Form study techniques

do your own ratings that way you'll see well/badly handicapped horses.

Thank you to everybody I and many young new punters will cherish this thread.
Ive learned so much reading this, feeling rejuvenated.
Thank thank thank you guys rock.

Charl Pretorius wrote a book on how to structure bets which was excellent

We use 82 form Rules to judge form

We use 22 Intent Rules to gauge INTENT ...without INTENT form is obsolete

Good luck if you trying to do this manually...you might as well use a pin...

is it possible to over think handicapping?

Adams wrote: is it possible to over think handicapping?

Imo ...yes .... in some races (mostly in maidens and plated races) one will find 'standout' runners - so if one is looking for the winner (JP / P6), no need to delve any further, but if one is looking for runners to place behind the winner (exacta, trifecta, quartet), of course one needs to delve a little deeper ..... in most handicap races though, due to the nature of a handicap , there will not be a lot of difference between the 'form' runners (the exception would be where the handicapper's hands are tied by some silly rule) and the result could be influenced by luck in running ... so for me it is not worth it to apply hundreds of rules to point to a winner and then find your selection baulked for a run or slow to start etc

Look for non-form criteria and consider e.g. Aus bred 1st or 2nd timers, 1st run as geldings, easy / impressive in their last or penultimate starts, runners who are on a hat trick or more, runners who weren't too far back but ran green, lightly raced, change Of trainer, is he really a Gr1 horse, substitute MR's for Sporting Post's RR's. Discard false run races. Consider jockeys but not necessarily trainers.

I would share those sentiments -- there are a few basics, things that most trainers would employ to decide where to nominate. But then one could unearth so many different angles as to potentially make every runner a candidate.

I like the term someone used here - "intent" , but with 22 different rules of intent, likely every runner would end up showing intent. Then one could spend hours trying to detect the possibility of a coup, of form being greyed, of the unfancied coupling undoing it's fancied stablemate, of the new stable runner, of the trainer who likes to win long, etc, etc

in my experience, nearly every runner becomes a candidate when you over think it.

My approach is quite simple. I have a simple indicator which will provide to me the core of entrants that are best suited to course/trip and surface of the given race.

It's a matter of establishing if those candidates can indeed win a race of the given type. If a candidate shows the ability to win the given class - that's my likely contender, if they don't I will look for something in the race with ability, that is being overlooked for some reason --- First Run after rest, etc.

I think the key is to find the likely improver of the day. The form book shows what's already happened, and trainers will use that history to decide whether they can beat the exposed form.

This is one of the greatest values of formgrids imo when used in combination with the stipes reports-- this collateral will usually hint at why a given trainer imagines he can turn the tables on horses who already beat him.

Dart board sometimes works too.

Yes, of late I have found that far more effective than any other method

follow form by linking in to one of the websites - formgrids.co.za or aro.co.za, and a publication or two ie Computaform, Sporting Post. Remember, it is not an exact science and these are animals. HOrses are very honest performers (mostly) so a reliable form can be ascribed but then you have to consider the conditions of the race, the horses' inate ability (breeding ie sprinter, stout) and whether the horse is moving through races into a bigger one further down the season. Then, watch the horse (parade ring,race, post race comments, stipes reports etc), and the replays to see tactics in the race and how the horse performs (is it green, did it switch, bad start, baulked, better horses in field etc) to enable you to tweak your consideration (ratings). Speak to seasoned punters to hear what they say. This way you will build up an understanding and experience which will help you make informed decisions about 'form' or 'performance'.

Adams wrote: Dont know many who will give a detaled descrition of their methods.....will only serve to make connections of the winning horse more shrewd than they already are

And just how shrewd is that?

Yesterday races paid (tote(SP)):
2.9 (2/1)
10.1 (12/1)
1.7 (8/10) F
7.1 (17/2)
8.8 (17/2)
18.1 (20/1)
7.4 (17/2)
3.6 (22/10)

Every winner drifted out.