Here's a horse I'd never back. Well, hardly ever. It's starting in a Class 3, 1600m race worth $10,000 at Hastings (NZ), on a firm track, carrying 56kg on a 53kg minimum, drawn barrier 4.

This is the fifth start of its current campaign, the third over 1600m. It has run third or fourth at each of its last three starts. Its most recent outing was also in a Class 3 over 1600m worth $10,000 at Hastings, on a firm track, carrying 56kg on a 53kg minimum, drawn barrier 4.

It trailed the leader to the home turn, challenged in the straight and fought on well to be beaten by three-quarters of a length, a head and a neck.

That sounds like reasonable form, so why wouldn't I back it? Simple. Nothing has changed. If the horse could manage only fourth last time out, then that's where it will most likely end up this time.

To find a winner, we first have to find change. And the change we find has to be positive change.

The prime examples of positive change are a drop in class or a drop in weight. Other positive changes are an increase or decrease in distance to one more suitable for the horse, an alteration in underfoot conditions to those the horse has performed well on in the past, an improvement in fitness as the horse progresses from being fresh-up to second-up to third-up.

Assuming that each starter will get a trouble-free run (which we have to, as there's no way of foretelling misfortune in a race), then a horse who was unlucky last time out is experiencing positive changes this time around.

For a front-running sprinter, an inside barrier draw would be positive change.

Every time we come across a small field, six to nine starters or thereabouts, there's an opportunity of positive change for a frontrunner. Did it have to work hard to get to the lead last time? Was it taken on when it did get to the front? Will it be left alone this time?

If the answer to either of the first two questions is "yes" and the answer to the second is "probably", then we've found positive change.

Going back to the Hastings contender at the start of this chapter, there is a circumstance where I'd consider backing it. The fields that line up in $10,000 Class 3 races vary from week to week and meeting to meeting. Maybe the first three home in the first Hastings race were all potential top-liners, boasting good form in PQ (Premier Quality) and stakes races, with the fifth horse five lengths away.

If none of those first three line up this time around and no quality newcomers replace them, then a positive change has happened for that fourth placegetter.

Alongside positive change there exists negative change. A rise in class, a rise in weight, a change to a distance not previously tried, a change in underfoot conditions not experienced in the past, a break away from racing, a bad barrier draw, a change in field size, coming up against better-performed opposition . . . all are negative factors which will make it tougher for a horse to compete as well as it has in the past.

As well as positive and negative changes there's a third possibility which, for want of a better term, we'll call neutral change. This is where there is no way of telling beforehand whether a change will affect the outcome or  where we know it will have no influence.

I put jockey changes into this category. Sure, Jockey A may use different tactics from those of Jockey B, but unless we can talk to him before the race we have no way of knowing. And will new tactics work? Jockeys are professionals, well paid to do their work. Which one gets to ride which horse holds little interest for me.

Most changes of venue fall into this category, too. If a horse has run well at Awapuni, then there's no reason to suspect it won't run well when it lines up at Trentham or Ellerslie or Hastings.

The exceptions, which can be regarded as positive change, would be course specialists (say, at least two wins on the track and a 75 per cent place-strike rate) and horses trained on the track (another version of rugby's home-ground advantage). But a horse having its first start on a track is no cause for concern.

Gear changes don't sway me either. Blinkers on, blinkers off, nasal strips on and off . . . who cares? And who can tell if a gear change will work? They strike me as a shot in the dark.

Having found change - positive, negative or neutral - can it be quantified? Can each change be given a numerical value (points out of 100 maybe), the points added up, and the horse with the highest total wins?

The answer is . . . probably. So long as the correct values are given to each change, then the final totals should rank the horses in some sort of logical order.

And that's the key - the selection process has to be sound. A fifth in the Derby has to count for more than a fifth in a Wairoa maiden; carrying 58kg to run third in a PQ race at Trentham has to rate higher than carrying 63kg to win a maiden highweight at Te Awamutu.

All of these things can, with a bit of applied logic, be reduced to mathematical values.

The final choice, however, has to be a human choice. The maths may say horse A will finish in front of horse B. But if horse B has finished in front of horse A the only time they've met, then maybe a strong case can be mounted for overriding the maths.

