Horse Racing - Picking Winners

The pages that follow contain a detailed form guide to most aspects of modern racing embodying a highly focused philosophy of betting. At the heart of this philosophy is the idea of matching method to a particular type of race.

Anyone who thinks at all deeply about the problems associated with backing horses must surely come to the conclusion that there can never be a single master system or betting technique which will deal successfully with all races in all conditions. There are just too many variables in the sport.

The influence of some factors in racing remains constant. The relative fitness of horses and the state of the going are two obvious ones of major importance which are relevant in every sort of race, but what is vital for successful betting is to have a set of logical and workable approaches which look at individual horses against the background of the different kinds and class of event in which they compete. In terms of selection at least, racing on any one day or at a single meeting should not be viewed as a complete whole therefore, but as a composite of separate and distinct entities, each one requiring particular analysis according to type.

The opening section is not an automatic racing system, but a comprehensive set of guidelines and criteria designed to help negotiate the perils of betting on all kinds of horses in all kinds of races at all kinds of meetings. Individual experience and preference will determine which of the methods is preferred and used most often.

The form guide that follows is not selective, as the backer must be in order to win. Since it is intended to appeal to as many as possible, it aims to assist its audience in winner-finding across the whole spectrum of racing. It is, however, only a starting point, a launch pad for a new betting career in which, hopefully, profits will play a prominent part. The specialisation which ought to follow should go far beyond the guidelines, although in some respects the other parts of the book will help to put flesh on the bare bones of the methods of form-assessment explained first. Practice and the flair which may come from experience are needed to complete the process.

Flat (Turf)

The various methodologies featured in this section of Part I apply to Flat racing in Britain and are primarily intended for racing on grass. The other code of flat racing in this country, consisting of all-weather racing is so different from the traditional turf scene that it really calls for a separate treatment in a place other than the present one. However, because the principles of handicapping are always the same, the alternative handicapping method which precedes the criteria for individual types of race can be used for all-weather racing with roughly equal prospects of success.

1 Handicaps V Non-Handicaps

The basic distinction for betting purposes, both in regard to selection and arguably staking as well, is between handicaps and those races where differences in weight do not depend on the view of current racing ability taken by the official handicapper. In fact, in only a minority Of races in Britain do horses Start on absolutely equal terms — even some Classic races, the purest of all tests of the thoroughbred, have an allowance for sex.

There is, however, a world of difference between races where every horse has been given a theoretically identical chance of winning, and conditions races where small penalties for previous successes and allowances for age and sex do not really detract from the goal of establishing the best horse in the race by merit alone.

The difference between handicaps and non-handicaps is a very real one and we will begin our analysis by looking at form in the former.

2 Private Handicaps

A handicap race can be a complex problem, and the degree of complexity will depend on the amount of direct and collateral form 'in the book' which is relevant to it. In general, the more form lines that are available, the more complex the problem. Yet the opposite scenario is even worse from the backer's point of view.

A race where the contestants cannot be compared at all by their previous runs against each other, or through the performances of the equine equivalent of third parties, presents an even greater puzzle than one where comparative form is plentiful.

In practice most handicaps fall somewhere between the two extremes. Thus there will be a double difficulty - too much direct and collateral form for some runners and none at all for others. Bridging the gap between the two opposites can sometimes call for skill bordering on psychic intuition that few of us possess.

One way of solving the problem for the average punter is simply to ignore it, or at least to deliberately chose not to become embroiled in the intricacies of weight and distance built up from a multiple of previous races. After all, there are a number of private handicaps available from specialist firms, and most newspapers feature the same thing in the form of race ratings. Experts such as 'Postmark' of the Racing Post and 'Formcast' of the Daily Mail, do the job of unravelling the form conundrum for us. It is perfectly possible to get by as a racing enthusiast without going further into handicaps than studying a set of published ratings in conjunction with all those other winner-finding aids which are readily available to the betting public nowadays in the racing and national press.

