Hugh Taylor's Method

[Trotter]

Watching Hugh Taylor on ATR today giving out his 'eyecatchers' and it struck me that they were all the same ! And it only took me a few minutes from that bombshell to work out his entire selection methodology.........:tongue2 Now obviously I could keep this to myself and beat the prices, but as it involves some work I won't bother. Basicaly he watches all the races and notes down horses who 'travel well'.........by that he means keep up with the pace or run on through the field without the jockey having to 'push' the horse.........ie horses who keep up with the others with the jockey sitting still whilst the others are pushing and shoving. Second step is to look for horses who travel well, but in races they are unlikely to win, either because it's their first run back after a break, they prefer a different trip or surface, bad draw, the stable is out of form etc. Third step is to wait for those horses to run in optimum conditions for a win - right trip, track etc Think I've got this sussed? Good basis for a selection method ?

[stewartd14]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method Without meaning to sound as if I am being awkward, but is that not how many punters would play the game IF they got the chance to watch every race. I thought looking for those things in a race was quite common ? So to answer, yes, I do believe it is a good basis for a selection method. Anything you see in a race that the bookies/others may not is an excellent selection method - ie, seeing a horse that maybe was caught on heels a couple of times, so the run can be excused etc. Having the time to do it in practise though, is another matter. :(

[Trotter]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method Yes, I suppose it is pretty obvious really........ I guess the skill is in deciding which horses that 'travel well' are likely to win.............. I think you can pretty much watch all the races for free now on the websites...........that would be one advantage of the AW over jumps racing - a whole meeting would only take the same time to watch back as a single 3 mile chase !

[Gingertipster]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method I think Hugh has two methods. With "eye catchers" he's looking for horses who's chance may be overlooked next time out. In whatever way that may be. Trouble is it is not known whether each will be value when they do run. Putting up as eye catchers and allowing punters and bookmakers to see, draws attention to them. Therefore are unlikely to make a significant profit in the long run. His value bet selections are purely a value thing. Where he knows the available prices before selection. Tipping any horse he believe has a bigger chance than prices indicate.

[billy the punter]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method As stew says it's the only way. Almost everything I do is based on what I have seen. You can't race-read using the form book alone. The another important factor not mentioned there is horse than run well depsite the pace being against them. Pace is as important as anything and the beauty of it is that it's a subject often ignored. :ok

[Dave in The Lakes]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method From my perspective for every 30 minutes I spend reading form I watch 2 to 3 hours of replays. I play most races on the flat 4 or 5 times watching different horses on each run through. It is the best tool the modern punter has. Dont know how I survived the old days before ATR/RUK.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method Watching races on TV can help; but you still need to know how good each horse is that you are looking at. What the pace was, which horses acted on the ground, suited by the distance, track, jockeys, trainers in form etc. Therefore, (imo) form study is more important than watching TV.

[fintron]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method For what its worth I watch hardly any races just a couple a week - I think if you know what you are looking for you can get lots from the formbook. During the flat season I sustained a profitable thread with 500+ bets I think it was, and the vasy majority of those were from looking on Sporting Life. I was betting half a dozen a day at times and didn't have time to watch replays. I suppose there is more than one way to win, IMO if you have stats/trends you rely on you can quickly chop out runners and cut down the study - much like the trends boys do.

[stewartd14]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method

Watching races on TV can help; but you still need to know how good each horse is that you are looking at. What the pace was, which horses acted on the ground, suited by the distance, track, jockeys, trainers in form etc. Therefore, (imo) form study is more important than watching TV.

I beg to differ here tbh, I believe you can see much better when watching races which horses handle the ground, are suited by the distance etc that what the formbook can tell you after the race. To build a general picture of a horse (ideal going, ideal trip etc), the formguide is excellent - but to find which horses handled the ground best in one particular race - surely viewing is better than any formbook ?

[mowgli77]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method

Watching Hugh Taylor on ATR today giving out his 'eyecatchers' and it struck me that they were all the same ! And it only took me a few minutes from that bombshell to work out his entire selection methodology.........:tongue2 Now obviously I could keep this to myself and beat the prices, but as it involves some work I won't bother. Basicaly he watches all the races and notes down horses who 'travel well'.........by that he means keep up with the pace or run on through the field without the jockey having to 'push' the horse.........ie horses who keep up with the others with the jockey sitting still whilst the others are pushing and shoving. Second step is to look for horses who travel well, but in races they are unlikely to win, either because it's their first run back after a break, they prefer a different trip or surface, bad draw, the stable is out of form etc. Third step is to wait for those horses to run in optimum conditions for a win - right trip, track etc Think I've got this sussed? Good basis for a selection method ?

