a horse may have gone up 5lb for beating in your words 4,or 5 horses which were were well handicapped and plotted up,in which case you,d assume a penalty wouldn't automatically stop them from winning again, sprinters are known for clocking up multiple wins and most drop in the weights because their out of form noit because they cant win at a certain mark,the range in marks during a sprinters career from the highest to the lowest is huge for multiple reasons to pinpoint this to a narrow weight range in which it cant compete is wrong imo

I prefer to believe that the likes of Midgely, fahey, Nichols before them, get them fit run them mob handed and hope they get the luck on the day with as much chance as the stables mot wanted winning as the stables most wanted, Midgely often interviewed on tv pre race when mob handed gong for the wrong one,saying so and so wont like the ground,not well handicapped,poor draw  etc,etc before gashing up and running down the field a week later

It happens everyday domino14. Ok this isn't as bad but pensax boy 14/1 at Wolverhampton yesterday last 6 races 13 7 4 8 9 12 your telling me that any sane person wants to back a horse with **** figures like that. There are much worse aswell. I get the value angle but backing lots of horses that are supposedly good value isn't any good if the ferkers don't win is it. I take the opposite view as I'd rather back an horse that wins on merit and not when connections decide it is ready to win. The point is in. 29 runner race you can make a case for virtually every horse if you look at ratings blah blah even 50/1 shots. You can't back them all so if you highlight the best 10 that are supposedly well in do you back them all? Any horse is well in if it's below its last winning mark but not if the ferker hadn't won for 29 races. We al, have angles and each to their own but at the end of the day we are at the mercy of wether the horse is trained and ridden to win. That's the one race no matter how much we study we can win and that is for definite. Unless your domino14 and you have privileged inside info!!!!!!!

@Davethehat

I think Pensax Boy is a very bad example. His record prior to yesterday read 3 wins from 5 runs on the all weather, and he was returning to the all weather where he had run 2 OK races in December off higher marks but had still run to around 80-85 in each of those races. After 3 turf runs he returned to Wolverhampton over a trip that suits, and dropped in class.
He may not have been the most obvious of winners and I for one didn't bet him, but his solid record on the all weather was there to be seen, and both his efforts in December gave him a chance down in grade after 2 decent runs in 0-85 and 0-95 races. The trainers horses have also been running well since moving to his new yard.

I agree domino14 that the horse has decent record on all weather but his mark reflects that and your correct there are much worse examples than that everyday. That was a quick pick to prove my point and even based on your info I still wouldn't back it with someone else's money. All the running in higher grade etc happens all the time aswell like I said you can't back every horse that's supposedly well in. Why isn't a fave that's won half length and gone up three pounds well in? At least the ferkin thing has proved it can win a race. It's not just the form figures you see horses regularly that have won 1 in 40 then muppets making excuses for why they popped up at 40/1.  I do agree the horse of midgelys doesn't really fall into the wtf category of winners as I'm highlighting. I just think that making a reason for every horse winning at a big price is pretty sad. If every fave won we would all be bored but way too many no hopers win in my view. If you have. 2/1  3/1 7/2 and a 6/1 wins that's acceptable but 16/1 25/1 and bigger just shouldn't be happening unless it's in say a stewards cup etc. We all have opinions just some of us don't try to look for the good in every scenario lol. Let's face it there is lots of cheating if every sport it's just some are easier to detect. Look at lance Armstrong unbeatable blah blah then we find out the **** is a cheat. Takes the shine off lmao

@Davethehat

I think the problem here is you don't evaluate form and study it. Just because a horse wins a race doesn't mean it's better than a horse who has finished 10th in another race. Too many people are blindsided by form figures rather than what horses actually achieve. Only when you learn this concept and evaluate will you see the value of actual form.
The reality is when you access a horse like Pensax Boy and take in all the factors, 14/1 would be a big price and you would want him on your side in the race. I'm not saying when you study form every bet you have or horse you suspect is well treated and in the right grade will win, but I guarantee you that you will do a lot better than blindly following a betting market or reading form figures as gospel.

