One way is to look at reverse form. The form shows that the horse #1 had placed 6 in a field of 14 and beaten by 2 lenghts LTO. This 6/14 becomes 0.428. 2LS was 3rd in a field of 10 beaten by a lenght. this becomes 3/10 or 0.3. 3lS was 8th in a field of 8 beaten by 6 lenghts. This becomes 8/8 or 1 a total of 1.728. Then factor in beaten lenghts. Last start and second last start were less than three lenghts so leave the result. The third last start was beaten by 6 lenghts, understandable at last place leave the result. Had this been only three lenghts I would reduce the the result of 1 or in the case of greater than 6 lenghts I would increase the result of 1. Similarily if beaten by less than a lenght I would reduce the result. Also factor in coming back from spell. 1st up multiply by 1.6, 2nd up by 1.3, 3rd up by 1.1.

Then factor in class. Going up multiply by 1.1, going down multiply by 0.9. do this for all horses and the lowest is top rated. And this is only the start of your final selection. You have then got weight, jockey, barrier, whether it's in the top five in price etc and if all else fails don't forget the dartboard.

Regards Beton

beton,
I'm with you all the way, best post I've read for a long time.

Thanks for the many ideas guys.

My next step, or should I say the first is which races on the prgrame are a waist of time.

Benny

Thanks I only got it by reading the forum
regards Beton

Nice comment JFC, it's nice to discuss real form for a change!

I reckon a good starting point is to look at races where two horses have run against each other a few times in the recent past. Check the weights they carried and the lengths they finished from each other (2 lengths to 3Kg is some sort of conversion factor that gets bandied about from time to time [which I reckon is not very accurate]). See if there's any logic to the change in weight and the change in margins. There will be other factors contributing to the difference of course - like if one of the horses was first up it might improve against the other as a result of being fitter for the run for example.
Checking out these comparisons will give you a feel for what might affect a horse's performance against another horse from race to race and more importantly it will make you throw your hands up in the air a lot and say "How the frig did that horse improve/deteriorate so much". It will give you a feel for how logical the form sometimes isn't.

KV

Aah, KennyVictor, so this is what's ruffling the feathers of the consensus herd.

Anyway, Beton's post suggests that many of you are unaware of free ratings (after registration) at:

http://www.ozeform.com

Also there is free good quality selective form at:

http://www.racenet.com.au/

Note that both sites are pains to use. Inevitably someone will moan about not being able to find something there. Complain to them, not me.

One aspect of form that I believe is not widely published is that generally runners only begin to perform optimally from around their 4th run of a campaign.

It is not rare to find a good-priced winner at run ~5+ despite apparently recent atrocious form.

Check the Ozeform ratings of Diamond Jake, a $13.60 Flemington winner yesterday, as a possible illustration of the run factor, along with other form pointers.

One aspect of form that I believe is not widely published is that generally runners only begin to perform optimally from around their 4th run of a campaign.

It is not rare to find a good-priced winner at run ~5+ despite apparently recent atrocious form.

Mate, Thats a pretty GENERAL statement you've made.

It may be true for horses running longer distances, though.
A good trainer will give them 3 or 4 shorter races to get them right for today's distance.

Many Sprinters, particularly younger( 2-3yo) can win races in their first couple of starts back from a spell and then go stale.

But in general, it's like saying" geldings like running at Randwick"

hey, that MAY be a new system:

Pick the OLDEST gelding in a race.
The theory is his memory of THE procedure are the dimmest in the field.


MMMM, I'll call Brian Blackwell.......

__________________
why gobble with the turkeys, when you may soar with the eagles!!

Yuckman,

I used "generally" for a reason:

http://www.answers.com/generally&r=67

Your attempt at satire has failed because apparently you didn't know the meaning of that word.

I also suspect you also don't have any figures to back your claims over mine.

I've just run this test over my data of ~1.5 million runs.

The ROT is best of SP/TAB Limited using proportional staking.

For races up to 1400m:

RFS ROT

2 - 84.6%
3 - 85.2%
4 - 88.5%
5 - 94.2%
6 - 92.1%
7 - 89.1%


There is a clear bias in favour of 5-7 versus 2-4. Even for these shorter races.

If a young sprinter goes stale after its 1st 2 runs, then any sane trainer will spell them. So they won't have a 4th - 7th run.

Malcolm Knowles (www.inracing.com.au) Has an excellent series of articles using weight /time /class/ field strength ratings based on the WIZARD ratings .
Its called PICKING WIZARD WINNERS - THE MANUSCRIPT.

I personally use it myself so I can vouch for its excellence.
Good Luck
darky.