How do you interpret horse racing form?

One of my favourite quotes on the subject of horse racing comes from Joe Lee, who, along with Douglas Stuart, Jim Sutters and Bert Fry, was one of the ‘big four’ bookmakers after World War II. In his long-out-of-print book, ‘Be A Successful Punter’, late professional punter Clive Holt credits Lee with having said, ‘It is popularly supposed that somewhere along the line between the stable door and the jockey is a mine of information, which, if only one could tap it, would lead to untold wealth. Owners and trainers do, occasionally, have something ‘up their sleeve’, but even they have no answer to what has been called the ‘glorious uncertainty’ of racing.

Nowadays, seven decades later, the scientific precision underlying modern racehorse trainers – in terms of monitoring horses’ vital signs, in real-time, devising specialised, performance-enhancing diets, training routines and so on – is undeniable. Nevertheless, for the racing enthusiast, while understanding such principles may lead, on occasion, to enlightened decisions, the ‘Sport of Kings’ remains as excitingly unpredictable as ever. The myriad of variables involved in determing the outcome of a horse racing dictates that interpreting form is, at best, an imprecise science; if anyone does ever find the key to it, in the words of Derek ‘Del Boy’ Trotter, ‘This time next year, we’ll be millionaires!’

It probably goes without saying that the form figures for each horse – or, in other words, the string of numbers, and possibly letters, to the left of its name – are the best starting point. Typically, the better the form figures, the better the chance of the horse in question, although this fact may not have escaped the notice of the bookmakers and, thus, be reflected in the odds on offer. Nevertheless, form figures alone can be a useful tool for drawing up a shortlist of likely selections, without needing to delve into the form book at all.

Of course, form figures should not be considered the ‘be all and end all’ and further investigation is usually necessary. That said, trainers generally run their horses within their class, so, more often than not, it is only necessary to confirm the facts, with regard to class, value and weight. Generally speaking, winning form is the easiest to assess, particulary if it is gained at a high level. ‘Winning form is good form’, as per the old adage, but that achieved at a high level is more likely to ‘stand up’ than that achieved in, say, low-grade handicaps and lesser races. ‘Collateral’ form – that is, the subsequent form of any of the runners in the race under consideration – may or may not provide cause for optimism.

Assuming a potential selection is attempting little or nothing more than it has already achieved, in terms of class, value and weight – or, if it is, appears progressive or promising enough to cope – it is necessary to establish that it capable of acting on the course, over the distance and on the prevailing going. The going or, in other words, underfoot conditions, is often cited by trainers as a reason for improvement, or regression, in form, so the importance of checking that a horse can handle present conditions really cannot be overstated.

Likewise, thoroughbred racehorses are, after all, elite equine athletes, so fitness, or lack of it, is always something to consider. Fairly obviously, racehorses cannot maintain peak fitness indefinitely, so they are gradually brought to that level, where they remain for a short period, before being ‘let down’ again by their trainers. Thus, the recency of any form, winning or otherwise, is important, and any recorded more than, say, six weeks previously should be considered questionable.