If one feels that it would be impossible to better the efforts of expert journalists, it is still advisable to study closely the principles set out in the ensuing pages, although there is no compulsion to apply them as a matter of course to actual races. Even so, from the knowledge and expertise that will hopefully be acquired, it may be possible from time to time to make vital decisions on which cash depends.
If by contrast, one prefers to make an analysis of handicaps independently, then what follows in the section on 'instant' handicapping, combined with the notes on various aspects of particular types of race, is an excellent solution to the problem.

3 Overall V Very Recent Form

In the main, although consideration is usually given to very recent races depending on the predilections of the individual private handicapper, race ratings arrive at their assessment of each horse's chance by a continuous study of overall ability in relation to other horses running in, approximately, the same class and over a similar distance. The race rating figure which appears by the name of each horse strongly reflects this fact. This can sometimes mean therefore that where a horse is regarded as 'well in' at the weights the conclusion has been drawn from a piece of form which is weeks, perhaps even months old, even though some slight modification has been made for its latest running.

The relevance of old form like this can only be proved in the race but it should not be forgotten that if a horse is shown as 'well in' with a very high figure, this is a comparison based on a difference of opinion with the official handicap ratings which determined the weight that horses have to carry in the first place.

Who gets it right more often: the private handicapper who contrives to have one horse in the ratings a pound or two in hand of the rest of the field, or the official handicapper whose job it is to give a horse in good form just enough weight to allow it to run a series of sound races in its class without actually winning too often? Private handicaps have their successes but it is the view of this author that backers intending to put down hard cash should always check the last-time-out performance of each runner, whatever significance they attach to newspaper ratings. This is essential, for the fact of the matter is that in a very high percentage of cases a horse's most recent run will give a pretty fair indication of whether or not it is up to winning.

4 Weight And Grade

In examining a horse's most recent racecourse run it is not just a matter of assessing performance on that occasion in relation to the weight it carried compared with the weight it is set to carry now. Everything has to be placed in the context of the grade of the races involved in the comparison.
In this respect 7 lb should be seen as a key amount of weight. There are exceptions to just about everything in racing but, as a working rule, it is a fair proposition that the winner of a handicap is unlikely to prove capable of winning again next time out if the weight it is set to carry represents an increase of more than 7 lb in its official rating. There are instances every season of horses raised as much as 10 or 12 lb in the weights repeating a handicap victory. Nevertheless, the case of an animal improving beyond all recognition is just one of those exceptions we must live with. The form reader has no way of anticipating such an improvement.

On the other hand, there are plenty of horses which fail to overcome an increase of only 2-3 lb in their official rating, although in the majority of cases here failure will probably not be solely due to an increase in weight of that order but to any one of several other factors which prevent a horse reproducing its form, i.e. fitness within the form cycle (see Criterion 13), the going (Criterion 14), the draw (Criterion 15), and so on.

In fact we have now arrived at the very essence of the problem with handicaps because, quite apart from such factors, different horses react differently to variations in weight. The cause of different reactions is always a mixture of physical and psychological elements. A big, strong horse with plenty of 'heart' will probably make light of even a hefty increase in its usual weight impost, whereas a pony-sized animal with a weak will to win might well resent even a relatively trivial increase in its burden.

Conversely, what will be the reaction to a significant increase in weight of a big, powerful animal which is nonetheless not entirely 'genuine', or of a much smaller horse with a real appetite for racing? Since there are as many different sizes and shapes of horse as there are possible mental attitudes, making an accurate estimate of how a given horse will react to weight variations is a virtual impossibility. It may even be argued that 'weight off' can have a contrary effect on the same horse to 'weight on'. A drop in weight seems to make no difference by way of improvement to the performance of some horses, but an increase of exactly the same amount can often have a definite 'stopping' effect. That is a familiar scenario for any serious form reader. Anyone engaged in handicapping along traditional lines usually assumes that an increase of three pounds in weight will slow a sprinter down by one length but, given the physical and mental differences between horses, that can only be the most general of assumptions. On the other hand, if form in handicaps assessed by weight is to mean anything at all, such assumptions in the guise of rules have to be formulated and applied.

