Ten top factors

[hermes]

From the Turf Accountant website I mentioned in another post, he lists what he says are the ten most reliable selection methods. He claims that this is the result of working through a large database over many, many years. Here they are:

1. DOUBLE TOPS.
Using the Sportsman Chartform mark the Top Place % and the Top AvPrize. A double top is where the same horse is either top of both or equal top.

2. ZIPFORM
The horse or horses with the "Zipform" * from the Sportsman.

3. COURSE/DISTANCE QUALIFIED.
To assess distance and course qualified horses add win % to Place % at course /distance 100 or above are qualified. e.g. 4 minor places from 4 starts qualified. 1 wins and 2 minor placings from 5 starts (20+60) not qualified but 2 wins and 1 minor placing from 5 starts (40+60) is qualified.

4. WOT.
From Wizard mark the 100% horses in the wrat and trat columns and mark the horse assessed at the lowest or equal lowest odds. A WOT horse is one marked for all three.

5. TURFIES TOP RATED.
Simply multiply the most recent finishing position by 5 - the next most recent finishing position by 3 - the next by 2 and the next by 1 and add them up the horse with the lowest or equal lowest total is the qualifier.

6. OCI'S.
Using the Sportsman Chartform mark the Top Three Place % and the Top three AvPrize including equal thirds. An OCI - Only Co-Incider is where one and only one horse in top three of both columns.

7. NINES QUALIFIED.
Simply total the best three finishing positions of last four starts any with a total of 9 or less qualify.

8. LAST START WINNERS.
Self explanatory.

9. FORM PATTERN.
Last four starts must show constant improvement or at least level ending in either Win or Second, each start other than fourth last must be in first 9.
e.g. 0882 qualifies 0021 does not. 6642 qualifies 6543 does not 0711 qualifies 1121 does not.

10. WIZARD FORM.
From Wizard check best form last 12 months and best recent form - only horses that top both these polls qualify.


These, he says, are the ten most reliable pointers to lots of winners (although not necessarily decent priced winners). Seems to contradict other stats I have seen sometimes, but some useful ideas here I think. Food for thought. Check out this old website:

http://tucows.ecopost.com.au/~turfacts/turfacts.html

Cheers

Hermes

Some of this has merit. One concern though - multiplying nos by this and that.

When you start doing that you end up with some odd nos. Lets say a horse ran 8th last start - 8*5 =40. So what? it may have only been beaten 2 lengths and was unlucky - yet this method has given this horse a poor rating.

[hermes]

What about the form improvement, consistent improvers? Good to find a horse on the improve. What's a quick way to establish that? So you think, Chief, that form numerals for last races eg. 4061 are suspect because that 6th second last race might have only been by a length in a blanket finish? True, but for convenience, don't we have to forgo too much detail and expect that any form of analysis is, at best, only an indicator, not an exact science. Agree about the multiplication of numbers though. It gets very abstract and remote from what its supposed to be about, namely horses.

Forget form pattern rules - bollocks.
A 8th placing may have been a better run than a win. Might & Power ran 8th in the Epsom (certainty beaten) then came out and won the Caulfield Cup by 6 lengths.

I use relative simple rules, but they are not "simplistic" like some of these.

The way to use simple rules is to have several rules for one criteria. ie you could have 3 simple rules just for a horse's last start performance. The combination of the 3 rules provides a powerful filter, yet is based on logic and not abstract like these multiplying rules.

There are exceptions to every rule - you can also catch some of these winners by looking at what these exceptions could possible be - so if a horse doesn't fit the rule but falls into one of the exception areas don't eliminate it if meets your other criteria.

Quote
"5. TURFIES TOP RATED.
Simply multiply the most recent finishing position by 5 - the next most recent finishing position by 3 - the next by 2 and the next by 1 and add them up the horse with the lowest or equal lowest total is the qualifier."

FAULTS - DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT - CLASS, BAD LUCK, BEATEN MARGIN. TOO ABSTRACT.



Quote
"7. NINES QUALIFIED.
Simply total the best three finishing positions of last four starts any with a total of 9 or less qualify."

FAULT - DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CLASS, BAD LUCK, WEIGHTS ETC.... WHAT IF THE HORSE RAN 3 1STS CARRYING 50-52KGS, BUT NOW HAS TO CARRYING 59KGS??



Quote:
"8. LAST START WINNERS.
Self explanatory."

FAULT - ELIMINATES ABOUT 50% OF WINNERS. I DON'T HAVE EXACT FIGURES HERE, BUT PLENTY OF WINNERS DIDN'T WIN LAST START.



Quote:
"9. FORM PATTERN.
Last four starts must show constant improvement or at least level ending in either Win or Second, each start other than fourth last must be in first 9.
e.g. 0882 qualifies 0021 does not. 6642 qualifies 6543 does not 0711 qualifies 1121 does not."

WHAT'S WRONG WITH 1121??? LOOKS CONSISTENT TO ME???

FAULTS - MISLEADING, DUE TO CLASS FACTORS, WEIGHT, BEATEN MARGIN, BAD LUCK ETC...