Exactly how I pick mine to follow and one of the comments I always look for when reading form in listed/graded winners is "smooth headway", often suggesting a horse is looming up on the bridle while the others are being scrubbed along or ideally to see this during a race and make a note of it. You then have to concentrate on horses that find something when asked a question, those are the real classy sorts, that have another gear or a turn of foot while many others fade away and can find no more. Perfect example would be Big Bucks, travelled well, hit a flat spot but then rallied and won going away, Inglis Drever is another example. Look at Kauto's run at Kempton over Xmas, smooth as silk and then went away from them with ease. The performance is more important than the bare result which is something trends etc don't take into account. :ok

[Gingertipster]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method

I beg to differ here tbh' date=' I believe you can see much better when watching races which horses handle the ground, are suited by the distance etc that what the formbook can tell you after the race. To build a general picture of a horse (ideal going, ideal trip etc), the formguide is excellent - but to find which horses handled the ground best in one particular race - surely viewing is better than any formbook ?[/quote'] It all depends on what form study you do. If it is just 10 mins looking through the Racing Post formguide then it won't help a great deal. If it is a more thorough study then it will be a far greater help. Also: How many races do you watch for your assessment to be good enough? Say one punter does his form study primarily from watching TV and another does it primarily from form study. When looking at the TV it is easy to think something finishing 20 lengths behind in fifth did not run to form, did not act on the going, was outstayed etc. Where as a form student already knows the horse did not have form to win the race and may well have run to form in fifth. He may already know it acts on the going and stays the trip etc. from it's previous runs. Say a punter views a TV recording of the last run of all the contenders: It is near impossible to just view a race and consider things like going and form etc; without knowing what each of those horses you are watching, were capable of before that race. ie Unless you know form and characteristics of the contenders before their last run; it is difficult to judge that last run. Where as a form book tells you this. How long is it going to take you to watch every relevant race? You may even want to know what the horses each contender beat / was beaten by have done since. Has the form been franked?

[stewartd14]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method

It all depends on what form study you do. If it is just 10 mins looking through the Racing Post formguide then it won't help a great deal. If it is a more thorough study then it will be a far greater help. Also: How many races do you watch for your assessment to be good enough? Say one punter does his form study primarily from watching TV and another does it primarily from form study. When looking at the TV it is easy to think something finishing 20 lengths behind in fifth did not run to form, did not act on the going, was outstayed etc. Where as a form student already knows the horse did not have form to win the race and may well have run to form in fifth. He may already know it acts on the going and stays the trip etc. from it's previous runs. Say a punter views a TV recording of the last run of all the contenders: It is near impossible to just view a race and consider things like going and form etc; without knowing what each of those horses you are watching, were capable of before that race. ie Unless you know form and characteristics of the contenders before their last run; it is difficult to judge that last run. Where as a form book tells you this. How long is it going to take you to watch every relevant race? You may even want to know what the horses each contender beat / was beaten by have done since. Has the form been franked?

But no-one just watches the racing with no knowledge of form. This wasnt even an argument - The argument was about Hugh Taylor who finds under-rated performances visually based on what the horse can do, which is found in the formbook. These visual clues are often not found in the formbook, and if they are, then you would probably be less inclined to back the horse next time out as everyone has the available information, thus shrinking the price.

[Gingertipster]

Re: Hugh Taylor's Method

But no-one just watches the racing with no knowledge of form. This wasnt even an argument - The argument was about Hugh Taylor who finds under-rated performances visually based on what the horse can do' date= which is found in the formbook. These visual clues are often not found in the formbook, and if they are, then you would probably be less inclined to back the horse next time out as everyone has the available information, thus shrinking the price.

It was not the original thread topic I was responding to Stewart, others have said they pay more attension to watching TV races than "studying form". So there was a discussion going, if not exactly an "arguement". I am only saying what I do and why I do it. All depends what form book you get. Some books will tell you when the horse has run better than finishing position suggests. More people will see what Hugh Taylor says than will buy my form book (Timeform Perspective) . Therefore I would be less inclined to back something Hugh says is an eye catcher; because it is LESS likely to be value. When listening to Hugh, it is exactly the same as reading a form book, it's someone you respect's view (what they've seen visually) of a horse's performance. Though that is NO criticism of Hugh, just the way it is. Still interesting to here his thoughts. One of the best form students in the buisness. It is always good to make a note of something you've seen yourself. But (for me) studying form is the main thing. Each to his own. :ok