Handicapping Form factors

[Gamblor]

Hi guys,

I'd like to begin a discussion about form factors, and though it's been done before I want to discuss it differently: how to quantify them.

It's very well to say "ability at the distance" is a factor, and it is, but how do you quantify it? "strike rate at the distance" is OK but there has to be a more explanatory way than that. Those who use performance ratings, is there a good way to quantify distance ability using their ratings?

What other factors are important, in your opinion, and how do you quantify them?

Coming up with a predicted performance rating is one thing but it needs to be adjusted for these form factors, or it will ultimately fall short. I get the impression guys like Benter had a LOT of form factors (over 100?), do people have knowledge of how he treated them / quantified them?

[Capper Al]

When you say ability at distance, I'm not seeing this as form. Form to me is basically how well can the horse be expected to exserted itself today. Or as Scott's book title put it, How will Your Horse Run Today? Ability at distance is a factor to consider when handicapping and might even indicate if the trainer plans to send the horse out to win or not. But it's not form. I'm more focus o the horses well being.

How about we start off with an agreed upon a definition of Form and then try to figure out how to recognize it?

Thanks

[Gamblor]

Ok let's say you study a horse's past form, ignoring distance of the past runs. You come up with some sort of ratings projection based on their past figures. Example -

Horse A (most recent run first)
98
92
101
90
80
97
25
103
87
93
93
94
89
81
78
96
94
91
82
80

Your initial projection is 96, BEFORE other factors come into it.

So, factor 1, ability at distance. This will be a +/- figure.

How do we approach it?

[proximity]

Your initial projection is 96, BEFORE other factors come into it.

So, factor 1, ability at distance. This will be a +/- figure.

How do we approach it?

idk if this should be a "+/- figure" or more of a yes/no filtering situation.... is my 96 projection applicable to this distance??? for this in my own handicapping i'm really only concerned with stretchouts and apply the helm ratings in a somewhat crude (what i call "caveman") fashion. but i'm sure similar australian breeding ratings could be developed and even applied in a more sophisticated manner (and ultimately combined with an individual horse's racing history as he gains experience) to estimate the +/- more precisely.

[Robert Goren]

I am even more confused than normal. I always though form and condition was the the same thing. To me that is determined by recency of the last few races and how well the horse ran in them. WO since the last race and how the horse looks on race days. You should be able to tell at what distance a horse is at it best by quick glance at the PPs. A router can't win a sprint race if he is not in shape to win the route as well at the class level. I have lost a lot of money trying to prove otherwise over the years.
Speed Rating is such an inexact science that trying to exactly project exactly how many points faster or slower at different distances will drive you to the loony bin in a hurry.

[thaskalos]

As Capper Al already suggested, "form" has to be clearly defined before a discussion about it can take place.

To some people, form is an elimination standard...with requirements like "lengths behind at the stretch call in the most recent representative race", or "running a 'good race' in one of its last two representative races", or "has the horse been racing or working out with regularity?"...etc.

Other players consider form to be an intricate analysis of the horse's form cycle...which, in their opinion, is always in a state of flux.

IMO..."form" is not the analysis of a horse's speed figures or performance races, in trying to project what figure the horse is likely to run today. That's not "form"...that's speed figure analysis and interpretation.

"Form factors" are reasons to believe that the horse is either not as good as it appears on paper...or that the horse figures to improve over what it has done in the recent past.

When we analyze a horse's form, we should do more than just casually review the horse's recent speed figures or performance races. A horse who contested an unusually fast pace in its last race may have proven that it's in sharp form...even if it finished well back at the wire.

To me..."form handicapping" is a process where we try to answer the fundamental question:

We know what the horse is capable of when at its best...but is it at its best TODAY?

[Robert Goren]

It is often wise to remember that current form is sometimes determined by whether or not the train has come into poccession of a new and improved form of dope.

[thaskalos]

As Capper Al already suggested, "form" has to be clearly defined before a discussion about it can take place.

To some people, form is an elimination standard...with requirements like "lengths behind at the stretch call in the most recent representative race", or "running a 'good race' in one of its last two representative races", or "has the horse been racing or working out with regularity?"...etc.