You may well be correct that a horse who has won say a 0-75 off 74, goes up 3lb and could be well handicapped still off 77, but the difference is, he is now against betting opposition in a 0-80, and what if one of his rivals won by 4L off 75 last year over this trip and on this ground, went up to 86 as a result, and has subsequently struggled off higher marks but over time, having not ran over this trip and in this grade and on these ground conditions, has dropped down to 75 again. His form figures may not look pretty as you say, but the form of what he done the last time in this grade is there for all to see, only many will see say form of 34145874906 and automatically assume the horse is no good without taking into consideration the company he is now in, the ground he is now racing on, and the trip he is over. All of which he is proven over. He is this grade would be a player and proven, whilst the horse who won last time stepping up in grade has to prove that he has further improvement in him, and is up against horses who have already proven themselves to be better than this grade.

I don't buy your view of the betting market reflecting the outcome of a race. If the front end always won, then bookmakers would cease to exist and it would be easy for the punter. The fact a horse is 3/1 or 4/1 is normally based on recent form, reputation or from the volume of support but it doesn't mean IT WILL OR SHOULD WIN. Okay I won't disagree there are shock results which take some explaining and are baffling, but most of these well backed winners or even not so well backed winners can have a case for them on form.

A lot of people don't like Rachel, the US bird on RUK when she does Kempton, but she thoroughly assesses the form, wont just go for the favourite and whilst at times she is blinded by American pedigree's she actually is a very good reader of form, can talk a lot of sense and has highlighted numerous well treated horses in her time, putting up some decent priced winners and placers. She may not be everyone's cup of tea, but unlike the more popular presenters she does her homework and is more knowledgeable than many give her credit for. You would not go poor following her advice which can't be said for most on there.

@Dr Crippen is bang on the money.

As I tried to point out above, THIS HORSES WIN WAS NO SHOCK TO ANY FORM READER, The clues were there for all to see and it was in the right grade, over the right trip, on the right ground, it was not some rancid plot job where you could only guess at it's ability. It's back class was there for the world to see and had actually been running well in grades better than this one, prior to a poor run over a trip it doesn't stay. Putting at line through it's previous run, you couldn't have had it out the frame. It was good placing by connections, but by no means was there another untoward.

Stop looking at form figures thinking they reflect the value of form, and you may start to understand.

Agree with Delta

Think we are taking it all too literally domino14 lol. I've been betting on horses 40 years and have never been comfortable with complete rags winning likewise I'm not expecting the first three in the betting to win every race, I'm not into digging deeeeeeeeep to find a winner but do take form into account. We all know about going,times of the year, trainer form and countless other factors. Think a horse dropping down a grade Is down to the fact it's not run a decent race in last ten. In theory it is well in based on its mark and grade but It still doesn't explain how a horse beaten more than 5 lengths in said races can suddenly win. Handicappers are usually at pains to drop a horse but if you backed every horse on a lower mark you would soon be skint. Btw I don't back horses on form figures I back horses that actually win races. As you well know a large percentage never win a race so regardless of their dropping marks you will always lose on them. I take your point that studying and finding a horse that has everything in its favour at a good price is a value bet but for everyone that wins in such a position I reckon their are 4 or 5 that still won't win. Good look with your angle each to their own. Even if I had the time to study in the detail you do I would choose not to as I feel most horses that win at big odds should have the connections explaining improved form.

domino14 14 Aug 18 07:30 Joined: 28 Jan 18 | Topic/replies: 2,426 | Blogger: domino14's blog
Onlooker, a question here without meaning to sound rude.

Do you look at form and figures at all ?

Can't wait till that new kid on the block Onlooker reads this!

Hey domino14 just been looking at the Pensax boy form over last 2 years. Run around 12 tines won 4 14/1 14/1 14/1 16/1!!!!!!!   Either they get it ready or the bookies are thick lol. Not too much variance on its mark either. That would be a horse to have followed blind lol. Massive profit too level stakes. Did we miss that one lol.

1st time poster 14 Aug 18 11:44 Joined: 25 Dec 05 | Topic/replies: 27,256 | Blogger: 1st time poster's blog
I supposes NAGGERS is another 18 month shrewd coup about to come off ,but no one including Midgely no,s when or where

Naggers is retired after severing a tendon.

I didn't see anything unusual about it onlooker. TW had been running well recently - placed in 3 of his 4 previous races and then mid div in a big field sprint handicap at York and dropped 2 lbs.

More importantly,Paul Midgley's horses are flying now after a quiet season - 6 of his 26 winners this season have come in the last 10 days. TW was entitled to be well fancied and to win as he did.

But they didn't know, you can never be certain. I'd say, in common with the rest of the yard, the horse had been working better lately. He didn't have any more than a length or two to find to have a serious chance and was worth a punt at the price. No more than that.