haveadip,
I only ever use a mechanical system on the races, never form analysis. I just don't seem to be able to get the hang of it. There must be something I just can't see. Even when I look at the form for a race after the event, the winner is never obvious to me. So I put my faith in trying to find a magic formula and the older I get the further away that seems too.
However, the search for the system rather than the betting, (which I usually don't do anyway) or the race watching (which I never do), is the continuing fascination for me. I spend hours devising systems and then testing them out against old Winning Posts. Finding the repeated pattern is the thrill. Unfortunately, every system seems to work for a short while then peter out (and I've seen that complaint aired by others on this same forum.) When I do have a dip on a system selection I would be petrified of trying to second guess it by applying my paltry form analysis techniques and I know what would happen if I did.
Regards

I think similar to Sports on the matter of adding form analysis to a system but instead of backing a horse in a race that looks obviously more qualified to win than the system's selection, I just leave the race alone as I like to keep my system bets separate from my form bets. I have been 'doing the form' for over 30yrs., so I don't have a confidence problem in this area.

I am amazed that many punters will spend huge amount of time working out systems yet won't put in a few yards to learn and practise one of the basics of punting ...form study.
There is reams of info. available on coming to grips with race analysis and many different approaches to the subject from the more complex 'formline' style commonly heard on the radio, to the simpler approach of giving each horse in a race points [or to start with, even the first 5 in the pre-post betting line] for meeting certain criteria. Both methods are valid and the more complex is in no way superior or more successful to methods that are far easier, but just as valid.

I don't actually think a mechanical system can work long term. I watched my old man come up with mechanical systems ad nauseum growing up, and I remember each time him saying that he thought this one was going to win blah blah but they failed when tested with money. He has a first class honours degree in economics from Melbourne University. His father, an owner, breeder and sometime SP bookie, kept piles of the Sportsman newspapers in his study and was always researching systems. He never came up with a winning one either.

All the men (and women), and all the millions of hours of study that they have put into it, and do you actually know of a winning system? It's like cracking an impossible code, and I have a small theory as to why:

Think of humans. Think of all the different ones you have known or known of, all the weird, colourful, positive, negative things they have done.

Now try to make a system filled with mechanical, arbirtrary rules to explain them.

Let's give it a crack:

1 - When on a train, they will sit down. Or stand up.
2 - Men like women. Women like men. Some men like men. Some women like women.
3 - If one human attacks another, the other will always fight back. Sometimes he will not.
4 - Humans like meat. Some don't.

OK I could go on, but I don't think I'm making my point correctly - you can't explain humans. You can't set up rules which classify them. We are a complex, beautiful, ugly, boring, funny, smart, ignorant, proud, arrogant, humble, generous, selfish race, infantile in our evolution, completely obsessed with ourselves.

When all is said and done, horses are just as complex as us. Hell, they can drown in a puddle of water for God sake. Arbitrary rules fall too far short of explaining what they can and can't do.

The other thing is this: The human mind is a very complex thing. Einstein alluded to his belief that the best and brightest of us (ie him) only use up to 10 or 15% of it. It is capable of immense understanding and powerful insight in a fraction of a second, and that is without us even concentrating. In that respect, the market on a horse race is generally pretty right, because the combined brainpower of all the people out there doing the form pretty much mean that the right horses go out the right prices. (A good example of the combined brainpower thing was Sportz's ratings comp the other day - the combined ratings of everyone had both winners in the top two). No pre-ordained rules containing sweeping statements about horses in certain situations can be more accurate than that combined brainpower which sets the market. That's why - in my opinion only of course - systems pretty much have to fail.

There is a way to beat that combined brainpower, and that is what Crash alluded to: you have to put in the time to do the form. Basically, put in more time to do the form than what the average of the combined brainpower pool did, and do the form properly. Learn how to do the form if you don't know, from books like Don Scott and Andy Beyer if you like time analysis, but ultimately the best way is to learn from your mistakes. It's no quick answer, it's a long grind to understanding the best way, and even when you're like Crash and are confident in your form analysis, it doesn't mean you'll do it the right way every time. You'll still get heaps of horses wrong, but that's OK. If looking back after the event the reason the winner won isn't apparent then you need to look harder. Then, when you're in the enviable Crash position of being confident in your analysis, the other half of your job begins: how to punt.

