This document has been produced by towerform.net. Full terms and conditions relating to all TowerForm services apply to this document. Please familiarise yourself with those terms and conditions before adapting any contents to your own betting.
Copyright exists solely with TowerForm and any possible future sales rights belong exclusively with TowerForm and any copies of this document can only be sold, lent or otherwise distributed, either in book form or electronically, with the express permission of John Clarke of TowerForm.
Though all the figures above are extremely rough approximations, it seems clear that to home in on the winners from the ratings, you need only to consider the top 3 rated marks (never more than 4 horses - notwithstanding non runners) in our handicap lists to give yourself the best chance of betting winners.
But beyond those generalisations, and because there is so much racing currently during the summer, it is imperative that you reduce the number of races you want to bet in. Never, ever carpet bomb the ratings (any ratings) for your bets. It is folly to bet in up to 10 races just because 20 are available to bet in on the day. That is one of many possible routes to the poor house. Many people specialise in race types or race distances, etc., and thus have a good percentage of winners with the least amount of form study. But what are the best ways to specialise with TowerForm's handicap listings?
First of all, while I would never tell anyone how they should bet, I can only humbly offer general suggestions based on my own betting over the past decades. Other missives about general betting using the ratings are on the Articles list of the website. Below is an extremely general overview of my process to find the first handful of possible bets a day. You may not agree but these have served me well for decades.
First the races I never use to find my main bets (This "Main Bets" section is adapted from previously published articles of TowerForm.):
Also, I initially further reduce the races I bet on seriously with the following:
1: Strike out all races with more than 14 declared runners. (simply a personal preference)
2: Strike out all races with 7 or less declared runners (the likeliest races to get a false pace)
3: Strike out all races where about one third of the runners are debutantes (pretty obvious, I would think)
4: Strike out all All Weather races (for personal reasons outlined elsewhere on TowerForm)
5: Strike out all Flat races further than 9f (less chance of a false pace. Obviously there are exceptions, such as the running styles of one or more of the runners).
6: Strike out all National Hunt races further than 20.5f (not surprisingly, races run further are invariably run at a slow pace and thus not always absolutely trustworthy form-wise - especially on soft or worse going)
7: Strike out all Nursery Handicaps (Flat), Novice Handicaps (NH) (tricky even for the official handicapper)
8: Strike out all Selling Races (generally very poor horses in these races for a reason.)
9: Strike out all NH races on forecast Good to Firm or faster going (I really need to be as certain as possible to include such races - though that doesn't mean I have a faultless record when including these races).
This may look a long list. It is just personal preferences. You may reject or baulk at some. But however you isolate your own preferred or specialised races, with regular use your own list will eventually become second nature to apply.
If I have a minimum of 3 or 4 races selected after all the above, I look at no other races but those. Normally, I don't regularly bet the races below, but I don't absolutely exclude them either. However, I only occasionally use them in serious betting when I have not reached a 3 bet minimum using the above steps.
1: Look more closely at Flat races further than 8.5f
2: Look more closely at races with more than 14 runners
3: Look more closely at Nursery (Flat) and Novice (NH) handicaps
4: Look more closely at all National Hunt races further than 20.5f
5: Look more closely at all races with 7 or less declared runners
(end of adapted previously published section)
One useful, often overlooked, aspect of finding winners in the top three rated is the use of statistics.
If you have a Racing Post subscription, there are almost limitless ways to use statistics. Jockeys, trainers, course runners, course form, trainer form, jockey form, horse jockey associations etc., etc., etc. Which ones you may be inclined to use will be a personal choice from your own experience, or from your own jockey or trainer preferences. If you don't have a Racing Post subscription, there are many other racing sites you may use or prefer - but the Racing Post is unparalleled for statistics
The pop ups on the Racing Post for trainer, jockey, horse or course statistics are limited only by your inclination to favour one or more of each aspect.
For instance, jockey/trainer records. Here, I'm not writing about the normal associations such as Sean Bowen/Olly Murphy or William Buick/ Charlie Appleby - though those associations can be useful in certain course or race type situations. No, I'm talking about such statistics as the Sean Bowen/Jack Jones hurdles association (4 wins from 6 rides), and the William Buick/Paul and Oliver Cole 3-Y-O+ association (3 wins from 3 rides). Obviously, these kinds of associations can be seasonal, but it is a great way to filter horses in any race - especially if the associations are apparent from mid season onwards.
Another example is a trainer's course record in course wins or course race type wins. It is an additional way to filter such trainer's horses that are top three rated and ridden by a jockey with a high percentage of wins for the stable, or a high percentage of course or course race type wins.
These examples are not infallible methods of filtering horses in the ratings, but they can give useful insights into a horse's chance. There are numerous other ways you might discover to use statistics that can enhance you filterings.
However, a note of caution that applies to all this article and others on the website. Don't over analyse. Too much analysis can blind you to the wood. Check out many of the suggestions published in various articles on TowerForm but only collect the few that make your selection process eliminate unneccessary bets. Look elsewhere for relevant advice. And remember the professionals are no different from you. They have all the basic information that's available to you. The only difference is, they have found ways and techniques to win. You can do the same.
To finish, here are a few analogical musings:
Punters who lose are not bad at finding winners, they can find a fair proportion. But transforming from a losing punter who bets too regularly for their own good, to a winning one with discipline can be hard - and appear to some to be an impossible task. But consider writing well, painting artistically well, playing a musical instrument well, etc.
Writers strive to find their own individual voice; artists search endlessly for their perfect expression; musicians forever explore the musical landscape to find their own inimitable style. Yet, many do find those attributes and become successful.
We've all heard the expression: "A lot of people can play the piano, but how many are concert pianists." You don't have to be a concert pianist to play the piano well. If you can master the basic C, G, A, F chord progression - and their arpeggios and inversions - you can play thousands of pop songs quite adequately.
So, don't approach finding winners as a battle within yourself, approach it as discovering a skill to improve your technique. Don't skip any steps. Learn by your mistakes. Let things progress naturally. Evolution does not happen in a day or a week, it takes time. Remember that when you're trying to eradicate losing bets. You'll all be fine if you do.
©John Clarke January 2026.
