Current Form?

[raybo]

Like many others, I assume, I get caught up in my own handicapping efforts and don't take the time to keep myself up to date on the "latest and greatest".

Form handicapping , IMO, is one of the, and possibly the most important, skills a successful handicapper must possess. I would be interested in hearing how others here and others in the industry tackle this, most difficult task.

[Speed Figure]

For me, the higher the class level the more I put on form. I find form means nothing in low class races. Trying to handicapp a $5000 claiming race at mnr using form I find just does not work, but this is how I do it.

[raybo]

Speed Figure, are you saying that in lower class races you just assume that all the horses will run up to their best capability on any given day? That appears to be a bit simplistic to me, especially in the lower classes, as they go out of form so easily. To assume each horse is in true racing form is putting an awful lot of trust in every trainer in the race. Do you handicap by using a particular past performance line for calculating a grade, or do you use another method? If you use a PP line, current form should be a prime concern, it appears to me.

[Speed Figure]

I'm just saying for me, the lower the class level the less I think about form, speed figures and things like that. I attack these races with an open mind. I don't handicapp MNR the way I do So Cal or BEL, or SAR . When I'm looking at races where almost all the runners are 2 for 30, 1 for 25, and things like that I use a different style, but this is something that works for me.

[betovernetcapper]

In terms identifiying form with cheaper horses, I depend a lot on trainer stats. If the horse is coming off a layoff-what's the trainer done is similar situations. If the trainer is 1 for 20 on layoffs, I'd consider the horse a noncontender unless the horse had run well after a layoff. I look at worouts but I rarely have much faith in them. I'd have to say Trainer stats are my main tool in establishing form.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If pp's show less than 2 breaks in works or races, it is in form unless it lost more than 3 lengths last race after 2nd call.

[andicap]

I think the form cycle/condition stuff printed by Ragozin and Cary Fotias is the gold standard in determining form. It's not perfect - nothing is in this sport -- but by looking at hundreds or thousands of races you can get a good idea on whether a horse is coming up to a race in good condition or not based on the theories of the Sheets or Equiform.
I have used the Sheets on occasion (too pricey and no pace analysis) but not Equiform although I did read the book. But I do try to use their principles when interpreting the figures I use. And there are certain patterns which seem to come up time and again to signify improving horses or horses circling back to prior good form.
A classic example is the "explosive" 3-yr-play Ragozin wrote about in his book. By throwing out horses who have not equaled or surpassed (ideally the latter) their two-year-old tops OR their early 3 yr old tops (by mid-year), I have rarely been disappointed. And if you're bold enough you can hit some real bombs when horses explode a few more points then "average."

[fast4522]

Glad to see you around Ray, I also enjoyed your posts and was asking myself "where is Raybo been" So in keeping with the subject of current form, do you have a hard and fast rule about DSLR or as I mark my DRF "from the barn"

[raybo]

From fast4522: "Glad to see you around Ray, I also enjoyed your posts and was asking myself "where is Raybo been" So in keeping with the subject of current form, do you have a hard and fast rule about DSLR or as I mark my DRF "from the barn""

Hey Steve!

Hey man, forgive me for "deserting" you, so to speak. I got so disheartened at my handicapping results during the late fall that I just turned off the computer and forgot about the ponies until very recently. I think I was putting so much pressure on myself to continue the high profit level while watching it decline, and trying to pay the bills with it, which we all know, never decline, made me a very poor decision maker. I am somewhat refreshed, albeit broke, and plan to continue the effort shortly if I can get my finances in good enough shape. As I told another poster here, I did end up with a $4500 profit last year. I have 7 IRS reportables so I will definately have to file a return on "certain gambling" income, lol. As the racing was my only reportable income last year, I have to work out the taxes first. Don't know yet if I'll have to pay or not, haven't had the guts to check yet.

Concerning hard and fast rules on DSLR (days since last race I assume), my statement on the subject is: "There are no hard and fast rules in horse race handicapping". However, I do have a "rule of thumb" that I use concerning DSLR. Actually it's more than one rule.

I don't like coming back in less than 10 days (unless something unusual happened in that race that would change my mind).

I like 10 to 21 days real well, 21 to 30 days is ok.

In the cheap races I deal with, more than 30 days is suspect, unless he had an energy draining performance in that last race and has a decent work or 2 since.

More than 30 days is a "layoff" to me and I like a horse to have at least one race after a layoff before I figure him for a good effort. Of course, things like works and trainer history can change that some. Some trainers are notorious for winning off a layoff.

That's about it for DSLR. Each individual horse is unique when it comes to recency and consistency so you have to look at all their PP's to see if you can see any patterns that point to good (or bad) performances.

Say Steve, what do you think of Gulfstream? The pools are huge and it appears there is good potential for superfectas there. From what I can tell, speed is not the big factor there so the public will help us out. I don't normally mess with these "higher class" tracks, but it looks tempting.

Later,
Ray

[raybo]

From andicap: "I think the form cycle/condition stuff printed by Ragozin and Cary Fotias is the gold standard in determining form."