And sometimes there'll be a case where a horse will score way off the register ... Dancing Daze's weight advantage at Trentham for example. Couple that with her performances in Group races the previous season and she's a standout ... never mind what any chart says.

At its best, a chart will instantly show up a horse with a winning chance. If it doesn't do this, then maybe it will suggest a line where further study would be worthwhile or indicate that this race defies analysis (and there are plenty of those).

The chart that appears below has been designed to take account of those factors I consider important those factors subject to change and where any change will influence the result. There's no place, for instance, for breeding. Nor are there slots for jockeys, trainers, track bias, favouritism or gear changes.

And while I've given examples using numerical values, I'm not as keen on that approach as I am on the dots. The danger with numbers is that the top two selections will be separated by just a couple of points in a hundred, which in practical terms means it's too close to call. Use a strict numerical system and you're virtually stuck with the topscoring horse.

By using dots, positive aspects in each area are recorded. The best chances will then be obvious to the eye (if it looks good it probably is good) and the final choice can be made on the basis of direct comparisons between the leading contenders.


Drops in grade in the class column comprise basic drops from C3 to C2, PQ to C3, and so on. Also listed would be drops within grades. Going from a $10,000 C2 at a Saturday meeting to a $5000 C2 at a midweek meeting would constitute a drop of one grade.

Changing from a $6000 midweek C3 to a $10,000 Saturday C2 can be considered as staying within the same grade - the drop in class is cancelled out by the rise in prestige of the meeting and the greater prize-money.

There are also drops by three-year-olds coming back to Cal and C2 after contesting classic and semi-classic events and by older horses reverting to handicaps after competing in weight-for-age races, especially from Group-rated events. Where there's doubt, the stake money involved, in tandem with the day of the week the meeting is held and its status, is the best guide. (Please note: References here are made to NZ race classes; Australian readers should refer to local Classes.)

This column records those horses competing well. The divisions may look completely arbitrary but a line has to drawn somewhere and the 2.5-length mark is based on long-term observation. Horses that win by 2.5 lengths have, in nearly all circumstances, dominated their opposition. A win by a greater margin is usually accomplished without the horse having to be ridden right out; it has something in reserve.

A win by less than 2.5 lengths usually entails the horse doing its best all the way to the finishing post. Winning in this manner, or being placed and getting to within a length of the winner, means a horse has been fully competitive. Any other placing deserves recording, so it gets one dot, as do those close-up fourths, fifths and sixths and maybe further back in a blanket finish. Horses who finish down the track draw a blank.

This column reinforces the worth of the entries in the Form column. A second or third gained in circumstances where a runner has been slow away, checked then forced over extra ground is more noteworthy than a placing gained after securing a perfect trail and battling on. The comments line in the formguides records any trouble a horse has met during a race and anything gained from video watching can also go in here.

Record any weight changes from a horse's most recent start or a series of starts. Be careful not to merely compare previous weights with current weights - it's kilos over the minimum that are the telling factor.

Figures in the stats line of the formguides generally supply all that's needed for this column. Watch out for odd distances, though, and work within tolerances of 100m either way.

As for Distance, the formguide stats lines have the information needed for this column ... and also check where the horse is trained.

For the purposes of this column, consider only those starting points where there's a short run to the first turn. Mostly, only front-runners are helped or hindered by barrier draws, although sometimes a trailer (a horse who races just off the pace) can also gain an advantage. Inside gate means 1, 2 or 3; handy gate means 4, 5 or 6 for a front-runner, I6 for a trailer.

These are taken straight from the NZR entry in the stats line.

This is a pass or fail column. Basically, a horse with one fresh-up run behind it would have sufficient racing for a 1200m or 1400m race; for a 1600m race two races would be needed; for anything longer, three or four starts. A flexible approach can be taken though, and the best guide is the horse's history.

A horse will either get a pass mark or a fail mark ... with a don't know constituting a fail mark. Without that pass mark, all bets are off.

Don't miss next month's PPM for the full Chart Bet Rules.

• Full details of Gil Dymock's new book Winning Ways can be found at his website:

By Gil Dymock, extracted from "Winning Ways".