Other players consider form to be an intricate analysis of the horse's form cycle...which, in their opinion, is always in a state of flux.

IMO..."form" is not the analysis of a horse's speed figures or performance ratings, in trying to project what figure the horse is likely to run today. That's not "form"...that's speed figure analysis and interpretation.

"Form factors" are reasons to believe that the horse is either not as good as it appears on paper...or that the horse figures to improve over what it has done in the recent past.

When we analyze a horse's form, we should do more than just casually review the horse's recent speed figures or performance ratings. A horse who contested an unusually fast pace in its last race may have proven that it's in sharp form...even if it finished well back at the wire.

To me..."form handicapping" is a process where we try to answer the fundamental question:

We know what the horse is capable of when at its best...but is it at its best TODAY?

I meant to say "performance ratings", not performance races.

I'm not much of a morning person...:)

[Gamblor]

Thanks for the replies, guys. You've all come back with a similar line of thinking: that factors like distance ability are part of the form, not separate. Thing is, I am attempting to quantify and separate them. If you can define a thing, you can measure it, test it. Do that and you can improve it.

Thaskalos you've inadvertently agreed with me in your bolded final statement. To state that another way, and in the context of the fictitious horse I outlined earlier, what you've said is, "We know this horse can do 103 at best. Given today's circumstances, will it do 103, or something less, or something more?"

It is then we begin to analyse it. As thaskalos suggested it is much more than just a casual review, but we should START with the performance ratings. (BTW I'll call them performance ratings rather than speed figures because here our methods aren't as speed based as yours, for various reasons).

So, we start with the performance ratings. Whether we start with expected peak (103) or a more middling figure (96) is actually immaterial, except that we proceed from that figure with the thought, "will this horse do more or less than this today, and by how much."

It is the analysis that follows that I'd like to define as "doing the form", and therefore define factors which make up "form analysis". So for the point of this thread, the word "form" has two meanings:

1. Form as the entirety of the horses picture. "doing the form" in Aus is similar to what you'd call "handicapping a horse". From an overall standpoint "form analysis" means analysis of all the relevant factors about a horse for today's race.

2. Form as in, "current form", or "is it in form?" Not sure if you guys use the term in this way, but this means how it is going recently, how it's racing compared to expectation.

So, let's proceed on the back of that. We start with a horses peak figure if you like, as in the Thaskalis method, and we work down from there. I'd like to see if we can quantify factors, one by one, to come up with an accurate way of defining a horse.

[Gamblor]

idk if this should be a "+/- figure" or more of a yes/no filtering situation.... is my 96 projection applicable to this distance??? for this in my own handicapping i'm really only concerned with stretchouts and apply the helm ratings in a somewhat crude (what i call "caveman") fashion. but i'm sure similar australian breeding ratings could be developed and even applied in a more sophisticated manner (and ultimately combined with an individual horse's racing history as he gains experience) to estimate the +/- more precisely.

You'll have to explain to me what "stretchouts" and "helm ratings" are... lost in translation. ;)

[Capper Al]

I am even more confused than normal. I always though form and condition was the the same thing. To me that is determined by recency of the last few races and how well the horse ran in them. WO since the last race and how the horse looks on race days. You should be able to tell at what distance a horse is at it best by quick glance at the PPs. A router can't win a sprint race if he is not in shape to win the route as well at the class level. I have lost a lot of money trying to prove otherwise over the years.
Speed Rating is such an inexact science that trying to exactly project exactly how many points faster or slower at different distances will drive you to the loony bin in a hurry.

I agree. Form for me is how will your horse run today. It's more about the horse's health. What I believe they are talking about in the previous postings is Form cycle. Some guy name Ken such and such wrote a pretty good white on form cycles. He studied peaks and values of a horses running speed to predict the horses speed next outting. It was a pretty good paper. It works well with claimers.

[Tom]

I think of form as the horse shape.
A horse can be in great form and run a terrible race.
A turf sprinter going in a dirt route today, a good turfer on yielding turf, a top stakes horse on a sloppy track that he doesn't like.

The key for me is to look only at relative races and understand that a bad performance in the wrong race may be only a workout.

