As a young pup, I studied and adopted the expert methods of Clif Carey in relation to my introduction to race/weight-handicapping. One of the methods outlined by this master form student with some help from his "off-sider," "Phar-Lap", was the relative differential between particular horses. Using the acknowledged ratio of 3lbs(1.5kg)=1 length , these principles stood the test of time until the more recent era. No, longer can you say that a rise in weight will necessarily adversely affect a horse's anticipated performance by a uniform degree. What I mean is that in a previous race , Horse A carrying 55kg may have beaten Horse B by one length(1.5kg). Next race, they meet again with Horse A raising in weight by .5kg and Horse B lowering in weight by 1.5kg. You would expect that Horse B should win their next meeting but how often does Horse A win again or beat it's rival in finishing order? Has racing changed that much?.
Then in the 80's along came the inimtable Don Scott with his revolutionary "new fangled ratings method."
Again, my methods were refined and today I mainly restrict my investments to opportunities which offer a percentage advantage, whether they are by way of dutch-book, exotics or strategic place betting.
It seems that racing may have turned full circle and the way of the future may once again be the evaluation of a particular horse's anticipated performance in relation to other particular horses.
I'd like to get opinions from a cross-section of forum contributors whether racing has changed so dramatically in such a short space of time.

Cheers.

During a radio program yesterday, one of the commentators suggested that weight handicapping differentials is not the most important factor in assessing a horse's prospects any more.
He outlined that a host of other factors have now over-ridden this one aspect.
He put a reasonable case forward to support his views. It was thought-provoking and may go a long way as to evaluating how much the pattern of racing has changed in a relatively short space of time.
Any thoughts on this matter?

Cheers.

i think some form of measurement is helpful.
using cliff carey's principle comparing ebony night yesterday had he been racing against the horse that beat him last time (thats a rap) on level weights he would have been expected to beat him by 5 lengths.
this made ebony night a good chance with a good barrier.
i think cliff carey still rules.

G'day topsy99,

Yes, I agree that the basic principles established by Clif Carey and Rem Plante still hold true today. Sure, there are are other variables today which weren't relevant or even devised in Clif's day but the fundamental principles he taught us are still valid.
It seems that "head-to-head" comparisons between horses is all the go now but this is still not too unlike Cliff's methods.

Cheers.

Xanadu,

Personally I pay very little attention to weight, my aproach is built around pace and speed. I feel that weight is overrated as a variable, both in its impact on the outcome of a race and equally important, in its impact on the market.

The market is still largely reflective of weight assessment methods and while there is no doubt that weight has some affect, the market bias towards those approaches means it holds little consistent winning advantage.

There are also plenty of other factors that influence the outcome of a race, many of them not obvious in your typical formguide, I prefer to concentrate on them.

Head to head comparisons are important (to a point) and it's something I use as a minor part of my analysis. Fortunately the software that I run not only holds my speed and pace information for all form around Australia, but enables me to immediately click and see when and where all horses have met in the past, their fitness leading into the run, their price, the result and their changes to this race in terms of barrier, weight and jockey. It's a very handy tool but head to head comparisons need to be done in the context of the conditions of the past race and the upcoming race. For example, things like pace, trips, distance and fitness.

I'll divert off the track a little now, but hopefully it's of interest......

Providing it's sound, the analysis approach isn't so important...what's important is the analysis of the market, decision making and finding the right situations where the market hasn't reflected an important factor that will influence the outcome of a race.

I would say that most punters spend 98% of their time analysing the race itself to work out who they think will win and only 2% of the time analysiing the market, what it says about the chances, why, and whether there are genuine value opportunities to profit. The more skill a punter develops in this area and the more time they spend on this element of analysis the more successful they wll be, I can guarantee it.

With my own punting, I do some pre race analysis and come up with ratings built around pace and speed for selected races which are provided for free to a large group of subscribers. However a good deal of my betting is done on a race to race basis. I don't look at the race the night before, or even that morning. I wait for the markets to come up, analyse what it says, consult my own form, particularly speed and pace figures and identify if there are profitable windows of opportunity.

I look at the favourite, it's form and figures and whether I think it's legitimate, vulnerable or false. I look at the horses around the favourite and think about them and their chance relative to the favourite.

If my opinions are different to the market with a degree of confidence then there is a profitable opportunity. With speed and pace figures, which I rely on heavily, this takes little more than 5 mins per race and for me is very profitable. If my opinions are not sfficiently different then there is no reason to bet, I look at the next upcoming race.