But whatever the effect of weight on horses, and in view of the difficulty in estimating a particular horse's physical and psychological reaction to it, the grade of a contest stands out as the most important factor of all most of the time when trying to assess form from race to race, if only because it is far easier to measure.

Here too seven is the vital number, for in the author's system each grade in the structure of modern racing is equivalent to 7 lb. this can be seen in the following table:

Group One and Two	+ 21lb
Group Three	+ 14lb
Listed	+ 7lb
Grade A Handicap	10-0
Grade B Handicap	9-7
Grade C Handicap	9-0
Grade D Handicap	8-7
Grade E Handicap	8-0
Grade F Handicap	7-7
Grade G Handicap	7-0

This table represents a personal view of the realities of the situation. The official scale for handicaps has considerable variation within it, viz. 60-70 G, 60-70 F, 65-75 E, 80-85 D, 90-100, 100-110 B, 110 A. This might be rationalised to 65 G, 70 F, 75 E, 80 D, 90 C, 100 B, 110 A.

It is all a matter of opinion of course, but this scale, unlike the one recommended earlier, does not embrace the differences between the various grades above handicaps in the Listed/Group Pattern, and the grades which are available do not divide the classification into equal parts. It makes more sense to use one equal unit of difference throughout, rather than to have overlapping variations of five or 10 units, because the official top rating in an F handicap, for example, can be any of 60, 65 or 70. Also, there is no variation at all between the top of the ratings for some B and all A handicaps, that is 110. It must be remembered, however, that the official classifications are intended to produce competitive races, not to assess them from a private handicapping point of view with the object of trying to pinpoint the likely winner. In this latter connection, consistent use of the key number, seven, is a most useful way of dividing up the range of ability between horses.

In any private handicapper's scale there is always a huge weight difference between a horse of the highest class habitually running in Group l and one of the lowest racing ability. The difference on the above scale is 4 st. Some people may even express surprise that the gulf is so wide. Yet there are authorities in racing who assert that a Derby winner could give a selling handicapper 5 st or more and still beat it. If such a race could be arranged it would be a fascinating one for the form expert and might settle a few arguments!

Be that as it may, what is meant in the table is not that the top weight in, say, a Class D handicap should carry 8—7. The table is for comparative purposes only, and it is the numerical relationship between the grades that is important. For example, a horse carrying top weight in a D handicap will be roughly 21 lb inferior to one similarly burdened in an A handicap. Or put another way, the general class of horses competing in D races will be approximately 21 lb lower than that of the runners in an A handicap.

Therefore, an increase or decrease in a horse's official rating should not be seen in isolation. It has to be related to race grade. A winner last time out carrying up to 7 lb extra on its reappearance has a reasonable chance of success if it is running in the same grade as before. But, if it is down to run in a race of one grade higher, it must find approximately another 7 lb of improvement if it is to succeed. In all it has a 14 lb harder task than it had in its previous race. If it is raised two grades, which is not unusual, it is being asked in real terms to shoulder 21 lb more than last time — 7 lb for the increase in its official handicap rating, and 14 lb (7 lb + 7 lb) for the raises in class.

No wonder so much money is wasted by unskilled punters who see as the sole justification for a bet just a l against a horse's name, indicating a win last time out for an animal now running off an apparently good weight, whose real severity as a burden is not tested by any sound means. The horse might only be carrying ‘8st something, but that weight could actually represent a much stiffer task in weight and grade.

Conversely, a winner last time out that is up 7 lb in the official ratings but dropped one grade is in fact racing on the same terms as before. If it reproduces its previous form, it has every chance of winning again.
Sometimes a horse is lowered two grades. Remember, the horse’s connections, not the Jockey Club handicapper, determine 1he class of race they run their horse in. Therefore, from time to 1 iuse, if winning alone and not prize money is their goal.

Connections may think they have found a golden opportunity for I heir horse. If the horse is holding its form and has not deteriorated, it has an excellent chance in the lower grade, provided it has not been penalised by too great a rise in it's official handicap mark.

