Super-cautious place selection system

[hermes]

In complete contrast to the "Simple Selection System" I posted, which is about fairly mindless scatter-gun betting, chasing the horses you'd never select otherwise, here's a detailed method of selecting sure things to place.

I'd really appreciate some feedback from experienced and serious placebetters. I'm interested in serious placebetting. First step for me: achieve a really solid strike rate. Super-cautious bets. My "system" is evolving. I'm adding insights, statiscal filters, whatever. Unlike the simple selection method I posted, this is not mechanical. It depends on being able to assess a race and the more you really know about horse racing the better you'll do. I don't think there is any substitute for that.

But it is still based on last start winners. It is based on the stat that gives last start winners a high chance of running a place. Its a good stat.

I've got a couple of versions of this system. Basically it is:


Race Selection

*No more than fourteen runners in a race. Twelve or less preferred. In a fourteen horse race are there at least two runners you can eliminate as having no chance?
*No hurdles or steeples.
*No 2yo or maidens
*Metropolitan races only.
*Not too many last start winners:

8 runners = no more than 2
9 runners = 2
10 runners = 2
11 runners = 3
12 runners = 3
13 runners = 3
14 runners = 4

Where there are several last start winners, check them out in detail. If the race is too competitive, no bet.

*No races where there are two zip star horses.
*No races where all runners are within four points of zip. Look at the zip. How many horses are below four points of zip? If none or too few, no bet.

Don't be tempted into relaxing parameters for races to create more bets. It is better to have fewer races or even none some weeks. The objective is sure bets over time. Be patient.

Qualifiers

Qualifiers are last start winners.

Where there are several last start winners, read their detailed form. Which ran the better last race in times and lengths, at which track, carrying what weight? Compare and rate them.

Essential Parameters:

*Ran within the last 28 days.
*A Nines horse. (Good results last four starts)
*Within 4 of the Zip.
*Within the top prizewinners in the race:

8 runners = 2
9 runners = 2
10 runners = 3
11 runners = 3
12 runners = 4
13 runners = 4
14 runners = 4

Look carefully at the prizewinners. A selection MUST have a strong prizewinning percentage to match its recent form.

*Barrier to runner. Look at barrier. Do you think the horse's run will be effected by its barrier position? Is it a frontrunner with a wide barrier? If there are any doubts, no bet.
*Place percentage rate above 33%. Essential.
*Eliminate if no starts this track AND no starts this distance, unless this is true of all runners.

Preferred Parameters.

Qualifiers must satisfy at least five of these seven parameters.

*A win strike rate better than 12.0%.
*A place strike rate better than 47%
*Won over this distance.(especially after five or more starts).
*Placed at this track (especially after three or more starts).
*No zeros in its form figures.
*1st to 6th place in its second last start.
*Saddlecloth 1, 2, 3 or 4.


Jockey & Trainer

Look at jockey and trainer, especially if a horse does not meet several of the preferred parameters. A good jockey/trainer can overcome a lack of some parameters; but also a horse that meets all or most parameters can overcome mediocre jockey/trainer. If a horse has the state's top jockey/trainer combination you might decide to relax some of the preferred (but not the essential) parameters.

Final Check & Selection

Final check: We are looking for a quality horse in good recent form in a good barrier position with a good trainer and a good jockey that has a proven ability to be in the money at the winning post. Have we got one?

Basically, this method involves reading up the form of the last start winners in selected races. In the end the question is: Do you think it will be in the first three at the winning post? How do you rate its chances of running first?

If there is only one such horse in a race, it is the selection. Selection is the only horse that fits the parameters. Don't relax the parameters to create more bets. Only relax the parameters because of the weight of other stand-out factors. For instance if a horse has run places in all six last races then it might not matter if it hasn't run a place at this track.

Selections are our FIVE STAR horses. No more than one per race day. We bet to place.