I never used to believe them when they said that form was only half the battle, that punting properly was the other half, but it's true. I know that now, it's been a costly lesson but I've learn't it (I hope). I still go out and have some very muggy bets sometimes, and they lose, but most of the time I stick to what I know is the right way to punt, and to answer haveadip's other question, his original one - people can win on it, but if doing the form etc is a grind then you probably aren't going to stay the trip. You have to love it to do it, otherwise you'll burn out.

Duritz.

Doing the form and betting on 6 [good] races on Saturday instead of 30 might help !!!

No punter who wants non-stop action can come out in front ...nobody.

Those that need to bet on every race needs a shrink, not a winner.

Crash,
If you are offering advice to me in particular re the number of races to study and bet per week it's unnecessary as well as offensive in tone. As I pointed out in the original posting, I have been entering that many races per week simply to test my theories and I rarely bet anyway. If, on the other hand, your comment is advice for the world at large I couldn't agree more.
And who the hell is Sinartra?

Foxwood,

Yes, on seeing my post again I guess you might believe it was directed at you [I don't think you had previously said anywhere how often you bet though]. Sorry about that impression but I was thinking out loud about so many punters I've often seen at the track betting on everything that moves after a 2 sec. look at the form guide.

Great post, Duritz. I hope that most forumites take the time to reflect on all that you have said there in a very long post. A mighty lot of wisdom!!

I particularly liked the words of experience based on your father's and grandfather's endeavours. Unfortunately, most(?) of us I am afraid think that if we could only 'crack' some system it would be the end of our problems. Just pie in the sky.

Of course, this is not to say that some can just see this as an enjoyable way to spend some leisure time. More power to them . But for those who hope to make it the basis of some future life style, there is the need, as they say, to 'put in the hard yards'.

Good Morning Fellas,

I too appreciated your post Duritz. There were some interesting points in it but I'm afraid there were some red herrings too. As far as I can see you are contrasting form analysis with trying to create an algorithm to explain the entirety of a human being's activities and proclivities. This is obviously not possible, not even if you apply it to horses which incidentally, are not as complex as humans (and all the better for it in my opinion). The idea behind trying to create a system I reckon is to try to predict the outcome of a very limited period of time in a horse's Saturday afternoon under very strict and pre ordained conditions. i.e. He's running from A to B with a midget on board whacking his rump, carrying a known impost against several other all in the same boat.
I also have another question; where does form analysis end and a system take over (or vice versa). It wasn't in your post I know but somebody suggested form analysis could be done by allocating points for certain features of the horse's form or his position on a pre-post market. Does that amount to form anaysis or is it using a system? If it's the former then I'm a form analyst as well as a system compiler.
Cheers fellas and good luck for this afternoon.

Yeah I don't think I was really getting my point across with that making a system for humans stuff. I read it at the time and got a bit confused myself.... And you're right - horses aren't as complex as us, but they're probably more unpredictable than us because at least we have the ability to think rationally. (though often not at the track) Without getting into detail as it's 11.14 am on Sat and I am just starting the form for today (!) I think form analysis begins as soon as you have to make a decision on a horse, like do I think it can get the trip etc. There are no doubt levels of form analysis, and of course people mix analysis and rules. One that comes to mind is anyone who looks at the top five in the market and does the form solely on them. That's a system and form analysis combined. What I don't think can win long term is a purely mechanical system, no input from the human. My old man hates having to make a decision because he's always fearful of "pulling the wrong rein". In that respect he prefers systems.

(Ironically, lately he just bets on my ratings which is for him I suppose a system, which therefore means I must be convinced it can't win lol!)

Anyway, we'll no doubt chat more about this.

Good luck today.

Duritz.

When I hear people talk about being picky about which races they choose to play, I always have to smile. What it says is, they have a "system." That system doesn't work very often. So they study really hard to find exactly what kind of race the system DOES work in. So now they get to play a handful of races with their method, and hopefully they'll now make a profit. Reminds me very much of the old saw, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" don't you think? Granted, these people are being smart in reducing their play to their chosen races. After all, that's the only logical way to make a profit using that particular handicapping method. If you can't improve the method, you MUST eliminate races where it doesn't work.

But the crowd plays EVERY race. And they make the same mistakes in EVERY race. You can spend your time with a crippled handicapping method, praying for a race that matches it, or you can learn how and why the crowd wagers the way they do, and start playing a very high percentage of races on every day. All it takes is to let go of one's habits and traditional notions, and start accepting how the world really works!