Form Study: Find your niche and make sure it's a winner!

Betting Strategy / Jack Houghton / 23 August 2008 / 5 Comments

A stint on Betfair Radio led Jack Houghton to ... erm ... study his form study, so thanks Warren from Epsom - this one's for you!

In the past few weeks, I've had the opportunity to appear as a pundit on Betfair Radio. It's a journey come full circle: helping launch the radio was my last project before leaving the Exchange. Ideas that then only existed in strategy documents are now in full operation and, in many cases, have developed far beyond our original expectations.

But one thing is as it always was: a pundit has to sit there and give an opinion on every race. Fulfilling this role has been terrifying. I have previewed nearly every all-age sprint handicap so far with the warning: "I would not bet here. The methods of race analysis I use don't lend themselves well to these races. However, here are some brief thoughts on a few of the horses..." And yet you get a horrible feeling that someone, somewhere, will nonetheless invest their money on the back of what you are saying.

Despite being a terrifying experience though, it has also proved an invaluable way to highlight areas of intellectual weakness. Thoughts and ideas, happy to exist in some electrical form between communicating synapses deep in my pea-size, are asked to present themselves, ready for inspection, to a listening audience. And it's only when you start to articulate ideas that you realise how badly thought out they are.

Take this example. I was in the middle of yet another interminable approach to race analysis. I had outlined the top four horses according to adjusted speed ratings. I had talked about a fair tissue price for the aforementioned horses. I had concluded that adjusted handicap ratings concurred with the speed ratings. I had recommended a bet on the horse with the biggest odds discrepancy between its tissue price and the market. All was well.

(My punditry really is this fascinating. I'm sure it's a matter of time before I get a regular gig on Radio 4. Perhaps I could be the new chairman of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue?)

Then Warren from Epsom sent an email in: "Speed ratings? What happened to the good old fashioned method of form study?"

That's an easy question to answer! Or so I thought. After a few minutes of speaking in tongues, my garbled attempt at a response left me doubting the very premise of all my punting. I've had some time to reflect however and can now, hopefully, provide a more coherent response to the question.

Any rating - whether speed or handicap - is simply a short-hand method of "form study." When someone settles into a warm bath to read the form book, they do so to gain an insight into the relative ability of horses contesting a particular race. I have nothing against this approach as such, but I realised early on that I wasn't very good at it.

Whereas some people seem to be able to digest and accurately assess form in this way, I always found myself overemphasising certain factors, whilst underplaying others. For example, I'm a sucker for a horse who wins a race easily. The problem is, so is the market. Those horses tend to be overbacked and, I found, I backed plenty of winners but lost money in the long-run.

Ratings provide me with a more consistent way of assessing form. I say "consistent" rather than "objective", because the assumptions used to create ratings are, in themselves, subjective. But because you're always assessing form in a consistent way, you can adjust those assumptions in a more controlled fashion. For example, I spent a long time trying to find the most effective way of accounting for ground conditions when creating speed ratings. Keeping all other factors constant in creating those ratings, I was able to tweak this one element and measure the results: knowing that the final method settled on was the most successful of those tried.

When I tried to make these kind of adjustments to my form study processes in the past, I found it impossible. For example, when realising I was overemphasising horses who won races easily, I then found myself ignoring them, with similarly disastrous consequences.

Some will undoubtedly have success with more "traditional" methods of form study. I've come across punters who seem to be able to absorb everything they see and regurgitate it in an objective way that leads to profitable punting. But these people are few and far between. It is my conviction that the majority of punters using this method are no better than the market as a whole, and a fair few are worse.

So Warren, I hope I've explained myself better here. Ratings are simply a different way of "reading" the form book; in the same way league tables are a way of assessing the form of a football team. That Norwich have amassed 44 points tells us little of the detail of their defensive solidity, or offensive prowess, but it nonetheless provides a quick summary of how they have performed in those areas in comparison to their peers.

Ratings aren't for everyone (and, I've found, don't help with all types of races). Some will have more success with form book study, trends analysis or sectional timing data. But all of these start from the same point - form - and simply highlight certain factors over others. They all have their place and value; providing you are honest with yourself and objectively assess how they perform for you. In other words, are you winning money? If the answer is no, then either your method is flawed, or the way you are applying it is.