The magic ingredient is: DISCIPLINE. Chase a perfect strike rate. 100%. Bet as if your life depended on it and as if an out is the end of the world.

The selection on Wednesday would have been Moonee Valley, race 4, #1 Silver Birch. (EI's five star horse!)

No fun. But its more fun than going broke.

Serious placebetters: should I pursue this or just buy a tattslotto ticket every week?

Hermes

[becareful]

Hermes,

I am not a place-better (so feel free to ignore these comments!) but my main question is what are you trying to achieve with this? It seems to me that any horse that gets through this selection is not going to pay more than about $1.50 or so for the place - 1 or 2 bets a week at $1.50 is not going to make you a lot of money. Just seems like a LOT of work to go through all that selection on all the races for such a small return? Also no matter how good your selections you are always going to have some losses due to bad luck or just a horse failing for no reason. My OPINION is that if you are going to do place-only betting then you need a reasonable number of bets per week to get something out of it (but maybe I'm just impatient!).

Anyway best of luck with whatever you do.

[hermes]

Becareful,

Thanks for your advice. It is warmly received.

There are placebetters here on this forum and elsewhere who make good long term profits from precision placebetting. The volume of races is small, the average return is lousy, but a high strike rate gets you there.

Being fairly new to the punting game I'm trying to look at all approaches.

One thing I've learned so far: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm just playing around at the moment but when I settle down and take up some serious betting I want to have several quite different methods going. One of them is precision placebetting. The work involved in finding that precision bet need not be wasted, though, because I'Ii have other systems going and I'II be looking for those selections too. The other spin off is that I might hopefully learn something about horses with this super-thorough approach rather than just playing with numbers. That's an investment, whatever system I use. The method I posted above is really just a structured way to think around a race.

I am concentrating on placegetters. The basis of my over-all strategy will be placegetters. There are several reasons for this. One is that I want to build a very secure, if very boring, system for my main bank. It's OK if they pay $1.40 as long as you get them week after week. Having achieved and maintained a high strike rate you can then introduce staking strategies to multiply those small but reliable margins.

If that's deadly dull, placbetting also leads into trifectas. My second bank will be for a trifecta method. Anything but dull.

But that's mainly why I want precision placebetting in my bag of tools.

[hermes]

Tommorow (Sat. 6th July) the Five Star with Bells On It place bet is...

Race 2 Sunshine Coast, #1 Past Blast.

It meets all the parameters on paper. The only horse in all tommorow's races to do so.

Race parameters - OK. 14 runners. Hcp. 1200m. One zip star. However, four last start winners in 14. A question mark.


*Ran within the last 28 days yep.
*A Nines horse - yep.
*Within 4 of the Zip - yep.
*Within the top prizewinners in the race - yep, but fourth best. Question mark.


*Barrier to runner. Runs from behind, barrier 8 in 14. No worries.
*Place percentage rate above 33%. Essential. - yep. 58.6%
*Eliminate if no starts this track and this distance - starts at track and distance are outstanding!

Qualifiers must satisfy at least five of these seven parameters.

*A win strike rate better than 12.0% - yep.
*A place strike rate better than 47% - yep.
*Won over this distance.(especially after five or more starts).- excellent!
*Placed at this track (especially after three or more starts).- very good!
*No zeros in its form figures. - no last places.
*1st to 6th place in its second last start.- yep, a good fourth.
*The highest weighted last start winner. - YES!
*Saddlecloth 1, 2 or 3. - YES!

Jockey and trainer OK. I like Cahill.

None of the other last start winners in the race can match it on paper. The best of them is #4 Youthful, but it fails on average prizewinnings. (But Past Blast's aren't that flash.)

Past Blast's last was a blast. It won at Doomben on the 26/6. Came from near last and ran 'em down. Was in a difficult spot and overcame it. I like that.

So selection is #1 Past Blast to place.

