Bit of a rant/review really... I had a proper crack at following a few different racing previews this morning and bloody hell, most of them read like they were written to sound smart, not to find a winner.
The newspaper-style ones do my head in the most. Same safe picks every meet, loads of fluff, then if the fave gets rolled they act like it was some brave moral victory because they mentioned one roughie in passing. Cheers mate, very useful after the horse has run sixth.
I actually reckon the best stuff is usually from the smaller punters who just stick to one circuit and know the trainers, track pattern, which jocks are flying, all that boring stuff that actually matters. The big tip pages feel lazy half the time. You can tell when someone's just looked at the market, copied the top 3 and chucked in a sentence about "maps well" and called it analysis.
Also not a fan of those flashy bookie previews. Feels like they're there to get you having a bet in the arvo more than helping you find value. Lot of confidence, not much edge. Same vibe as getting footy tips from your loudest mate at the pub.
Only thing I've had some use from lately is watching for late market moves and checking track bias after the first couple, then comparing that to whoever was keen on leaders or backmarkers before the jump. That tells me more than half the pre-race content floating around.
Maybe I'm being harsh, but I swear decent racing analysis is getting harder to find. Who do you lot actually rate for a proper read before the first? Anyone worth following for metro stuff or even provincial mail, or is everyone just sorting the genuine info from the usual noise now?