super special

[kenchar]

Neil,
Rotten luck with Super Elegant on Sat never thought Le Zagaletta would run it down,when it kicked clear in the straight I was counting the money. How many times as this happened over the I have lost count. OH the joys of punting. The main thing though I found 2.0 the place with Kafataris,so I grabbed that then waited for win fluctuations. Got 6.5 so I reckon I had a bet going for nothing with a good chance of a good priced horse saluting. Keep the specials coming especially at 6.5.

Cheers

[xanadu]

G'day kenchar,

Although Super Elegant was beaten it was not from lack of trying by ace jockey Greg Childs. At the turn he was behind a number of horses but he summed up the position in an instant and drove his horse through a gap which presented itself and rode his horse very hard to the line only to be beaten by that old marvel La Zagaletta. This shows you why it is best to concentrate your bets to those runners which are ridden by masterful jockeys. Sure, he didn't win on this occasion but more importantly, Childs gave his mount every hope.

Cheers.

[umrum]

also prebble drove through a narrow gap on the grey ghost instead of hooking wide. his ride was superb.

how wide did arnold take magical miss. Universal prince couldnt have won from there.

[crash]

Hi all, Super Elegant needed another run. Suffered from classic 2nd. up flatness. Would be impossible to catch now. It was a faily weak race anyway. Super Elegent might not have placed otherwise.

Thats my view anyway.

Cheers.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-01 11:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-01 12:00 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-01 14:47 ]</font>

[xanadu]

In summary, if we stick to backing class horses ridden by class, in-form jockeys then we should look forward to a profitable spring.
There is an old system which selects horses in the 1/1 - 7/2 range, ridden by one of the top three jockeys(or if you like, the top 3 strike-rate riders). If more than one runner qualifies, then back each or eliminate any that you choose to. This used to work extraordinarily well years ago but I haven't checked it for some time. It is a system directed specifically for featuire races and carnival time but it should also work very well on the very strong Victorian Spring Provincial carnival circuit(Bendigo, Werribee etc).
Maybe one of the forum's stats experts may be able to monitor this method.

Cheers.

bad luck guys you were close but no cigar?????????thats racing???????but i collected my cigar with the winner ,the old white casper....paid $5.00 not a bad result from my $5.00 horse racing software...jockey to follow brett prebble...

[kenchar]

Hi Crash,
You said the Trainer & Foreman Of Super Elegant said that it was 1 run short.
You dont think thats because they wanted 11/2 about their horse and not 3/1 which it would have been had they got on the media and said it cant be beat BLAH BLAH. The 11/2 was available with about 1 minute to go lasted for 30seconds and started 5/1. Do think it might have been stable money at the last minute. Lets face it racing is about the almighty dollar not the love of horses. Just a thought on my part maybe right maybe wrong???????????

CHEERS

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-09-01 14:02, xanadu wrote:
There is an old system which selects horses in the 1/1 - 7/2 range, ridden by one of the top three jockeys(or if you like, the top 3 strike-rate riders). If more than one runner qualifies, then back each or eliminate any that you choose to. This used to work extraordinarily well years ago but I haven't checked it for some time. Maybe one of the forum's stats experts may be able to monitor this method.

Cheers.


Xanadu,

Doesn't look too good.

Bear in mind that I selected my own jockeys and these stats are for about 8 months, so not limited to Spring Carnival.

Jockeys Considered
D Oliver
G Childs
K McEvoy

Tote Price Considered (at jump)
$2.00 => $4.50

Selections 130
Winners 36
Strike Rate 27.69%
Profit <font color=red>-$13.10</font>
Profit On Turnover <font color=red>-10.08%</font>
Average Dividend $3.25

Perhaps someone with a larger database can provide more feedback.

Incidentally, if you change the price to between $5.00 and $10.00.
Selections 242
Winners 39
Strike Rate 16.12%
Profit <font color=green>$27.40</font>
Profit On Turnover <font color=green>11.32%</font>
Average Dividend $6.91


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-01 17:39 ]</font>

[Neil]

Hi Kenchar,
It was a good run by Super Elegant. I couldn't believe the odds. Super Elegant was a massive overlay for both the win and the place.

Hi Crash, you wrote:
"Hi all, Super Elegant needed another run. Suffered from classic 2nd. up flatness. Would be impossible to catch now. It was a faily weak race anyway. Super Elegent might not have placed otherwise."

