat than NH racing generally but track bias is something you should always have in mind when watching a race unfold. At York last summer, the bias was massive meeting to meeting and not always the same bias either!
Form readers miss this quite often as lazily, they’ll look at the draw and see the fact that the top 6 were spread across the track and conclude no draw or track bias. Wrong!
What they probably missed was although they came down the centre, horses middle to far side all meeting were running on treacle in the last 2 furlongs as everything finished fast near side - I’ve made that example up but happened at York plenty of times last season!
If you watch enough races, you’ll see this more often than you think. Another clue is a horse that travels well but then flattens out as everything else on the other side of the track finishes like a train.
Happens in NH races too, often on soft ground where jockeys go searching for better ground or go outside/inside.
If you watch the races, you’ll deduce that being on the inside was a disadvantage all meeting and therefore, that horse who was 5th was actually the best horse in the race as everything else on the card who took the same route finished last! Another easy example.
Next factor is number of horses beaten or often referred to as % of horses beaten (same idea). Take a horse with form figures 6,5,6 against a horse with form figures 121. The first one has gone 6th of 21, 5th of 18 and 6th of 17. Been dropped 5lbs for these 3 runs.
The other one has gone 1st of 4, 2nd of 5 and 1st of 3. Up 8lbs in the handicap. Which horse in the long-run is going to represent value and is probably best handicapped (ignoring every other factor in form reading!)?
99% of the time, I’ll be backing the first horse at a better price than the second horse. When you think about this, the first horse has actually finished 1st of 16, 1st of 14 and 1st of 12 if you ignore these it was beaten from.
That form will usually be stronger than one that ran in 3 egg and spoon races and gone up the handicap as a result.
Of course, exceptions will always apply and you take each horse and each race on its own merit but generally speaking, horses running well in big fields (particularly competitive handicaps) are achieving plenty more than those running in small field handicaps.
Previous SPs - This is one that I often refer to as the SP method when I’m discussing a race with other form readers. Previous SPs tell you so much more than people think and if you can get your head around this, it will really improve your accuracy when pricing races or horses.
Obvious example is a horse who has been beaten 10 times in handicaps in a row, 25/1+ every time and then finishes 2nd at 25/1. People latch onto it, 20lbs below last winning mark, return to form last time, people are all in at first show of 5/2 in a competitive 12 runner handicap
I’ll lay them 4 on Betfair. 
Clearly, they are onto something and the horse may well be back in form and thrown in but Christ, you were getting 25/1 last time. 5/2 is surely too short (all other things being equal!)
Clearly, they are onto something and the horse may well be back in form and thrown in but Christ, you were getting 25/1 last time. 5/2 is surely too short (all other things being equal!)
A hurdler with 3 runs in novice hurdles, 250/1 every time. Well beaten every time. SP next start is 6/1 first time in a handicap and it finishes tailed off yet again. Guarantee that ends up being a crazy price next time out at first show.
Not saying it’s worth a bet blind (very few bets are!) but if that opens 40/1 in a big field handicap hurdle down another 5lbs, I’m probably backing it. Whoever was backing it at 6/1 off a 5lbs higher mark will surely back it again!
Not something I would use blindly to back a horse but so often I see people who are very good at form reading but unable to assess value and I often refer them to previous SPs. Keep this in mind, especially when working out a price you’d back at.
Class of race/depth of race - so often I see people refer to horses dropping in class or going up in class because it runs in class 4 or class 5 etc. It’s all bullshit. It’s laziness again. Every 0-120 isn’t the same and likewise, every class 4 handicap is definitely not the same
I look at races sometimes, a 0-120 for example and I can guarantee you not one horse is ahead of its mark. Could be a really weak affair with the top weight 120, giving a stone away to second top weight and another 6 rated 98-106. One will win of course!
I then see a 0-100, with all 16 runners rated 95-100, 8 improvers in the field and about 10 of them probably better than their mark. A horse from each race (say the second placed finisher) face each other next time in a 0-110.
Form comments say the horse dropping down from a 0-120 is dropping down in class and the horse from 0-100 is going up in class. Priced up accordingly. Which horse is likely to be better handicapped? Easy really when you think about it in those terms.
Another one is a 0-120 with every horse rated 115-120 against a 0-120 with one rated above 106 like the race I described above. They clearly are not the same depth of race and therefore, you need to know this! Saying they both raced in a 0-120 is meaningless.
The last one is another obvious one and seems to split opinion at times but the ground is important for many horses. Yes, it can be overcome and Frankel would beat any 45 rated horse on any ground (sand, firm, heavy, tapeta) but in close knot handicaps, it can be very important.
If you have two horses on the same formline and closely handicapped and one wants heavy and one wants it like a road, if the going is bottomless, no matter how the market tries to factor this in, you should be backing the one on the ground it wants. The End!