5 Placed Horses

Obviously, when carrying out a survey of the most recent form in any race that is under review, it is also necessary to consider horses which did not win last time out. Although a horse which ran a very good second will sometimes be raised a pound or two by the handicapper, much to the chagrin of its trainer no doubt, here for the most part we are dealing with horses whose rating remains the same or which is lowered as a result of a poor performance.

In the latter case, however, the reduction is nearly always slight. Whereas a winner of a handicap may be lifted by quite a large amount of weight in a single increase, horses which keep failing to win are moved down the ratings very gradually a pound or two at a time. Therefore a single drop in the weights between races is seldom decisive.

A factor of greater significance which the form reader will frequently have to assess is just how much value should be put on a run where a horse was placed last time out. Again, what significance should be attached to a very poor run when a horse was right down the field?
There have to be extenuating circumstances for a horse which runs pounds below its true form, but it will generally be best to play safe. Taking the view that the horse has quite simply lost its form and the run should be dismissed out of hand will be right more often than it is wrong. The extenuating circumstances need to be pretty compelling to give such a horse a real chance in its next race. Most handicaps are won by horses with sound win-or-place form, or at least which were not beaten far in their previous race. Winners outside this group, with nothing else in their favour, do pop up from time to time, but they fall within the ‘impossible’ category that the form reader has no alternative but to exclude from his calculations.
For placed horses, however, there is a scale which will measure fairly accurately the distance behind the winner in weight terms. If the weights actually carried by the winner and placed horses are also adjusted by the number of pounds above or below some fixed point, say, 9 st, an exact order of merit revealing by how much

For placed horses, however, there is a scale which will measure fairly accurately the distance behind the winner in weight terms. If the weights actually carried by the winner and placed horses are also adjusted by the number of pounds above or below some fixed point, say, 9 st, an exact order of merit revealing by how much weight some horses are superior to others and inferior (or equal) to the rest can easily be constructed.

This is the scale:

Over 5f/6f	1 length = 3lb
Over 7f	1 length = 2.5lb
From 1m to 1m3f	1 length = 2lb
From 1m4f plus	1 length = 1lb

Again, the scale is unofficial, but except for one important consideration will be found to be extremely accurate in assessing how placed and close-up horses stand in relation to the winner and each other.

In any finish where there is daylight between the winner and the second, the tendency in many races is for jockeys to ease even horses immediately behind the front two if they have no chance of actually winning. This is, strictly speaking, contrary to the rules of racing, at least if the final placings of animals prominent in the finish of a race are thereby affected. Yet despite the vocal disapproval of each-way backers frequently expressed from the stands, regrettably this is accepted practice on our racecourses and for the most part the stewards turn a blind eye to the breach of the rules.

The problem from the point of view of the form reader is that if full value is given to the distance between second and third, and the distances beyond, the inferiority of beaten horses is often exaggerated. Therefore, give full value only to the finishing distance between winner and second, however great the margin, but halve the distances after that when applying the scale to convert to weight.

Also, although the scale accurately assesses the form difference between winners and runners-up, wide-margin winners last time out do not produce as many winners as those which have won by a narrow margin. Whereas the former have probably had the race run to suit them, the latter have shown battling qualities to get home in front. Tough horses like these with the willingness to fight tor the lead are often better betting propositions than facile winners who won unchallenged last time out. This statistical fact is in stark contrast to what many punters believe. The practice, followed by many, of going through the card in search of wide-margin winners is in fact a faulty betting strategy..

Conclusion

The first stage in analysing handicaps is now complete. Last-time out form should always be the best guide. If one is not prepared to look at the most recent form of every horse in the race, one should at least examine with a critical eye the most recent run of and horse which is a probable bet. Or, if the field has been narrowed down to a shortlist of possibles by whatever means, a comparison of the previous outings of each candidate ought to be the final arbiter.

By and large the reader conning to handicapping for the first time will do well to take very recent form at its face value and, even for a sophisticated form enthusiast of long standing, tunnel vision of this kind is no bad thing. Our basic methodology has the advantage of processing vital information reasonably quickly and efficiently; excursions into the form of races beyond the most recent should be kept to a minimum, however adept readers believe themselves to be at interpreting the vagaries of old or hidden form..