Handicapping a la Don Scott/Rem Plante

[Punter4211]

Hi Everyone,ffice:office" /><?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

I am a new contributor of the forums although I have been a reader for some time.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

As a senior computer programmer I have no difficulty in downloading data from web sites like www.racingnsw.com.au (http://www.racingnsw.com.au/) and building<O:p></O:p>

a database so that I can create my own handicap ratings. A long time student of authors like Don Scott, Rem Plante and Paul Segar <O:p></O:p>

I have developed a computerised assessment system that I use to produce my own ratings and (wow) now I can even do my own prices.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

Problem is of course, that even after I've checked and verified everything, somebody neglected to tell the horses and their jockeys<O:p></O:p>

of the real winning chances. (According to me!)<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

Still some do get the message and agree to perform as predicted.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

My real interest in the forums? Well I'd like to hear for those who do a similar thing to me, even if you don't use a computer, just a pencil <O:p></O:p>

and paper is fine.. I'm interested in talking to those who know and understand the Rem Plante & Don Scott methods and care to discuss <O:p></O:p>

the finer points.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

I'm very keen to learn, I've re-written my programs so many times that I can't count, but each time I believe I'm getting better and so I'm<O:p></O:p>

keen to learn from the more experienced and share with others in an unbiased way.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

I'd love to hear form you all..<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

P.S. I do not, will not and absolutely will never sell my methods or my program to anyone. It remains a work in progress and as I learn more <O:p></O:p>

so it becomes better. I often read adverts claiming some sort of fanciful computer program will pick winners for you, what a laugh, I can tell you<O:p></O:p>

that after 30 years in electronics and computers, picking winners with a computer is a myth. Computers are just machines that crunch numbers <O:p></O:p>

(very quickly) and they can't predict horse races with any degree of accuracy.. There are just too many undefined and immeasurable criteria.<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

Even when they do teach horses how to read a computer printout many of the runners won't make it to the barrier before they die laughing!

[Chrome Prince]

that after 30 years in electronics and computers, picking winners with a computer is a myth. Computers are just machines that crunch numbers <O:p></O:p>

(very quickly) and they can't predict horse races with any degree of accuracy.. There are just too many undefined and immeasurable criteria.<O:p></O:p>


OzPunter,

Best of luck with your ratings method, but I certainly feel your above statement to be incorrect.

I simply input rules and run them against the prepost market without judgement of looking further at class or jockey or distance or anything else with this result....

1,235 bets
461 winners
105.90 units profit
8.57% POT using TAB prices
Maximum win dividend $4.50
Profit comes from 36 winners using the maximum dividend as a benchmark.

[topsy99]

i rated natural woman a very good thing on saturday night and changing lanes at pinjarra came up similarly.
i was surprised at the short odds on changing lanes as he was up against some good horses.
got nosed by a good one.
how did you rate them.

[Punter4211]

OzPunter,

Best of luck with your ratings method, but I certainly feel your above statement to be incorrect.

I simply input rules and run them against the prepost market without judgement of looking further at class or jockey or distance or anything else with this result....

1,235 bets
461 winners
105.90 units profit
8.57% POT using TAB prices
Maximum win dividend $4.50
Profit comes from 36 winners using the maximum dividend as a benchmark.
Ok, I stand corrected... Some methods do return profits in the right hands... I put in that comment because I get so many enquires from people (who should know better) to write a "magic program" for them and I see so many programs being sold for rediculous prices. There are many people being hoodwinked out of their hard earned savings by bogus "Professional Punters" that its amost enough to make one cry. It would be a joke if it weren't so sad

As I said my program is a work in progress and I'm willing to learn more..

Regards
OzPunter

[Punter4211]

i rated natural woman a very good thing on saturday night and changing lanes at pinjarra came up similarly.
i was surprised at the short odds on changing lanes as he was up against some good horses.
got nosed by a good one.
how did you rate them.
Hi Laurie...

For races ar Canterbury and Warrick Farm I take a holiday. Not that they're bad meetings but I try to specialise in Randwick and Rosehill only..

Night racing leaves me cold also...

But the previous week I had "But I'm Serious, Grand Armee (& winning belle) on top so I did Ok.

Regards

OzPunter

[topsy99]

i agree that night racing is pushing things a bit.
after starting the day at 12 noon and then watching or involved until 10.30at night is a real turn off.
i though perth racing was extending me a bit but having canterbury major meetings on saturday night is going too far.
i thought they were good races though. moonee valley meeting not very interesting.

a comment on ratings it takes discipline and knowing when they are right.
something i fail to uphold often.
trying to rate too many races and when the ratings are a bit weak and we are looking for a bet anyway brings the ratings undone.

i often ask myself what have i really learnt from following the races.
the answer is usually not being patient enough to wait for a decent horse to back. on any given day there are not many.

[Punter4211]

i agree that night racing is pushing things a bit.
after starting the day at 12 noon and then watching or involved until 10.30at night is a real turn off.
i though perth racing was extending me a bit but having canterbury major meetings on saturday night is going too far.
i thought they were good races though. moonee valley meeting not very interesting.

a comment on ratings it takes discipline and knowing when they are right.
something i fail to uphold often.
trying to rate too many races and when the ratings are a bit weak and we are looking for a bet anyway brings the ratings undone.

i often ask myself what have i really learnt from following the races.
the answer is usually not being patient enough to wait for a decent horse to back. on any given day there are not many.
Hi again,

This is where we differ... My ratings method takes me several hours before Saturday and almost as much on a Sunday.. Plus I've automated the assesmenst for week days

I'm glad I limit myself to two or three of the best races, with sound runner history... My success rate is much better. After all I'm in it to make a profit, not to beat my head against a brick wall trying to pick a winner in every race.

The less work you have to do the better you can do the work you do do.. If you get what I mean.

Regards

OzPunter

[Duritz]

Hey OZ tell me about that - how you came to be betting on selected events. How did you select those events?

You see I too believe that if I had a granule of patience and waited for the right races instead of punting on heaps my profit would be much more.

What did you do?

[topsy99]

sometime during the day a good thing appears usually later .

as an example the hobart cup winner was 2nd in a listed race behind dakasha which went on to win the launceston cup(as it turned out)

it dropped 7 kgs and drew barrier one.

and paid $34 i would suggest it was worth a bet.
but by hunting through several races before hand instead of waiting for the good thing ones betting strategies are dissipated and the good thing becomes just another race.
patience is a virture.