If a horse has been running i the right races and declining or improving, then it is easier.

[proximity]

You'll have to explain to me what "stretchouts" and "helm ratings" are... lost in translation. ;)

a stretchout simply refers to the horse running at a longer distance today than he did in the race(s) your 96 projection was based on. helm ratings are breeding ratings that (for distance) try and estimate the distance limitations (or best approximate distance) for a sire's progency.

[Gamblor]

OK thanks for that clarification.

Helm ratings sound interesting... I suppose you'd look at the sire and try to profile his offspring's capabilities. Always exceptions to every rule, of course.

[thaskalos]

I was intoduced to this game by books which suggested that a horse's good form was fleeting...and that the trainer either struck while the "iron was hot", or he wouldn't fare too well in this game...especially when dealing with the cheaper horses on the grounds.

But I discovered, through painful trial and error, that this was a gross exaggeration. The horse manages to hold on to its form a lot longer than originally advertised...and this affords the trainer more "maneuverability" than we thought he had.

It is not unusual to see a sharp horse entered in back-to-back races where he cannot possibly perform well...in an attempt to darken the horse's form...and make it appear a lot duller than it really is.

The horse is put in the proper spot after that...and it magically regains the sharp form that it had supposedly lost.

[Capper Al]

So where are we with this discussion, Form or Form Cycle? Or do we believe the two are intertwined? Or something completely different that I might be missing the point entirely?

[HUSKER55]

may I make a suggestion?

all of us know how the horse has done in the past. all of us have methods of analyzing that data.

why don't we change the topic a little and answer the question "based on the current form how will this horse run today" and pick a place to start.

For example, is this horse at the right distance and surface today? is his current form good enough for this group.

the topic current form has a lot of variables. lets pick one and start.

but maybe I don't understand, in which case I apologise.

H55
:)

[Gamblor]

So where are we with this discussion, Form or Form Cycle? Or do we believe the two are intertwined? Or something completely different that I might be missing the point entirely?

We're with neither.

We're trying to quantify, one-by-one, factors that influence a horse's ability to perform at his/her best. We're not saying, "it's all one great intertwined web, where the great human mind takes everything into account and intuites the final answer", we are trying to actually quantify how one gets to a final answer.

So, when I titled the thread "Handicapping Form Factors", there might be a breakdown between Aus/US term usage.... it might be better titled "Handicapping factors". Remove the word form and you might get a better idea of where I'm trying to go with this.

One by one, I want to quantify things that affect a horse's ability to "peak" (achieve it's peak performance figure) on a given day.

Do you think this would work better if I introduced a real horse to the thread... and we group analysed it little by little? I could use an Aus horse, and not give you it's name so there's no chance of any pre conceptions, and bit by bit introduce more of it's information for us to analyse.

What do you think?

[Gamblor]

may I make a suggestion?

all of us know how the horse has done in the past. all of us have methods of analyzing that data.

why don't we change the topic a little and answer the question "based on the current form how will this horse run today" and pick a place to start.

For example, is this horse at the right distance and surface today? is his current form good enough for this group.

the topic current form has a lot of variables. lets pick one and start.

but maybe I don't understand, in which case I apologise.

H55
:)

No, you're on topic and correct, and that's what I am trying to do. I am trying to just start with one thing, and based on that one thing alone (in this case, ability at distance) predict as best we can, then move on to the next thing.

You and I posted almost exactly at the same time, so when you posted yours you won't have seen what I posted just afterwards, and it may answer your question.

[Capper Al]

So Form is only part of the equation? Speed, Class, Connections and virtually all handicapping factors are opened for discussion?

[eurocapper]

I think Quinn's condition book seems to do a good job of explaining when form is horse's form cycle and when it's something else. It's basically about the mindset of trainers even though he doesn't say that outright. Possibly though it needs some adaption for the present situation, and maybe it's too California focused.

[JohnGalt1]

[QUOTE=Gamblor]Hi guys,

I'd like to begin a discussion about form factors, and though it's been done before I want to discuss it differently: how to quantify them.

Gamblor,

I use the ratings--or make--ratings using the method from William L. Scott's book "Total Victory at the Track." I tinker or modify them as used in the book.