The criteria from Sportsman and Wizard may have some merit. Readers of those papers may be able to tell you.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chief on 2002-06-23 13:54 ]</font>

[hermes]

Chief wrote:

"A 8th placing may have been a better run than a win."

Really? But 8th is 8th and 1st is 1st. It must mean something if a horse wins. 4th isn't 3rd, either. It must surely mean something if a horse can get in the money. Isn't a miss as good as a mile? And aren't there horses that don't know how to win, so to speak? They run well, look nice but more often than not run a 2nd. Conversely, people tell me some horses have a good understanding of what a race is about and know what winning is. If I'm given the choice between a winner and an unlucky 8th, I'd prefer the winner. And what does "unlucky" mean here?

Are you suggesting Chief that I stop giving too much validity to finishing places, and start looking at how the horses ran, not just where they finished? But the name of the game is winners (or placegetters at least). If I look at how a horse ran last few starts, rather than its capacity to put together enough to win (or place), mightn't I select horses that run well but don't necessarily win? What factors should I consider? Speed in last 600? Lengths from the winner? Again, when is a horse "unlucky"?

Do what you like. I don't care if you lose money. Only trying to help.

[Equine Investor]

Hermes...

You are quite right when you are holding a losing ticket, 4th is 4th and 2nd is 2nd.

But I think what chief was trying to get you to see...is that numbers on paper are not the be all and end all. This is why most computer software to predict winners doesn't work. There are variables in horse racing.

For instance, if a horse runs second 8 lengths from the winner....isn't a horse that runs 10th placing only 4 lengths from the winner a better horse / run?
On paper it can be deceiving, and so can some formguides / stats.

Looking at statistics ALONE doesn't work.

Also a horse may have been blocked for a run, got bumped in the running by another horse, cast a plate and slipped on the home turn and flashed home for second placing. That is a lot better run than a soft run second from another horse.

When assessing form and stats for a horse always take into account the overall picture such as win / place percentages, prizemoney, form over the distance and in the conditions. Always forgive a horse a few bad runs as long as it doesn't become a pattern in it's form. Look at trials formguides, and stewards reports, also trackwork times if your horse runs a well below average run.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-23 21:08 ]</font>

The point is any one stat doesn't tell the full picture. On Saturday 15 out of 22 flat winners in Bris, Syd and Melb did not win their last start. Therefore, if you eliminated horses just because they didn't win last start - you miss out on a heap of winners. What one must do using stats is combine them and then they become powerful.

Horse A - Ran 8th last start, but won two starts back, drops 3.5kg from last run where it was only beaten 1.8 lengths after being trapped 3 wide without cover. Is also racing over its pet distance today - 1200m at Rosehill for instance after running over 1100m last start which is short of its best. Has barrier 5. Odds of 6/1.

Horse B - Won 3 starts in a row, but is rising 4.5kgs, has barrier 15 in a 1200m race at Rosehill, dropping back from 1400m to 1200m. Odds of 7/2.

I know which horse I would rather bet on!!!

[hermes]

All advice is greatly appreciated and heeded. I take the point. Stats are one dimensional and a horse race is a 3D thing. The attraction with the numbers, I suppose, is time. If you are pushed for time on Friday nights/Sat mornings you need some reliable shortcuts. But I realise any shortcut can be no substitution for proper analysis. And Mr Turfaccountant, whose methods I was looking at, makes claims for them based, he says, on large-sample database trials (albeit several years ago now). I think the idea would be to combine various methods as so many filters. The triok would be finding a combination of factors that didn't filter out too many races.

Thanks again

Hermes

[Privateer]

Just to throw another spanner in the works Hermes......statistics alone DO work. The plan I use is ONLY statistic based and I do OK.

The trick is to find the right combination of all the various stats available.

For instance in my plan, how many lengths a horse finished from the winner last start is irrelevant. WHERE it finished is more important.

Another tip...don't put too much weight on the course/distance factor, it falls into the "over rated" basket.

Incidentally, I have only ever used The Sportsman, in my view the best form guide in this country.

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-06-24 14:17, Privateer wrote:
The trick is to find the right combination of all the various stats available.

Another tip...don't put too much weight on the course/distance factor, it falls into the "over rated" basket.


That's more what I meant. In other words you can't say that 50% of races are won by horses with a placing at their previous start, and then back every horse with a placing. It's more a combination of factors as you say Privateer.

Also I think that course / distance do matter in my opinion. While it may not be essential to include that a horse won on this course or over this distance - if it failed at every attempt then you have to bear this in mind or you're just throwing money away!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-24 15:06 ]</font>

I use 3 strikes you're out rule.
Doesn't always work, but saves a lot of losing bets.

[Privateer]

I'll clarify a little. Firstly, I probably have a maximum of 6 bets per week. When I apply my method to race fields it does not include the course/distance factor at all.

When I check my results I constantly look for statistical trends that can perhaps be applied in addition to my method. Of the horses that I have (successfully) backed, the course/distance consideration was not an important issue.

In the overall scheme of things (according to all my analyses) the C/D factor was in the 80% rather than the 20%.

Are you talking about Track/Distance or Track and Distance separately???

I don't even look at Track/Distance combined, but do look at Distance stats and Track stats separately.

[Privateer]

Individually.

Let's say a horse's stats looked like this:
Distance: 5-0-0-0
Track : 5-0-0-0

That wouldn't bother you?????
I would eliminate start away.

[hermes]

On the face of it I'd think track and distance stats are important. I've started to pay more attention to them recently. But I don't doubt you can have a succesful system without them. Aren't there some stats to guide us on things like this? Of the two factors I'd think distance is the more important. I remember running in athletics. How far I had to run was more important than the venue. I'm sure its the same for a horse, even if they prefer certain tracks. So I usually factor in performance over distance and glance at the track stats for anything peculiar.

Seems to me the two primary characteristics of a race horse, or any racing animal, are (1) speed and (2) distance. A horse must be fast and be able to run the distance (endurance) or its not a race horse. Wouldn't it make sense to assess form on these two things first and foremost, perhaps?

Chief, I reckon at Distance = 5-0-0-0, Track = 5-0-0-0, I'd eliminate it. Looks like a meaningful stat to me, in this instance, and you'd have to say the prognosis is not good.

I note that it is unpredictable where you will find "meaningful" stats. I note this from reviewing old races (losses usually, alas). In one case you look at a winner and the track stat, say, stands out. Five starts, three wins, two places. Ordinary stats otherwise, but the track stat is outstanding. And it wins, and with hindsight you can say, well, look at that track stat, no wonder. But the track stat may be irrelevant in most other cases. I've got this hair-brained idea of searching out the "peculiar and unusual" stat in a field. Just an idle idea...

Thanks for the informative discussion all.

Hermes

[Placegetter]

Chief de Beers was one of the few horses I can think of that you worried about the track before you worried about the distance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 17 wins ALL at Doomben.

Yes my namesake was a gun at Doomben, but hopeless every where else - even at EF which is next door he never won there.

I agree that Distance is more important - my stats say it is - but there are exceptions to every rule.

The deal with Track stats is often class. ie provincial horse that has failed in the city - thus maybe 0/3 at the track.

Also certain tracks favour frontrunners, others backmarkers - Difficult for backmarkers to win on tight twisting tracks.

Track/distance comes into play a lot with Flemo 1200m - you need a strong horse to win there - often 1400m types win 1200m races there.

[thekey]

The most important factor in racing is weight and class combined. Can the horse carry the allotted weight, in this class of race, better than the opposition can do theirs.
2ndly can it do it over the distance. Some attention should be paid to stats at course and distance but only to look for descrepancies. ie Either exceptionally good or exceptionally bad records which defy explanation.
3rdly - consistency - go to inracing.com.au and buy this book for $2.20 (normally $15) it will be the best value for money buy you ever make.
4thly - Barriers and jockeys - they do matter but NO combination is so bad that it will prevent a superior beast from winning, however you must allow for likely bad luck or errors in your priceline.
Finally - the X-factor - secret!

[hermes]

thanks for your imput Mr Key. Weight and class are the two factors I tend to overlook - which could explain my current strike rate!

How do I go about assessing weight and class combined? How does one answer that question: can this horse carry that weight in this class race better than the others their weight?


I've overlooked it because it is not easy to extract from the form guide like, say, Average prizewinnings where the calculation is done for you or, say, win conversion rate, where the calculation is fairly simple. I used to put a lot of store in weight as a factor, but I've seen so many horses overcome their weight disadvantage I've stopped looking at it. But, as you say, it needs to be considered with class.

Class is a mystery to me. OK, there are dfifferent class races. Horses come up or down in class. I'm a novice at the finer points of this. How do I begin to assess class in a more meaningful way than looking at the U's or D's in the "class" column of the form guide?

Any advice gratefully accepted.

Hermes

$$$ won tells you if the horse can handle the class. You don't win big money from winning a few low class races.

As for weight - as long as its not rising too much from last start, the weights ok.

[thekey]

Hermes,
I don't claim to be an expert. I just try to learn all the time. I assume from your comments you buy a proper formguide, possibly Sportsman?

For my weight and class measures I buy the Wizard. Saves hours of work. Unfortunately this only comes as a paper for Saturdays but you can get it on the net from inracing but the top quality guide is $11/meeting. Seen as I hardly bet midweek, but take note of results, this doesn't worry me.

With regard to $$$ unless you know when this money was won it doesn't mean much. Average Prizemoney is a better guide but can easily be distorted by big wins early in a career.

One factor I neglected to mention in my previous post was fitness. If it ain't fit it won't win. This does not mean horses can not win 1st-up or after more than 21 days break- you need to look at the individual!

Here's a very rough guide. I don't know all the categories.

Maidens
Class A-D i think?
Class 1-6
Open Handicaps
Metro races such as Restricted Metro Wins 0,1,2,3(3yo+, 4yo+; f&m, C&G); Various 2yos races, Welters, Flying, Quality, listed.

Then you have group 3 thru to group 1

But $$/race gives you a good idea anyway.