I'm not certain where you got Super Elegant as being second up from. This was its fifth run after a four week freshen up. Horses second up are also often very good bets. Horses second up being a risk is just another betting myth that is pushed in the media and yet another rule that many punters follow which helps them to avoid backing winners. Each horse second up needs to be looked at on its merits, and assessed against the field etc. it is meeting.

I agree with you Crash. It was a pretty ordinary Group 2 WFA race. But Super Elegant was racing against THAT field, not another field, so the comment that in a stronger race "Super Elegent might not have placed otherwise" is pretty much off topic. Super Elegant was selected as a strong bet in Saturday's race, NOT in another race.
Cheers, Neil

[umrum]

it did look a week field however if you look back to last spring le zagaleta lost the liston by a lip to sports and then ran a lip second to Northerly in the craiglee. so the ghostly grey is around where he was last year. Perhaps there are no Northerly's but there will always only be one Northerly!

[Dale]

On 2003-09-01 17:21, Chrome Prince wrote:

Xanadu,

Doesn't look too good.

Bear in mind that I selected my own jockeys and these stats are for about 8 months, so not limited to Spring Carnival.

Jockeys Considered
D Oliver
G Childs
K McEvoy

Tote Price Considered (at jump)
$2.00 => $4.50

Selections 130
Winners 36
Strike Rate 27.69%
Profit <font color=red>-$13.10</font>
Profit On Turnover <font color=red>-10.08%</font>
Average Dividend $3.25

Perhaps someone with a larger database can provide more feedback.

Incidentally, if you change the price to between $5.00 and $10.00.
Selections 242
Winners 39
Strike Rate 16.12%
Profit <font color=green>$27.40</font>
Profit On Turnover <font color=green>11.32%</font>
Average Dividend $6.91


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-01 17:39 ]</font>


Chrome Prince it seems to me that the lower price range is over bet and poor value, you could try eliminating all races with less than 10/12 starters and uping the limit price to $3.00 that might create enough value to turn things around.

[Chrome Prince]

umrum,

Did you hear the racecaller call you "an old bugger" when you raced on Saturday?

:lol:

[partypooper]

Neil, on the question of 2nd up, I guess must be among those ill informed as I've always believed that 2nd up after WINNING first up was a bad deal??? I wonder if anyone has stats on this?? I'm talking here in general of course.

[crash]

Neil,

Must have had a "Seniors moment" re. 2nd up.
However, I stick with the weak race view in that for a "Memsie Stakes" it was a weak race. Le Zagaletta is an 8yr. old and the young and fit couldn't catch him. Dosn't say much about the comp. for a race of that standard.

2nd up horses do tend to run flat [thanks Party pooper, I ment also after winning] the older they get. 2 and 3yr. olds are usualy fine. It's the 3rd. or 4th. run to be on with older horses I think.

Heard a good story recently about tricky Trainers Kenchar.
Up at Newcastle a punter was told about a 10/1 chance by the trainer that the horse was "sour" , but convinced the horse was a good bet anyway on recent form for the odds, and with only 2min. to go it was a Tote rather than Bookie bet due to prices on offer.
At the Tote window the punter looked across to the other windows only to see the trainers whole stable gang lining up to back the "sour" horse!

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-02 07:50 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-09-02 08:04 ]</font>

[kenchar]

Crash
The best sting Ive ever seen was again at Newcastle many years ago when there was a very strong betting ring and lots of them.
The fav opened very short,a well dressed couple started backing the 2nd fav,it came in & in & in.the sheep started to follow,the fav went out&out&out. With about one minute to jump the commission agents stepped in, I reckon there was nearly one for every bookie.The fav won with a leg in the air. It was beautiful to watch a real masterpiece.Imagine that on sky today the tote on 2nd fav would come into 1.5. They wasted a little to get the sheep to follow to win a lot.

cheers

[Mark]

The second up syndrome.......another racing myth.

[umrum]

chrome prince,

yes umrum is an old bugger and as much as i would love to keep watching him I think his time has come. I think leon and connections
should call it a day. He has been a great horse. I believe he has run on caufield guineas day for the last six years. I reckon that is close to the best day of racing on the calendar.

cheers

old bugger

[crash]

Off to the soap factory with you Umrum [you should raise a lather].

Cheers.

[umrum]

On 2003-09-02 16:39, crash wrote:

Off to the soap factory with you Umrum [you should raise a lather].