It's 3 steps using a letter or symbol to rate current form. Ex. N+O

The first is recency. L for layoff 28+ days, I use LL for long layoffs of 5 months or more. If horse has good works the form rating is L/w! Slow or spotty works L/w, No works L

If a race within 28 days first letter is N (neutral) if within 7 days +, if 21-28 days nor workout a O.

Second is running line. Up close all calls a rating of + If loses ground first race after a layoff or dropping in class, but up close early call(s) gets a N. Not close at all is a O.

Second rating in stretch call either a O, N, sg (stretch gain), Or +(big win of 3+ lengths,except mdn claimer wins).

A horse who ran 15 days ago with a runnig line of (beaten lengths) 4, 2, 3, 5
would get a rating of NNO if running at the same class or moving up, if dropping in class would get NNN. In addition since the horse had an internal gain the rating on my work sheet would be NigNN a good sign.

Check out his book for his full explanations.

[pondman]

why don't we change the topic a little and answer the question "based on the current form how will this horse run today" and pick a place to start.

For example, is this horse at the right distance and surface today? is his current form good enough for this group.


:)
Now that's getting somewhere. What if the trainers got the horse in the right spot? And past form, distance, and surface aren't important? And all the talk about form is a waste of time?

[Gamblor]

So Form is only part of the equation? Speed, Class, Connections and virtually all handicapping factors are opened for discussion?

Yes... when I said "Handicapping Form Factors" in the title, I meant form in the overall sense of the word... a horse's history is his "form". So, as I said earlier, perhaps it would've been more accurately titled "Handicapping Factors" from your point of view.

I want to go through everything that we can quantify as "handicappers", and attempt to find the best way to define it, express it.

[Gamblor]

Now that's getting somewhere. What if the trainers got the horse in the right spot? And past form, distance, and surface aren't important? And all the talk about form is a waste of time?

Jesus wept... read all my replies on this... what he posted is exactly what I am trying to get you to think about.

[Capper Al]

Too big of a topic. But in general, I calculate points on Speed, Class, Form, Prep, and Connections and add them all up. I also run through some elimination rules and apply eliminate horses before looking at the points total.

[Gamblor]

Too big of a topic. But in general, I calculate points on Speed, Class, Form, Prep, and Connections and add them all up. I also run through some elimination rules and apply eliminate horses before looking at the points total.

Not too big a topic... I have an idea how to tackle it. Once I get this weekend out of the way I'll start with a horse for you all to "cap".

[thaskalos]

We're with neither.

We're trying to quantify, one-by-one, factors that influence a horse's ability to perform at his/her best. We're not saying, "it's all one great intertwined web, where the great human mind takes everything into account and intuites the final answer", we are trying to actually quantify how one gets to a final answer.

So, when I titled the thread "Handicapping Form Factors", there might be a breakdown between Aus/US term usage.... it might be better titled "Handicapping factors". Remove the word form and you might get a better idea of where I'm trying to go with this.

One by one, I want to quantify things that affect a horse's ability to "peak" (achieve it's peak performance figure) on a given day.

Do you think this would work better if I introduced a real horse to the thread... and we group analysed it little by little? I could use an Aus horse, and not give you it's name so there's no chance of any pre conceptions, and bit by bit introduce more of it's information for us to analyse.

What do you think?

I don't think you should introduce only one horse; I think you should present all the horses in a race...and then we can can "group analyse it little by little".

IMO...the only way you can do a thorough job of handicapping a horse is by also considering who this horse will be running against.

[thaskalos]

We're trying to quantify, one-by-one, factors that influence a horse's ability to perform at his/her best. We're not saying, "it's all one great intertwined web, where the great human mind takes everything into account and intuites the final answer", we are trying to actually quantify how one gets to a final answer.

So, when I titled the thread "Handicapping Form Factors", there might be a breakdown between Aus/US term usage.... it might be better titled "Handicapping factors". Remove the word form and you might get a better idea of where I'm trying to go with this.

One by one, I want to quantify things that affect a horse's ability to "peak" (achieve it's peak performance figure) on a given day.


What often happens when you attempt to quantify the different "handicapping factors" one-by-one is...you find that these factors contradict one another.

The "class" horse often seems to be in lackluster form...while the horse with the sharp or improving form will often appear to be facing classier horses today.

[Cratos]

When you say ability at distance, I'm not seeing this as form. Form to me is basically how well can the horse be expected to exserted itself today. Or as Scott's book title put it, How will Your Horse Run Today? Ability at distance is a factor to consider when handicapping and might even indicate if the trainer plans to send the horse out to win or not. But it's not form. I'm more focus o the horses well being.

How about we start off with an agreed upon a definition of Form and then try to figure out how to recognize it?

Thanks

You are correct a definition of "form" is needed before a rational discussion can be debated. Therefore I don't see "form" as a number because numbers quantitate, but don't define.

I would define a horse' s form as "the health, the physical fitness, and the innate ability of the horse to perform at a given level and distance."

[Gamblor]

You are correct a definition of "form" is needed before a rational discussion can be debated. Therefore I don't see "form" as a number because numbers quantitate, but don't define.

I would define a horse' s form as "the health, the physical fitness, and the innate ability of the horse to perform at a given level and distance."

OK and if you read on in the thread you'll find we've defined it for the purposes of this exercise.

[Gamblor]

I don't think you should introduce only one horse; I think you should present all the horses in a race...and then we can can "group analyse it little by little".

IMO...the only way you can do a thorough job of handicapping a horse is by also considering who this horse will be running against.

That's very true... but it is going to make it impractical for doing on a forum, I'd have thought.

I'll think more on it, will get something going on Monday.

[Cratos]

OK and if you read on in the thread you'll find we've defined it for the purposes of this exercise.

I did and I did not find a definition. Also the definition should not be just for this thread;it should be a definition that logically and practically can be applied universally.

[Gamblor]

I did and I did not find a definition. Also the definition should not be just for this thread;it should be a definition that logically and practically can be applied universally.

So rather than just discuss what I've outlined for the purposes of this thread, you'd like me to change direction and begin a racing dictionary?

Think I'll just stay on topic.

And here is the definition of "form" from earlier in the thread, it's on page 1, you may have missed it:

So for the point of this thread, the word "form" has two meanings:

1. Form as the entirety of the horses picture. "doing the form" in Aus is similar to what you'd call "handicapping a horse". From an overall standpoint "form analysis" means analysis of all the relevant factors about a horse for today's race.

2. Form as in, "current form", or "is it in form?" Not sure if you guys use the term in this way, but this means how it is going recently, how it's racing compared to expectation.

[bisket]

i'll expound on the example i used in the pattern thread to show how form can be misinterpreted....

i played right to vote in the peter pan because he had a nice race off the bench followed by two months of nice morning activity. eion harty used this pattern efectively with travers winner colonel john. usually the next race the horse regresses

our derby winner won a graded prep, had two months of nice morning activity, and wins the sa derby. my singular thought process to the derby this year was the horses in cali were head and shoulders above the other tracks. i thought i'll have another would regress in the derby...

why didn't he regress? my hypothesis is we know his trainer likes milk shakes. what is a milk shake? basically a few bottles of gatorade before the race. this counteracts the side affects of lasix. i'll have another showed a long work a month prior to the sa derby. he had his race in the morning with a milkshake. perfectly legal for training. so the horse comes out of the work without the usual loss of weight a horse gets with lasix. he was able to bounce back from the work, and it set him up for the derby. i'll be looking for an opportunity to use this in the future for a doug oneil trainee..

[fmolf]

I like to look at trainer moves to point me in the right direction in regards to is the horse "fit and ready" today.Moves up in class are usually positive especially in the middle of a "form cycle".Drops in class are harder now than ever to analyze because of the many many tracks offering bloated lower level purses .One new angle is shipping in, dropping in class from previous, but running for a higher purse!Sometimes these droppers need not be in their absolute tiptop form to win.Trainer stats guide me for this angle.
WilliamScotts form cycle factors work well but usually land you on short priced favs everyone sees.