HOWEVER, look at its weight. That weight and four other last start winners in a field of 14, without a more healthy prizewinning average. Gee. If I was betting real money on it, I wouldn't be so sure. Like I say, I'm aiming for a super-high strike rate. A couple of bets a week, or even one, is fine. Got Silver Birch on Wednesday.

In a real life investment situation you could have a lot of money riding on these place bets. That's why you want precision. Err on the side of caution.

Here I'd have to judge the weight factor, the other last start winners (not forgetting #11 Wagstaffe), against Past Blast's impressive track/distance record which is the stand-out stat in this race. Past Blast is coming up in fitness I reckon. Will the weight drag it back beyond third? Excuse me for thinking aloud....

Selection is #1 Past Blast - Hermes Five-Star with Bells On It place bet for the day. So safe you could almost bet your marriage on it.

#11 Wagstaffe and #8 Slick Operator the other placegetters.

Trifecta: box 1,4, 8, 11.

Hermes

[Placegetter]

...... should I pursue this or just buy a tattslotto ticket every week?


Hermes, I personally think you are onto something. The process is not too dissimilar to the one I work through in order to obtain selections.

One question: How are you going to stake it?

In relation to your comments about discipline, it's all been said but I put it like this:

The average punter can not bear to watch his horse go around without money on it. Heaven forbid it won and there was no collect! You need to remove that mindset. If you can't, you need a second bank.

Personally, I have gone with the latter option. (Sometimes I'll just put a dollar on something to prove I was right). Whichever you choose, this decision could make or break you in the world of placebetting and betting in general.

Good luck.

Placegetter

I think you still missed the winner.

[Placegetter]

For what it's worth hermes, I would rate Wagstaffe higher on the strength of it's last start distance being the same as the race. We'll find out tomorrow I guess.

Lumbarusa, who is the winner may I ask?

Placegetter

You may ask, but I may not answer.

[Placegetter]

Good for you Lumbarusa. Stick to your guns I say! Good luck tomorrow, hope it turns out well for you.

Placegetter

[Equine Investor]

Good luck with it hermes!

I too also think you are onto something.

What puzzles me are the various postings around the forum which claim to have the winner, or a selection method, or a formula, but they are unwilling to share it. Everyone is entitled to share or not, but I just wonder about the motivation of making the posting in the first place!

:???:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-05 18:37 ]</font>

[hermes]

Placegetter,

You ask what staking system I am proposing. I also note you wrote on another posting topic:


"Are you a place bettor? We have developed quite a gathering here of late. Personally I think the staking of your system is just as important as the system itself, your method must fit your betting sequences. You can really accelerate your bank if you know how to stake it...."

I am aware of this. I am proposing, for precision placebetting, one or two bets per week, simultanerous sequences of flat bets, two-race all-ups and three-race all-ups. I have checked out the maths of the system used by Mr Testarossa on this forum which I understand is not dissimiliar to your own method. Like the maths! I am proposing something similiar but tailored, as you say, to fit my betting sequences. Alternatively, I am trialling a few, including the almost famous Barry's Retirement Plan, noted widely on this forum which looks good to me, but not sure for placebetting. What do you think? I'm looking for low risk schemes for proftable place betting.

I really need to establish my strike rate etc. and craft a staking strategy to it.

Placegetter you also wrote in your other post:

"I am starting to take an interest in the trifecta side of racing now, using my place selections as rovers..."

The direction of my interests exactly.

---------

Equine Investor.

If I had a system that made mega bucks I would not only keep my cards close to my chest but I would not even tell anyone that I am keeping my cards close to my chest. If I've got a sure-thing hot tip on a turbo-charged roughie that no one is backing, I'm not going to post it on the Internet, am I? I'm not even going to tell you what race it is. I'm not going to tell you anything at all. I'm not even going to tell you that I'm not telling you. "I've got a hot tip in race 5 but I'm not telling you what it is..."