I don't need to sort the form out before the race and come up with the chances. The market is very efficient at that. All I need to do is consult the market and quickly determine If I have an alternate opinion that I can profit from. To make money from this you obviously still need to have good judgement :smile:

This is quite a deal different to the traditional approach of most punters where they study the form the night before or the morning of the race, determine their bets and push on with them when the race comes around regardless. They spend no time assessing the market and whether there is a legitimate reason to bet. Comparing your rated price against the market and betting if it is greater isn't always legitimate value.

I spend equal amount of time looking at runners themselves and just as importantly the context of the market. Many times I will back a legitimate favourite when I find the horses the market have close to it according to my figures have nowhere near the chance suggested.

There are no fixed rules about what tracks or races to bet on or leave alone. I bet everywhere from maidens to G1's on Fast to Heavy tracks from Albury to Yarra Glen. I am totally open minded and focus on finding profitable opportunities irrespective of distance, class, track condition which many the punters have preconveived ideas and rules about.

Under the traditional approach most punters only have time to study a handful of races before a meeting. As a consequence they are locked into the races they can bet on without even knowing if the opportunities are profitable. They also miss many opportunties for value. On the other hand, with this approach I do my utmost to make sure that if there is a value opportunity, I am there to make a decision about it.

A good example of this on Saturday was a lowly Gold Coast maiden...a race most wouldn't even think to look at on a Satuday with four Metropolitan meetings. The favourite was a horse called Spagcam but he was around $4 in the market. I looked at the next two in the race Zamaala Rose and Deep Touch who were hovering around $4.50-$6.00 in the market. On both form and speed figures neither of these horses came close to Spagcam, yet the market assessed their chances as not too far behind. This to me was a profitable window of opportunity and reason to have a good bet. Looking at the market and the chances around him I estimated Spagcam was really a $3 chance and backed him accordingly, securing $4.28...an excellent overlay.

Apologies if this post has been a little long winded. I have ceratinly deviated off the original topic you posted.

In my experience, winning requires a different paradigm to how the majority approach punting. The textbook says you should study the form before hand work out your bets will in advance and be disciplined by sticking to that with a sensible money management plan. I say that you don't necessarily have to do that. The market is very efficient at calculating the winning chances, so don't fight it, use it to your advanatage. You don't need to worry about working everything out before hand, develop the art of identifying the clues for when the market may not be so efficient and hunt down every race where that might be the case and then bet. If your judgement is sound you will only be betting in situations of good to great value and you only need to be right a few times to finish in front over the long term.

Phew, signing off :smile:



[ This Message was edited by: osulldj on 2003-07-07 14:33 ]

G'day osulldj,

Thanks for that detailed insight into your assessment strategy(definitely not long-winded, quite the opposite-much appreciated).
I too, adhere to most of the principles you outlined. In some racing circles the general belief is that just prior to race-start, the bookmaker's market has generally factored in most of the principles you outlined. Therefore, the skilful punter can benefit if he/she can secure overlays elsewhere by way of the tote or other agencies offering "value."
One of the factors today which definitely catches the unwary is the "hype" surrounding particular horses especially if they are from one of the leading stables. The unwary punter falls into the "trap" time and again and backs the hyped runner and disregards his/her own original choice(most of the time to their own detriment).
It is usually a good rule of thumb to stick with your original choice, particularly, if it was based on sound form study.

Cheers.

agree xan, i cant stand the over hyped horses especially if it is your pick andthe price gets trimmed about 3-4 points. damn the media

Spot on Xanadu,

I won a good deal of money over the Autumn from the hype over Niello (Hawkes), Untouchable (Gai) ad Victory Vein once she stepped up against half decent 3YO opposition. I love finding these horses.

At the same time there are horses that don't get the hype they deserve and hence the market constantly has them overs. The best example I can think of in recent times from a personal perspective is Yell. My betting record over the last 12 months shows five winning bets from seven races on this horse, all of them at what I considered to be overs relative to the form and overall ability of others he was meeting. He continued to win running brilliant speed figures yet the market kept serving him up at overs.

If Bel Esprit had on won those string of races he would have been hailed as the best sprinter we have seen in 20 years.

spot on dan. yell was constantly overs after running seconds to bel espirit then beating horses such as before too long and in fact may have beaten champion filly innovation girl(not sure about that if anyone can confirm would be appreciated). Gai always has over hyped horses cos she cant kepp quiet and the owners love her for talking their horses up. Baghdad is an example and so is time out/off(one of them is hawkes newcastle cup winner- not over hyped)

Yes Umrum, Yell beat innovation girl twice, at G1WFA level in the spring, convincingly each time. Definitely an underrated horse.

Maybe his name isn't flash enough when compared against the likes of Bel Esprit, Innovation Girl, Helenus, Untouchable, Victory Vein :smile: