Sidebar

[Robert Fischer]

My own method involves a few basic levels/steps of what I would call 'major models'. Then I will look at some pertinent 'minor models' as well.

Major:
1. Form = I look at the recent running lines. In no order: class level, distance, fractions, pace figure, speed figure, point-of-call, field size, company line, field size, odds, etc...
Here I'm looking for a general picture of whether the horse may have ran well. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, sometimes it doesn't tell you much at all.
If there's anything that I do here, that may be unusual, it would be emphasis on 'odds' in the form. While the market is not completely efficient (unless we are all mad hatters!), the market is often times efficient. A horse that was 8/5 vs. a full field of this company, was at least expected, right or wrong, to contend for the win.

*I do use speed figures, but without heavy emphasis. I could 'cover them up', and be fine, but why would I want to? Using a good speed figure like a Beyer or a Timeform or a sheets, with more emphasis is probably a weakness that I could improve upon.

2. Charts = I go over the charts for horses whose form indicated that they may have run well.

3. Replay = "..."


minor models:
Trainer angles, distance/turn/surface preference, footwork, proven-vs-unproven, etc...
Here, I look for any extreme minor models that could be significant enough to be considered a contribution or a trade-off to the major models.
/e.g. If some 30% trainer just claimed the horse, it changes the picture.
If the horse raced wide into a hot pace and quit in his first lifetime start, that's a different situation than a horse who has 10 lifetime starts without running well.


Hopefully, after this process I can determine a general probability of whether the horse is good enough to win, before the trip(s). Then I still need a price.
Thankfully, the whole process is not as tedious as my writing.