I live in Bendigo. There are a lot of gold fossickers around here. What do you make of a guy who finds an untapped seam of surface gold out near Tarnagulla and comes into town and announces at the bar in the Shamrock Hotel, "I've found an untapped seam of surface gold out near Tarnagulla, but I'm not gonna show you where it is." ???

Thanks for the encouraging words. Any "traps for new players" appreciated.

Hermes

[Equine Investor]

That's my point hermes, there are things I don't share on this forum, however, am willing to provide input and feedback. I just don't see what is to be gained by saying "I have something - but I'm not going to tell anyone"

All the best to whomever finds something that's solid gold; but if you're not going to share it, then why bother posting, it serves no purpose to the community.
Just my two cents.

On the retirement staking plan...

Actually Barry claims this to be his own, but I have since learned that it was around for a long time in England and punters have used it in Engand and Ireland for quite some time. Barry merely made some modifications.

The first thing to do is work out your strike rate, at least 20 winners minimum before you get any sort of guide. And also your average dividend. I think the RTS (retirement staking plan) will not work efficiently where your average dividend is less than even money.

Anyhow good luck with it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-05 20:47 ]</font>

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-05 20:33, hermes wrote:

Placegetter,

I also note you wrote on another posting topic...............

Placegetter you also wrote in your other post..............

Hermes


Are you stalking me? :lol: I wish my wife would listen to me more.

My suggestion, and it's only that, would be to start off on the level stakes and doubles first, then once you are sure of you strike rate, go for the trebles. A smart man once told me that these should be the cream on your cake!

Hint: Look elsewhere on this site for my wife's hot tips for the weekend. Her system has proven amazing so far (1 out of 1 at 20/1!) Not sure what her staking plan is yet!

Placegetter

If you have been punting for a while you'd already know the answer

[becareful]

EI - have to agree with you there. I have no problems with people wanting to keep their systems and/or selections to themselves but I don't understand people who just post "that will not win" without any explanation - either their idea of what the winner will be or a justification for why the other selection wont win (eg. wont carry the weight or go the distance, etc). Certainly doesn't contribute anything to the forum to simply post "you're wrong" without anything to back it up!

I hate to say I told you so....but I did.
Rather than complain it would've been better for you to have another look at the race.

[Privateer]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-07-11 15:39 ]</font>

I was talking to the others (not Hermes) that complained when I didn't tell them the winner.

[Privateer]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-07-11 15:40 ]</font>

[becareful]

Lumbarsua - You don't seriously expect us to believe that you picked Youthful as the winner of the race do you?

[Placegetter]

Hermes - 0/3
Lumbarsua - 1/11

Hermes, you still have 8 selections left to catch up to lumbarsua. Pressure's on but I think you can do it.

Becareful, would it be a stretch of the imagination if I said I got the quinella? Having already told you that Wagstaffe was my top rater, I guess not. Paid $43.20 in God's country.

By the way, I know all the winners for next weeks races, but have decided not to tell.

Placegetter

[Placegetter]

"Qualifiers must satisfy at least five of these seven parameters.

*A win strike rate better than 12.0%.
*A place strike rate better than 47%
*Won over this distance.(especially after five or more starts).
*Placed at this track (especially after three or more starts).
*No zeros in its form figures.
*1st to 6th place in its second last start.
*Saddlecloth 1, 2, 3 or 4."

Just realised something. Youthful met six of these parameters, and the place percentage was a lousy 1 point off even that!

Interesting.......

Placegetter

[Equine Investor]

Placegetter, SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHH!

You might let the other 328 members of this forum know what you are backing, and then we will all blindly bet our houses on it with the leading rails bookies, and if that's not enough plunge it into favouritism on the tab with a win pool of over $600,000 in Victoria alone, never mind the other odd millions of "mug" punters in the TAB's who will change all their bets for the day coz they see we're onto a good thing!

:roll:

[hermes]

Regarding today's race I wrote:

"None of the other last start winners in the race can match it on paper. The best of them is #4 Youthful, but it fails on average prizewinnings. (But Past Blast's aren't that flash.)"