Hi andicap,

I agree with your assessment of Ragozin. He helped "form" my thinking on "form" although I am no expert on Ragozin by any stretch of the imagination. I read some of his stuff and kinda let it "percolate" along with some others on the subject and tryed to come up with some general ideas that make sense to me, having been an athlete myself most of my life.

I definately agree that age (and sex) are an important factor to be considered when looking at form patterns. The patterns say different things about different age groups and sexes.

I also agree that "The Sheets" are very, very pricey! Far too expensive for me to ever consider using them myself. (I have a hard time justifying the $30 a month for a silver membership with Brisbet. As a matter of fact I recently relinqushed my silver because of lack of use.) I am very tight with money which speaks tons about why I refuse to bet win, place or show tickets. But, Ragozin makes a lot of sense for sure. Read him but don't buy his numbers unless you have lots of extra money around.

[Overlay]

Raybo:

My approach to form is similar to yours in terms of the time frames you outlined, but while recent activity is a positive sign by itself, I've found greater statistical significance in also taking the quality of the performance into account (for example, not just days since last race, but days since last in-the-money or close-up finish). And to avoid playing only "chalk" (since many people would be keying on a factor like that), I don't treat form as a go/no-go variable (for example, disqualifying a horse entirely if it hasn't had such an effort within a specified time). I apply probabilities associated with intervals like the ones you mentioned to assign a higher likelihood of winning to horses with good outings that are more recent (but, again, not eliminating a horse outright; and giving form its due weight, but using it as just one of a variety of fundamental factors along with class, pace, and speed). I also make sure I give any horse an extra look if it was engaged in a head-to-head competition for the lead in the final stages of its latest race, or if it was running all-out at the end of the race in winning or in just missing. My experience has shown this to be a positive sign for next-out performance, and one which is often underbet because many will think that the race was too strenuous and that it will have dulled the horse's subsequent form.

[hurrikane]

I am finding that the layoff means less and less when discussing form.

Some of my research shows that horses perform as well or better when rested 25-45 days. They also pay a higher price as the public discounts these pups.

I find there is a difference between class levels and layoffs and even sex and layoff. Much of it falls back on the trainer. I also think it would fall back to the owner and how deep their pockets are but have no way of really testing that significance.

The bottom line is when a horse isn't racing he's still eating. So, at the lower levels where they win mostly enough to pay their feed bills they had better be racing.

form has always been somewhat elusive. Last race is no indicator of form really. Unless you look at every horses last race to create your own trouble line. You certainly can't rely on the callers trouble line.
1 poor performance means little and usually bumps up the prices. overall patterns seem to work well in general.

I hate beating the same friggin drum but for me it always seems to end up that the last dicision is...how long can this trainer(or more likely the groom) keep this horse peak physical condition to run and is the horse there now.

[raybo]

From Overlay: "I apply probabilities associated with intervals like the ones you mentioned to assign a higher likelihood of winning to horses with good outings that are more recent (but, again, not eliminating a horse outright; and giving form its due weight, but using it as just one of a variety of fundamental factors along with class, pace, and speed).

Overlay,

I agree, form is not necessarily a reason to disqualify a horse, and I seldom disqualify one entirely, but rather, I discount him some on the grade. I use form handicapping to try to find horses who will give their best today. If I know horses are ready to do their best work, determining probable finish orders is much easier. But when you aren't sure in your own mind that a horse or 2 in a race are questionable in form, you have to make some sort of decision as to whether to discount his grade some or not. My grading system works very well when horses run to the "form cycle position" I assign them. When they perform contrarily to what their form indicates, I can get into trouble. I, like many others, try to use a previous race as a "grading race" and that is hard to do if you don't have a handle on current condition.

I also agree that recency is only one factor that must be considered concerning current condition. Many other things affect form. I was merely answering Steve's direct question concerning my "rules" on DSLR. I have some, but they are only preferences, not hard, fast rules for go/no go on a horse.

[raybo]

From Hurrikane: "I am finding that the layoff means less and less when discussing form. Some of my research shows that horses perform as well or better when rested 25-45 days. They also pay a higher price as the public discounts these pups."

Hi Hurrikane,

Agreed,

Things are not static in racing, for sure. As in everything else, people and technologies and methods are getting better every day. Layoffs don't mean as much today as they may have in the past. However, in the races I deal with, (lower claiming horses), layoffs are still events I cannot afford to downplay. Of course, the way you regard each horse after a layoff is individual in nature, and many things go into that analysis like; past history patterns, recent works, trainer history in this situation, etc. If you have read Ragozin, you will understand my reasoning concerning layoffs of more than 30 days in lower class animals, expecially after a tough race. Although horses may regroup sooner now than in the past, they tend to go off at higher odds for good reason, I believe. Time and again in the lower ranks, and higher ones too sometimes, a horse will do his best work in his 2nd or 3rd race after a layoff of 30 days or more. I am not a win, place, or show wagerer, so it is important for me to have proof that a horse is ready to run, more than whether he will pay higher odds because of his coming back from a lengthy layoff. I can make money on other horses on the ticket, other than the winner. Basically, I just want to know who's going to win, and then I can decide, depending on the horses' odds on the remainder of the ticket, whether it is smart monetarily to place the wager or not.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Keep beating that drum because you are correct.