Comments (5)

1. Mary Wilson | 28 August 2008

   This is probably the most honest and intelligent article I've read on this site. I have been listening to Betfair Radio since day one and heard you the last couple of days. I respect your approach to punting and hope you're doing well with it. Since I'm really new to horseracing, I've been trying to assess forms but have little idea how much emphasis to place on each factor. But I'm learning....slowly.....
   Congrats on your upcoming marriage....
   One question....Do you really make a living punting?
   Mary

2. ron | 29 August 2008

   Hi Jack, as u know i think ur analysis method is great [even tho mine is somewaht different]. U might be interested to know how i reduce the number of horses i consider. A horse must have won or been no more than 2 lengths from the winner at its last start [no more than 35 days ago]. If it has run more than once, the start before the last must be no more than 4th. For those with more than 2 starts, the 3rd last start must be not more than 7th and in all the last 3 starts must add to no more than 12. The horse must also have been placed at no less than 20% of its starts. Finally it must be backable at no more then 6.0 on Betfair 3 minutes before the scheduled race time. Ok so i dont get many big priced winners which can cover losses [which saves many systems] but i have in-form horses with a high strike [about 37%] rate. I then have methods to reduce the number i actually bet on. I use MS Access to record all the data and do my selecting, so it is easy to do and easy to see exactly what is profitable and what is not [leading to refinements in the methodology]. I assume that factors such as rider, course condition etc will be reflected in the Betfair price available thus removing the need to quantify sth i have no idea about [it isnt easy to get reliable data on that from Australia - or in England from what I hear on Betfair radio]. Hope fully this approach might interest you and others.

   As you know, u only have to have one winner at 2.0 each day to make a very good living as long as you dont bet on any losers. I didnt start with a big bank but i built it up from winnings believing that if i couldnt make profits from a small bank at least i wouldnt lose much. Later the big money comes if ur patient and disciplined.

   Staking is important too - i flat stake at 3% of my bank to win or 5% to place. I dont chase losses by increasing the stake.

   Yes happy marriage mate.

3. Muddywellies | 29 August 2008

   Hi, Jack.

   Fantastic article and thanks for the very clear and concise examples. I'm enjoying your book as well.

   Best wishes!

   
   -Laura
   

4. Jack Houghton | 03 September 2008

   Thanks for the comments all - particularly the best wishes for the wedding. It was on Saturday, and I'm now back after an all-too-short honeymoon.

   Mary, to answer your question, I don't make a living punting. I make a living doing other things, but punting provides a nice secondary income with minimal investment of time. But that wasn't always the case. I previously had lots of fresh starts, some of which were profitable, but which ultimately ended up in money lost. However, I view that time and money as an investment in finding out what worked and what didn't. So I'm now consistently profitable; but still feel I'm learning all the time.

   And Ron - it sounds like you're doing the right things. I can't comment on your method specifically, because I haven't got the results of it, but the fact you're analysing things so closely is a good sign. Not sure why something being bigger than 6.0 necessarily turns you off? Have you analysed what would happen without that criteria? It might be the best approach, but might be worth challenging yourself on - your strike rate may decrease, but your ultimate profits may increase. And agree completely about your thoughts about riders, courses etc. I've tried to quantify these things many times - with little success. I know some do so successfully - but not me.

   And thanks Laura. I'm off BF Radio for a few weeks now as have other work commitments, but should be back on in October.

   Anyway - off to be a husband... which feels great.

5. ron | 04 September 2008

   Welcome back Jack [and wife]. maybe ur right about going past 6.0 [i dont have those records now either] but as u lower the strike rate so u need to adjust ur staking percentage to avoid the possibility of going down the tube with a long run of outs. Furthermore, if u want to make this a business [as i do] there are quite real limits to how much u can play at higher rates and since i level stake, that is a problem.

   just one thing, over the past 2 weeks for example i have had 13 winning days and one losing day and at one stage had 26 consecutive profitable bets. that keeps me going ok, but i really hate losing. like u i had years of that but i was convinced it could be made to work ok if i persisted [the advent of computers was a reat help for analysis and the availability of data - its much easier now] and it has.

   maybe there isnt enough action for many punters, but i get my satisfaction spending the winnings.

   be nice to hear u again in october mate.