With hindsight the problem was here, wasn't it? In fact, as Placegetter points out, Youthful met all the criteria so Past Blast was not way ahead on paper. And average prizewinnings was no basis for ruling Youthful out in favour of Past Blast - ordinary prizewinnings too. I ignored the rule:

"A selection MUST have a strong prizewinning percentage to match its recent form."

Also reckon I failed on:

"Where there are several last start winners, read their detailed form. Which ran the better last race in times and lengths,at which track, carrying what weight? Compare and rate them."

Once I eliminated Youthful on prizewinnings I looked no further.

Another point:

"However, four last start winners in 14. A question mark..."

Four last start wiunners in fourteen runners. Too many. Tighten this parameter I think. A general failing this time was underestimating the last start winners. A sober assessment of the calibre of the competition should have led to a NO BET decision.

And finally:

"The magic ingredient is: DISCIPLINE. Chase a perfect strike rate. 100%. Bet as if your life depended on it and as if an out is the end of the world."

Failed miserably here. I looked at the race. Checked it out. And didn't like it. Didn't like the weight and the other last start winners. I should have listened to my own advice and rules. There were too many question marks against Past Blast. It came through the selection process but unconvincingly. For a selection you have to be CONVINCED.

I wasn't convinced, but I really wanted to try it out...

An undisciplined bet. That's the main reason I lost.

Hermes

[Placegetter]

Hermes,

I liked your system. I think you are being a little harsh on yourself. The problem with qualitative systems is they require human input and believe it or not, we make mistakes fairly often. (I made a costly one in the Doomben 10,000 recently!)

Stick with it, the rules are fine and you can only learn their application through experience. Eventually you will can a rule or two (you need to) but which ones will only be learnt through trial and error.

Good luck

Placegetter

[Privateer]

Deleted as obviously of no value.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Privateer on 2002-07-11 15:38 ]</font>

[Numerator]

Here's a quick little idea for a super-cautious place system
RULE 1. Races of 9 starters or more at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane meetings on Saturdays
RULE 2. To be a selection the horse must have a 90 percent or more placegetting record from at least 9 life starts, and its latest start must have been within the last 18 days
RULE 3. Be patient, really patient

1/6/02 No selections
8/6/02 No selections
15/6/02 1 selection. SR4/6 Irish Letter 3rd $1.80
22/6/02 No selections
29/6/02 No selections
6/7/02 3 selections
SR4/2 Marvilha 3rd $1.50
SR6/7 Paestum 2nd $4.20
SR7/7 Bulletproof Billy Won $5.90 & $2.40

You'd be hanging out for a selection but at least its super cautious. Possibly just a rough idea to bend and twist and play around with. I've cheated by testing it backwards, and it only makes sense testing these things on FUTURE events

Keep up all the interesting posts Hermes. Top stuff and always worth a read.

[hermes]

Looking at past races to see how the method works.

Here's an eligible race. Race 8, Flemington, June 8th. An out.

The selection was #7 Moonah Brooke. A great set of numbers, but not there at the winning post. The other two last start winners were. Three in the race and I selected the one who didn't salute. But I can't see any reason I wouldn't have backed Moonah Brooke. Met all parameters. Neither of the other LSW were comparable.

Maybe my selection criteria find horses that are too good? Maybe such horses only exist on paper. In real life and the rough and tumble of a race maybe a horse needs a bad stat or two to make it a goer? Maybe I should add a final rule: eliminate any horse that meets ALL parameters. Real placegetters just aren't that good!

An example of the parameters working well to save me money was Eagle Farm, Race 5, June 8th. Three last start winners, Altiero, Forest Jim, Maltese Beauty. On first sights, one of them should be a selection. Alteiro has outstanding stats and meets all preferred parameters, including saddlecloth and highest weighted LSW, but fails on the essential parameter, nines. Recent form = 4x561. No way you can make 9 out of that. 4+5+1 = 10. Disqualified. This calculation really means there is a question mark about recent reliable form that is big enough question mark to rule a line through this one. Only one point, I know, but essential parameter. You can relax preferred ones but not essential ones. No nines - out.

