Good "form reference" races

[Duritz]

Watching TVN tonight and they talked about a race being a "good form reference race".

Heard this term heaps before, of course, but tonight, as I sipped on old champagne and dined on fresh dodo eggs, I wondered what might explain it.

Obviously, a good "form reference race" is a race from which many winners come. But what makes the winners come from it?

It occurs to me that perhaps "good form reference races" are races which the handicapper underestimates. It stands to reason, at least Duritz reason, that if the hcp'er understimates the strength of a race, EVERY horse from it gets under-weighted at subsequent runs.

What thoughts do others have on why some races are "good form reference" races?

 

[iluvparis]

Could be historical context as well - i.e. the MacKinnon used to always be a 'good form reference' for the Melbourne Cup.

In contrast, in recent years the Craiglee/Makybe Diva has been a dog-shit form reference with the winners basically never winning another race.

 

[Duritz]

The thing is, horses don't know what race they're in... The Melbourne Cup winner could be in a 2000m race at Manangatang on Turnbull day, and he wouldn't suddenly lose ability compared to his Turnbull run.

The "significant races leading to significant race winners" theory for me points to trainers motives, rather than horses ability. So, I suppose it's a leg up into what trainers think of their horses... Turnbull runners tend to be on a Melbourne Cup campaign, that kind of thing.

More interestingly, and perhaps more profitably for regular Joes like you and me, well like you anyway, is what makes a "good form reference" race in normal races. Some maiden at track X, goes on to produce many winners... how to identify that at the time?

 

[iluvparis]

More interestingly, and perhaps more profitably for regular Joes like you and me, well like you anyway, is what makes a "good form reference" race in normal races. Some maiden at track X, goes on to produce many winners... how to identify that at the time?

One of the old wives tales is to look for big gaps between horses, whereas a bunched finish stereotypically makes an average form race. I've always thought the latter is the case because in that instance it is mostly luck rather than ability determining the result.

 

[Duritz]

One of the old wives tales is to look for big gaps between horses, whereas a bunched finish stereotypically makes an average form race. I've always thought the latter is the case because in that instance it is mostly luck rather than ability determining the result.

Yeah widened margins tend to come with fast time... so the wives tale might be indicative of quick horses in that respect.

One exception on the small margins philosophy was the 91 (?) Cox plate, where Naturalism fell, Let's Elope run down by Super Impose, etc... about 1L b/w top 6, but all quality.

 

[iluvparis]

That was 1992 - when most of the good horses in the race were well past their best - hence the close finish. Let's Elope was nowhere near her 1991 form.

 

[KardiniaPark]

I'm not sure how you can call a race a good form reference before it's been run. Obviously a race like the Turnbull will most likely paint a fair picture of what will happen during the spring, but like every other race each individual run should be taken on its merit. Knowing an upcoming race will be a good form reference in the proceeding 5-6 weeks has zero impact on what you bet on in that race that day. So really in this case it's just a buzzword for saying its a deep race. The other issue is how deep does the form reference go? Do you back Tuscan Fire next week when it's going around in a listed race just because he ran against the others even though he was 10L off? No, so it gets back to each individual run. Like every other race, 8th might have been a much better run than 4th so to throw a blanket over the entire field and say FOLLOW is a bit careless.

 

[Duritz]

I'm not sure how you can call a race a good form reference before it's been run. Obviously a race like the Turnbull will most likely paint a fair picture of what will happen during the spring, but like every other race each individual run should be taken on its merit. Knowing an upcoming race will be a good form reference in the proceeding 5-6 weeks has zero impact on what you bet on in that race that day. So really in this case it's just a buzzword for saying its a deep race. The other issue is how deep does the form reference go? Do you back Tuscan Fire next week when it's going around in a listed race just because he ran against the others even though he was 10L off? No, so it gets back to each individual run. Like every other race, 8th might have been a much better run than 4th so to throw a blanket over the entire field and say FOLLOW is a bit careless.

Yes, just because a horse happened to run a hopeless last in a "good form reference" race doesn't mean it suddenly gains extra ability.

The other thing is that some races will produce plenty of next start winners just entirely through co-incidence. The ave field size is about 10, so 1 in every 10 out of a given race will win their next start, if 3 win out of a race, that's not really far from the average, just the way the numbers fall. In a large enough sample you'll see 10 horses win their next start out of a given race. Does that make it a good form race, or was it just co incidence?

 

[KardiniaPark]

Yes, just because a horse happened to run a hopeless last in a "good form reference" race doesn't mean it suddenly gains extra ability.

The other thing is that some races will produce plenty of next start winners just entirely through co-incidence. The ave field size is about 10, so 1 in every 10 out of a given race will win their next start, if 3 win out of a race, that's not really far from the average, just the way the numbers fall. In a large enough sample you'll see 10 horses win their next start out of a given race. Does that make it a good form race, or was it just co incidence?

Probably more coincidence because they all just happened to chose the same race to go to in. Its just Bruce Clarke filling time, don't lose too much sleep over it.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

There are definitely races each year, that in hindsight turn out to be good reference races. Finding them before that becomes apparent though, now that's the tricky part. I tend to look for truly run races, where horses can actually stretch out without interference/hustle and bustle. If you can find the "fastest" horse, that goes a long way to helping sort the wheat from the chaff.

It really can take up some time though trying to keep track of previous races and runners and following their campaigns. I find I do better just by assessing each race and runner on its merits, rather than betting blindly because a runner is coming from a race which I think was a good form race.