[Robert Goren]

It is all about current condition. There are former stakes winners running out the money in cheap claimers because they are hurting. The trick to sucessful handicapping is spotting a horse with a physical problem. Sometimes it is being shouted from the PP. A horse who ran well in a race 25 days ago taking a big drop in claiming price with 3f bullet work in the last week shouts this horse has problems and they are praying for some sucker to claim him. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS!

[Robert Fischer]

why didn't he regress? my hypothesis is we know his trainer likes milk shakes. what is a milk shake? basically a few bottles of gatorade before the race. this counteracts the side affects of lasix. i'll have another showed a long work a month prior to the sa derby. he had his race in the morning with a milkshake. perfectly legal for training. so the horse comes out of the work without the usual loss of weight a horse gets with lasix. he was able to bounce back from the work, and it set him up for the derby. i'll be looking for an opportunity to use this in the future for a doug oneil trainee..

there seems to be some confusion about the term "milkshake"

[bisket]

there seems to be some confusion about the term "milkshake"


it's not actually gatorade... it's basically baking soda, but it's effect on the body is similar to drinking gatorade. although you can't get a horse to just drink it, so you have to get into their stomach through a tube. it basically fights dehydration; which is the side effects of lasix. so i'll have another gets similar benefits form wise from a race, but can rebound much easier from the long work. i think the work was 1 mile, but i can't remember for sure. just a hypothesis i have...?

[Dahoss9698]

Oh boy.

[the little guy]

Oh boy.

Did he actually say Milkshaking fights dehydration?

That's embarrassing.

[bisket]

i've enjoyed athletic competition a good part of my life, and i had gatorade for this exact reason.....


from the link:
"This metabolic milkshake is proposed to work on high school chemistry principles of acid/base neutralization. With high-intensity exercise, there is a build-up of lactic acid in muscles, leading to fatigue. The theory is that high doses of bicarbonate make blood and muscle tissue less acidic, providing buffering capacity to offset the build-up of lactic acid, enabling the horse to go farther, faster, with less fatigue. It is given via a nasogastric tube."

the link:
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6707

from the link:
"One beneficial effect noticed by trainers was that their horses seemed to recover from their race quicker the next day, thus they would be back on their feet quicker and appear less fatigued."

didn't i just say this in the earlier post?

[Dahoss9698]

the exacta is is here how bout the tri....
You realize the opposite of what you said is true, right?

[bisket]

from the same link:
" One racetrack practitioner says there was a time prior to milkshakes being illegal when veterinarians would give electrolytes with or without bicarbonate to racehorses prior to a race, especially during hot, humid summers."



electrolytes=gatorade....

[Robert Fischer]

from the same link:
" One racetrack practitioner says there was a time prior to milkshakes being illegal when veterinarians would give electrolytes with or without bicarbonate to racehorses prior to a race, especially during hot, humid summers."



electrolytes=gatorade....
It's easy to get this stuff mixed up.

"milkshake" is actually a term used for giving horses a bunch of baking soda or similar chemical to change their blood chemistry.
It makes the body less effective at protecting the muscles by shutting them down.

It's a bad thing. It's hard on the system of the horse.

They will add glucose(where you may have got the gatorade idea from) to make it absorb more quickly.

It would probably be bad to train with. The idea is to use it on race-day so the horse could run a top effort, but training with it could be detrimental.

They test horses now for CO2 levels to prevent milkshaking.

[bisket]

i guess it depends on what you put in the "milkshake"... i understand what you're saying. i think the biggest challenge trainers have with today's 3 year olds is to prepare to go 1 1/4 mile with the least amount of racing and training as possible. this is also what is causing to us pull our hair out leading into the race.. a minimum of info to go on.... one of the things "milkshaking" does is advance form quickly. it wouldn't surprise me if a trainer has devised a way use it to help prepare a 3 year old for the derby... regardless, i don't recall ever seeing this type race schedule and training leading to a derby win. skipping a prep on purpose like this.... it makes you wonder. i think the "tell" with oneill is he shipped i'll have another as a 2 year old to race in new york. he also did this a few years back with another derby contender. i can't think of the name of the horse off hand. he shipped that one to florida in the winter..... maybe oneill is sensitive to getting a horse accustomed to traveling after his experience with lava man?

[bisket]

It's easy to get this stuff mixed up.