Maltese Beauty likes to lead but has drawn barrier 12. Out.

So we turn to Forest Jim. Forest Jim looks promising. Essential parameters OK. But fails three of the preferred parameters. Saddlecloth - no. Highest weight LSW - no. 1st-6th second last start - no. Since Altiero is only eliminated on one criterion, and so you'd have to rate it a strong chance, Forest Jim would need to be compelling. But three fails. Out. So this race is no bet. And so it was. None of the qualifiers placed.

This does not take account of my innate capacity to over-ride my own rules and mess it up.

Finally, here's a winner. Eagle Farm, R2, #2, Smart Chariot. By my system, a sure thing. And so it was. Everyone agreed. It paid $1.20.

Was it Equine Investor who posted wise words about having an angle? I guess the angle in this system is sheer, monolithic patience. Bit by bit, $1.20 by $1.20 you wear the system down. Again, its the strike rate that counts, not the price, but you could set a price parameter too.

If Smart Chariot was eliminated on price grounds, then we turn to Race 6. Vic. Park. #2 Romadila. Meets the parameters, ran first, $1.70 place (Vic. TAB). ($3.40 win,). Almost as good as Smart Chariot on paper at a healthier price. But would I have bet that way on the day?

Not calculating my strike rate for this from old races though. I think with something like this you can only gauge a strike rate on future races.

Hermes

[hermes]

Thanks Numerator. The centre-piece in your system is the HI STRIKER. Don't you have other systems based on a high place percentage, or is it someone else on this forum?

Rule 3. is the hard one.

And of course if you can only gauge your strike rate on future events then you're itching for future events.

Hermes.

[hermes]

A few contenders tommorow and a selection.

Race 8 at Warwick Farm. Kurrajong Mist.

Meets all essential parameters but fails two preferred. Looking closer the last start win wasn't very convincing - a nose at Cessnock - and the start before that, tenth at Rosehill. In contrast see Coablo in this race. Third last start, but only by a tad at Rosehill. Coablo's last was better than Kurrajong Mist's despite the form figures. Jockey - an apprentice but still up in weight. Not convinced by the last start performance. Don't like it. No bet.


Race 6 Sandown #5 Power in Motion.

A winner at Donald last start up against a winner at Bendigo and a winner at Sale. But doesn't have the preferred place percentage. Worse, race on the pace, barrier 11. Out.

Race 2 Sandown #1 Stolen Crown.

Looks good all round but below the preferred place percentage which is a worry. Not a good place percentage. Also, no starts this track. But good form. Has put together three good results, 121 in last starts, all good races in Melb, all with apprentices, as this time. Running on the pace from barrier 5. OK. The other last start winner, Blamey, can't compare. And the competition isn't flash. Look at the zip ratings. Stolen Crown gets the zip star, three full zip points ahead of its nearest rival. The zip rater thinks its head and shoulders above the rest. And the top zip is 57. The bottom is 49. In ten runners! Most races are much, much tighter. Reflected in the prize winnings too. Top horse, the Doctor's Son = $3225. Bottom horse, Connemara Marble = $308. (Compare this to say Race 5. 6 zip points between top and bottom in 14 runners. Top prize = 3665, Bottom = 1087.)

The Doctor's Son ran 9th by over 12 lengths last up.

Rock of Ages should be up there but prefer Stolen Crown's record over the distance.

So selection is #1 Stolen Crown to place. Five stars with bells.

I'm less sure it will win though. But in the context of such a race I think its a selection to place for sure. My judgement is that in this field it will be there among the first three.

Boring but there it is. Hoping for something better than $1.20!

Hermes