Koko
03-14-2006, 06:47 PM
I've heard that numerous times recently since being here and of course this isn't the first time I've heard such sentiments expressed naturally.
I believe that there is a fallacy in believing that formful is necessarily good.
It's good for some but not others. First let me throw a definition on the word "formful" for our immediate use. Let's say that it means that the horses whose positive attributes are fairly obvious perform well and vice versa. Who does that help? That helps the people who employ fairly obvious criteria to handicap horses because their horses tend to come in. Of course one could argue, if the majority of bettors is of this mindset, then the prices are not going to be too pretty but they'll cash a certain number of tickets.
The people who benefit from "non-formful" performances are the contrarians who are on to angles, factors what have you that are not widely perceived and used, therefore the obvious, loved by the form-loving crowd horses are definitely not the place to be as certain relatively hidden factors no doubt perform even better than they do at "formful" tracks.
So if you're someone who is generally a contrarian and betting against the horses with the pretty PP's then you want chaos, you want wacko results, you want confusion and so forth because that is far more likely to favor you than the formful more chalky type players.
I believe a great analogy is pre-season NFL betting. You'll hear a majority of players (even the ones that bet it) lacking great confiidence in pre-season handicapping. Oh who knows, no way to figure it out and such are the kinds of things people will say. In essence, what they're saying is that it's not "formful". In other words the basic fundamental analysis proves quite unreliable because less obvious factors become more meaningful. Factors that are less easily measured by MOST handicappers. For those specialists in less commonly used factors that prove relevant to pre-season activity, the nonformfulness is a huge blessing.
So to conclude, if you're using the more widely applied factors you might want formfulness but you're the type of player who, if you win, will be grinding it out, because you rely on factors that are the more obvious.
If you're a contrarian, value player, etc., you'll naturally want to avoid formful results like the plague, because that is in essence saying that the players with the common approaches are getting their tickets cashed regularly, even if not on a profitable basis.
NO FORMFUL RESULTS FOR ME PLEASE.
I believe that there is a fallacy in believing that formful is necessarily good.
It's good for some but not others. First let me throw a definition on the word "formful" for our immediate use. Let's say that it means that the horses whose positive attributes are fairly obvious perform well and vice versa. Who does that help? That helps the people who employ fairly obvious criteria to handicap horses because their horses tend to come in. Of course one could argue, if the majority of bettors is of this mindset, then the prices are not going to be too pretty but they'll cash a certain number of tickets.
The people who benefit from "non-formful" performances are the contrarians who are on to angles, factors what have you that are not widely perceived and used, therefore the obvious, loved by the form-loving crowd horses are definitely not the place to be as certain relatively hidden factors no doubt perform even better than they do at "formful" tracks.
So if you're someone who is generally a contrarian and betting against the horses with the pretty PP's then you want chaos, you want wacko results, you want confusion and so forth because that is far more likely to favor you than the formful more chalky type players.
I believe a great analogy is pre-season NFL betting. You'll hear a majority of players (even the ones that bet it) lacking great confiidence in pre-season handicapping. Oh who knows, no way to figure it out and such are the kinds of things people will say. In essence, what they're saying is that it's not "formful". In other words the basic fundamental analysis proves quite unreliable because less obvious factors become more meaningful. Factors that are less easily measured by MOST handicappers. For those specialists in less commonly used factors that prove relevant to pre-season activity, the nonformfulness is a huge blessing.
So to conclude, if you're using the more widely applied factors you might want formfulness but you're the type of player who, if you win, will be grinding it out, because you rely on factors that are the more obvious.
If you're a contrarian, value player, etc., you'll naturally want to avoid formful results like the plague, because that is in essence saying that the players with the common approaches are getting their tickets cashed regularly, even if not on a profitable basis.
NO FORMFUL RESULTS FOR ME PLEASE.