hermes
16th August 2002, 04:03 PM
Numerous comments on this forum have prompted me to look at a totally different category of runners lately. For instance, Bhagwan says never bet on TAB numbers beyond 10 for statistical reasons. But Placegetter, I think it was, says he deliberately does the opposite to other punters. Then someone sung the virtues of TAB 12. So...
This time I've isolated runners TAB 11, 12, 13, and 14 where they are within four kilos of the top zip weight (The Zip Star) given in the Sportsman ratings. (The great majority of winners overall are within 4 of zip.) What I am after are cases where the zip ratings suggest the handicapper has underestimated a horse. Looking for long shots.
Its a fascinating category of runners. A surprising number of favourites but they rarely get up. Some race meets, no qualifiers. Other meetings, stacks. Some meetings, no results at all - wipe out. Other meetings, big returns. It is very uneven as you'd expect when chasing roughies.
I looked at random race meetings, metro and country, all races, any races back to early May - but obviously only for races where the Zip rating is available. I found 345 qualifiers. Only 34 winners. A disappointing one in ten. Return on places = $316. Return on wins = $483.70. (Queensland TAB prices.) POT of 40%. Average return = $14.20. The lowest return was $3.40 to win.
BUT, the figures are blown out by a $92 winner and a $70 winner. Without these, we'd be behind. This is worrying with such a low strike rate. So are they freaks or can you rely on some mega-winners in 350+ bets? Qualifiers regularly start at 60/1+. Sooner or later one will get up. The question is how often? In my sample, twice.
If you remove the $92 winner and only bank on one mega-winner in 350+ bets the sums still work, still ahead. Or let's call it a $30 winner instead of $92. That's still $421 return for $345. And in the sample there are $24 winners. I think the within-4-of-zip filter pins enough of them down. The method is sustained, though, by the fact that in bigger fields TABS 11, 12, 13, 14 are often not too bad quality-wise and still pay better than $6 or $7.
These are the results for the raw category with only the zip filter applied. You can then try to tweak it further. For instance, you save more than you lose if you eliminate the TAB 14s. TABS 11, 12, 13 only equals $288 outlay for $419 return. Even taking the mewgawinners out of the equation TAB 14 doesn't pay.
The drawback are the long runs of outs and the temptation to bet for place. There are some great place prices. Best was $23 to place, Pi Meson, R4 Belmont, 13/7/02.Then $15 to place. Lots of $10 to place. But not enough of them. Bet win only.
What if there is more than one qualifier in a race? I have no luck at all trying to pick which will win and which won't, so back 'em all. If any of them win you'll pay for the others. To make a viable system out of this though you need a further filter at this point.
You also need deep pockets and you need to get used to the idea that you'll collect nothing for 20 or 30 or more bets in a row. For example, my sample went:
Strike - 21 outs
Strike - 7 outs
Strike - 12 outs
Strike - 15 outs
Strike - 12 outs
Strike - 42 outs
Strike - 32 outs
Strike - 16 outs
Strike - 7 outs
Strike
Strike - 3 outs
Strike - 2 outs
Strike
Strike - 1 out
Strike - 7 outs
Strike
Strike - 30 outs...
And so on. As you can see, some meetings lots, many meetings zero. You'd be getting mighty thirsty after 42 and 32 outs in a row and there'd be whole weeks you did nothing but lose. Not recommended for those suffering from depression. But when you hit a fertile patch it pays well.
Running a bank of $100, betting $1 to win over the 345 bets you end up with $238.70. The lowest ebb was $72 at bet 43. But therein is the problem. Remove the megawinners and you go bust at bet 147.
(I spent several sleepless nights trying to get the figures for this system to add up. Eventually I realised I once again hadn't been eliminating scratchings, only checking winners. There's often lots of scratchings in this category. It enhanced my figures no end to realise that a horse didn't win because it hadn't run!)
I tried filtering by last start = meaningless. And place percentage = meaningless. The only other filter I've tried is matching qualifiers to the ratings on the Queensland TAB. Result = meaningless. Except the biggest priced winners were all rated below 90 - genuine pedigree roughies. Narrowing the range to within 3 or 2 of the zip doesn't work. So, to net long shots:
Rule 1. TAB numbers 11, 12, 13 (and 14)
Rule 2. Within 4 kilos of the Zip Star horse.
Rule 3. Bet win only.
Rule 4. Where there are several qualifiers in a single race, back them all. (Or find a reliable way to distinguish between them.)
Rule 5. Take up another interest while you wait.