Cheers.

i'd settle for a lush paddock

[Chrome Prince]

Second up stats after last start win.

479 runners
69 winners
14.40% strike rate
$311.70 return
$4.52 average dividend
<font color=red>-$167.30</font> Loss
<font color=red>34.92%</font> Loss on Turnover.

A myth?
:wink:

[partypooper]

Thanks Chrome, that's all I will say!!!.......

[Mark]

Now run every horse at first up, 3rd run, 4th run, 5th run etc....

[Mark]

I said 2nd up, not 2nd up after a win!

[Chrome Prince]

On 2003-09-03 01:22, Mark wrote:
I said 2nd up, not 2nd up after a win!


Hi Mark,

My post was light hearted and now that I look back at it, could have been interpreted as "having a go."
That was not intended at all.

Another poster had asked about horses 2nd up after a win, so that's what I provided.

Obviously, I'm happy to provide other crteria for 2nd up, but I feel you'd need extra criteria to judge it, as 2nd up when the horse ran last (for example) would not be a true reflection of any impact of the 2nd up hoodoo.

[Mark]

Chrome Prince,

No mate, no offence taken, I believe that like wide barriers, the so called 2nd up from a spell syndrome is just a myth. If one of our holders of data bases could run through some reults, no filters, of the LOT/POT of horses 1st up, 2nd up, 3rd up etc I would be very surprised if 2nd up runners fared any worse (on averge) than any of the others. In fact I would expect them all to show a loss, that is the nature of gambling into a market greater than 100%.

[Chrome Prince]

Mark,

The only filter that I've used is in first up runs, they must have raced prior (no first starters) just to keep things even.

FIRST UP
Selections: 2,987
Winners: 241
Strike Rate: 8.07%
POT: <font color=red>-24.48%</font>
Ave Div: $9.36

SECOND UP
Selections: 3,006
Winners: 240
Strike Rate: 7.98%
POT: <font color=red>-37.67%</font>
Ave Div: $7.81

THIRD UP
Selections: 2,655
Winners: 237
Strike Rate: 8.93%
POT: <font color=red>-36.94%</font>
Ave Div: $7.06

FOURTH UP
Selections: 2,217
Winners: 240
Strike Rate: 10.83%
POT: <font color=red>-10.11%</font>
Ave Div: $8.30

FIFTH UP
Selections: 1,783
Winners: 197
Strike Rate: 11.05%
POT:<font color=green>11.07%</font>****
Ave Div: $10.05

Interesting stuff.

Mark is right, second up horses are no worse statistically (miniscule difference) on the actual strike rate.
However, horses second and third up are by far the worst POT.
Fifth up was a complete surprise!

Fifth up results include a 50/1 winner, an 80/1 winner, and a 217/1 winner!!!

Watch this gem get marketed by you know who now :lol:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-03 17:47 ]</font>

[Mark]

Cheers Chrome, I'll go you halves in the marketing.

:lol:

[Chrome Prince]

Look for the ChroMark system in your racing mag available at your local newsagent next week!

If you can't afford the magazine we'll bombard you with glossy brochures.

:lol:

Actually, in all seriousness, the figures did demonstrate one thing apart from the 2nd up fallacy - based on the data, the more runs a horse has from a spell, statistically speaking, it has a better chance!

Instead of "training off", it appears they just get fitter. Of course the figures are raw at this stage and in future, I'll try and get more than 5 runs in to compare latter runs.

I have a gut feeling that 5 runs in just might be the peak strike rate, but need more data to go on.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chrome Prince on 2003-09-03 23:08 ]</font>

[Mark]

In general I agree, but they all horses are different. I think most punters forget they are animals not machines.

[ubetido]

hi all

Thought i'd throw in another couple of factors that is to calculate distance and days since last start in the equation.

1st uppers have a good record from 1000m to 1200m races also
look at the number of days since last start those that have run close to there last starts race over the sprint distance as indicated dont always perform well.

The stats i have read somewhere? is that horses that run over say 1000m the fresher the better say ist up or 21 days or more since last start.

Be interesting to see if it does make a difference.

regards
ubetido

[partypooper]

Chrome, thanks for the time and effort, on the question of 1st uppers do the stats improve if the distance is restricted to 1200 metres or less???

[Chrome Prince]

Partypooper,

Not really!

Of course as Mark says, each horse will have it's own patterns etc, so taking bulk stats is not the be all and end all, but it does give you a guide to what you're up against.