"milkshake" is actually a term used for giving horses a bunch of baking soda or similar chemical to change their blood chemistry.
It makes the body less effective at protecting the muscles by shutting them down.

It's a bad thing. It's hard on the system of the horse.

They will add glucose(where you may have got the gatorade idea from) to make it absorb more quickly.

It would probably be bad to train with. The idea is to use it on race-day so the horse could run a top effort, but training with it could be detrimental.

They test horses now for CO2 levels to prevent milkshaking.


"One beneficial effect noticed by trainers was that their horses seemed to recover from their race quicker the next day, thus they would be back on their feet quicker and appear less fatigued."


so you're saying this is false?

[Robert Fischer]

"One beneficial effect noticed by trainers was that their horses seemed to recover from their race quicker the next day, thus they would be back on their feet quicker and appear less fatigued."


so you're saying this is false?

I don't know Biz.

Logic would tell me that delaying the "shut-down" lactic? acid of the muscles would lead to next-day soreness and possibly put more pressure on other things like the lungs, as well as any existing injuries. Also is hard on the stomach, intestines...

I honestly do not know.

That doesn't mean that you aren't on to something good with whatever pattern you may have noticed.

[Dave Schwartz]

On the topic of form, I will be discussing the form factors from William Quirin's Winning at the Races on Derek Simon's Podcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twinspires/2012/10/24/twinspires-horse-racing-podcast-wderek-simon) - Wednesday, 1pm EDT.

Dave Schwartz

[Gamblor]

On the topic of form, I will be discussing the form factors from William Quirin's Winning at the Races on Derek Simon's Podcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/twinspires/2012/10/24/twinspires-horse-racing-podcast-wderek-simon) - Wednesday, 1pm EDT.

Dave Schwartz

I'll be back at this thread too, after the weekend. Racing's "spring carnival" in full gear here in Melbourne, pretty busy.

[^^Salih15^^]

Hi guys,

I'd like to begin a discussion about form factors, and though it's been done before I want to discuss it differently: how to quantify them.

It's very well to say "ability at the distance" is a factor, and it is, but how do you quantify it? "strike rate at the distance" is OK but there has to be a more explanatory way than that. Those who use performance ratings, is there a good way to quantify distance ability using their ratings?

What other factors are important, in your opinion, and how do you quantify them?

Coming up with a predicted performance rating is one thing but it needs to be adjusted for these form factors, or it will ultimately fall short. I get the impression guys like Benter had a LOT of form factors (over 100?), do people have knowledge of how he treated them / quantified them?

What kind of horses should be preferred at today’s class level?
What kind of horses can be eliminated as outclassed at today’s class level?

Only bet when you’re sure of a fast early pace – preferably an end-to-end gallop. Slowly-run races often provide shock results.

BET
- Horses that find a lot under pressure
- Horses that often start slowly
- Front runners (once headed)

NEVER BET
- Horses with unproven stamina
- Horses that often find little under pressure

[Greybase]

I grew up around both dogs and horses; greyhound racing is seen as a more "formful" betting sport, since the dogs run like clockwork every 4-7 days... I became very interested in William L. Scott's material when it came out in the mid-80s. His book: How Will Your Horse Run Today? stands as an excellent reference when it comes to Thoroughbred form. From there, and based on those Form ideas he proposed a "black box" method in Investing At The Racetrack (1986), followed by additional observations and fine tuning in Total Victory At The Track (1989).

To define Form, I think the main concept would be "effort". How can we best determine and quantify current Form in today's race? Scott developed a complex Ability Rating which incorporated Form along with speed class and pace. Andy Beyer realized his figs alone did not give a true picture of Form, so he incorporated Trip handicapping along with pace.

Trip handicapping, also known as "watching replays", can be time consuming. A major part of old school greyhound racing as well... but it's hard to spend hours taking trip notes in the Age of Simulcast. Same goes for "Inspection" capping, Joe Takach had some great stuff but IMHO a bit difficult unless you're playing a local Live meet... That leaves "paceline" handicapping from The Form, to assess current form. Angles like sudden improvement in Beyers, anticipating bounce and changes off claims and Trainer moves.