Be good to find ways and means of making it more stable. I'd like to get the strike rate to around 15% at least. Ultimately I fear this method is heading for a situation of break even and you sink or swim on one-in-150 race megawinners.
Hermes
This time I've isolated runners TAB 11, 12, 13, and 14 where they are within four kilos of the top zip weight (The Zip Star) given in the Sportsman ratings. (The great majority of winners overall are within 4 of zip.) What I am after are cases where the zip ratings suggest the handicapper has underestimated a horse. Looking for long shots.
Its a fascinating category of runners. A surprising number of favourites but they rarely get up. Some race meets, no qualifiers. Other meetings, stacks. Some meetings, no results at all - wipe out. Other meetings, big returns. It is very uneven as you'd expect when chasing roughies.
I looked at random race meetings, metro and country, all races, any races back to early May - but obviously only for races where the Zip rating is available. I found 345 qualifiers. Only 34 winners. A disappointing one in ten. Return on places = $316. Return on wins = $483.70. (Queensland TAB prices.) POT of 40%. Average return = $14.20. The lowest return was $3.40 to win.
BUT, the figures are blown out by a $92 winner and a $70 winner. Without these, we'd be behind. This is worrying with such a low strike rate. So are they freaks or can you rely on some mega-winners in 350+ bets? Qualifiers regularly start at 60/1+. Sooner or later one will get up. The question is how often? In my sample, twice.
If you remove the $92 winner and only bank on one mega-winner in 350+ bets the sums still work, still ahead. Or let's call it a $30 winner instead of $92. That's still $421 return for $345. And in the sample there are $24 winners. I think the within-4-of-zip filter pins enough of them down. The method is sustained, though, by the fact that in bigger fields TABS 11, 12, 13, 14 are often not too bad quality-wise and still pay better than $6 or $7.
These are the results for the raw category with only the zip filter applied. You can then try to tweak it further. For instance, you save more than you lose if you eliminate the TAB 14s. TABS 11, 12, 13 only equals $288 outlay for $419 return. Even taking the mewgawinners out of the equation TAB 14 doesn't pay.
The drawback are the long runs of outs and the temptation to bet for place. There are some great place prices. Best was $23 to place, Pi Meson, R4 Belmont, 13/7/02.Then $15 to place. Lots of $10 to place. But not enough of them. Bet win only.
What if there is more than one qualifier in a race? I have no luck at all trying to pick which will win and which won't, so back 'em all. If any of them win you'll pay for the others. To make a viable system out of this though you need a further filter at this point.
You also need deep pockets and you need to get used to the idea that you'll collect nothing for 20 or 30 or more bets in a row. For example, my sample went:
Strike - 21 outs
Strike - 7 outs
Strike - 12 outs
Strike - 15 outs
Strike - 12 outs
Strike - 42 outs
Strike - 32 outs
Strike - 16 outs
Strike - 7 outs
Strike
Strike - 3 outs
Strike - 2 outs
Strike
Strike - 1 out
Strike - 7 outs
Strike
Strike - 30 outs...
And so on. As you can see, some meetings lots, many meetings zero. You'd be getting mighty thirsty after 42 and 32 outs in a row and there'd be whole weeks you did nothing but lose. Not recommended for those suffering from depression. But when you hit a fertile patch it pays well.
Running a bank of $100, betting $1 to win over the 345 bets you end up with $238.70. The lowest ebb was $72 at bet 43. But therein is the problem. Remove the megawinners and you go bust at bet 147.
(I spent several sleepless nights trying to get the figures for this system to add up. Eventually I realised I once again hadn't been eliminating scratchings, only checking winners. There's often lots of scratchings in this category. It enhanced my figures no end to realise that a horse didn't win because it hadn't run!)
I tried filtering by last start = meaningless. And place percentage = meaningless. The only other filter I've tried is matching qualifiers to the ratings on the Queensland TAB. Result = meaningless. Except the biggest priced winners were all rated below 90 - genuine pedigree roughies. Narrowing the range to within 3 or 2 of the zip doesn't work. So, to net long shots:
Rule 1. TAB numbers 11, 12, 13 (and 14)
Rule 2. Within 4 kilos of the Zip Star horse.
Rule 3. Bet win only.
Rule 4. Where there are several qualifiers in a single race, back them all. (Or find a reliable way to distinguish between them.)
Rule 5. Take up another interest while you wait.
Be good to find ways and means of making it more stable. I'd like to get the strike rate to around 15% at least. Ultimately I fear this method is heading for a situation of break even and you sink or swim on one-in-150 race megawinners.
Hermes