Punt to win review

[Placegetter]

I have read the latest punt to win and enjoyed in particular the systematic bollocking of Wayne Harris' recent tip for Marrakesh Express (read this first otherwise my post will not make sense, and you should have read it by now anyway).

The writer, I assume is Quapi, but irrelevant anyway makes this comment about one of Harris' statement:

"Wayne Harris: 3. "He ran a very nice second at Randwick behind the very smart Stormcat Academy a couple of weeks back...We know Stormcat Academy has gone on and won the Pacesetter after that." (Wayne Harris)

Reviewer: Irrelevant. A horse's performance should be judged on the merits of its actual run. What Stormcat Academy came out and did afterwards has no bearing one way or the other on Marrakesh Express's last run."

I must admit, one of the tools in my bag is making a qualitative assessment of how previous opposition have gone in subsequent races. It suits the races I bet on in particular and warms the cockles when I see that the horse my selection ran 2nd to had a good hit out next start (it doesn't have to win, it might have gone 8 lengths lovely jubly which I consider good form).

Anyway, would anyone else like to comment or am I just a lunatic?

Placegetter

Stormcat may have improved 3-4 lengths on its previous run.

I remember one of Hawke's horse win its first race, then followed that up with a win against TTK in a group 1 at 80/1. That doesn't mean that the horses which placed behind the other horse good bets in subsequent races.

[Reenster]

I read that article with interest and am normally a fan of Neil's comments on the media tipsters.

I also agree with what was said about Wayne Harris's pre race comments re Marakesh Express.

However, have a read of Propun's latest Horse Watch section. The comments about Corvain seem to contradict the view of "irrelevance" that you talk about Placegetter.

Quote "At his best Corvain is very smart. A good form reference is his second to Tears Royal in the Listed 1400 metres Barton Stakes at Sandown on January 19 this year."

If this is true, why can't the same be applied to other horses?

[quapi]

On 2002-07-02 17:16, Reenster wrote:
However, have a read of Propun's latest Horse Watch section. The comments about Corvain seem to contradict the view of "irrelevance" that you talk about Placegetter.

Quote "At his best Corvain is very smart. A good form reference is his second to Tears Royal in the Listed 1400 metres Barton Stakes at Sandown on January 19 this year."

If this is true, why can't the same be applied to other horses?

Thanks for all the feedback. We will give an answer explaining this in Punt to Win when time permits. We will add a link to our answer in the forum.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: quapi on 2002-07-02 20:39 ]</font>

[hermes]

The issue of what a horse's opposition went on to do and its relevance to selection has been thrashed out in this forum in the past. In fact, if you explore forums and betting sites worldwide you will find that it is a hotly discussed topic (like barrier), so I discover. The concensus of the heavy weights everywhere is that it is irrelevant. Chief or someone in this forum a while back used an AFL example to illustrate the fallacy. I didn't read the article but Wayne Hickson is a heavy enough weight to know better than to make a comment like that. Bodgy logic. Therefore deserved the bollocking.

If you've got any sense, don't listen to media tipsters in the first place. If they are any good their selections are strongly backed and there is no value left, if they're hopeless you're throwing away money. Either way you won't win by following these people.

Here's two rules you can use to eliminate badly weighted horses:

# Rising in weight by no more than 3kgs unless won $200k+ and top 3 by prizemoney/race.

# Carrying 58.5kgs or less, unless top3 $ and barrier 10 or less.

By following these rules, you will only back quality horses which are capable of handling the impact of weight.

These 2 rules would have ruled out Marrakesh Express, Glenrowan & Skiddaw.

Note: These rules are designed for win only betting. As you are aware Glenrowan and Skiddaw both placed. If you see good place divs about horses with large weights they may represent good value if other factors are positive.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: freddy on 2002-07-02 19:04 ]</font>

[Luckyboy]

G'day. New poster on the block. Be gentle...

Been sitting back a few weeks after finding this excellent site and finally found a topic I can contribute too!

Weight has always been a relatively low ranking factor for me in assessing a horse's chance in a race. I have read elsewhere (on this forum I think) the old chestnut of how can 2 or 3kgs more weight make a difference to a 550-600kg beast!

Must admit I am from this school of thought and so a while back did some analysis of winners and weight carried to develop a simple rule.

"All horses 56kg and below are eligible selections. All horses above 56kgs must have been above this weight last start and cannot be rising more than 2kgs on last start."

Just for examples sake over the last two weekends on selected races over 80% of winners have followed this simple rule.

Luckyboy





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2002-07-02 20:50 ]</font>

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-02 18:34, freddy wrote:
If you've got any sense, don't listen to media tipsters in the first place.

But it's okay to follow suggestions on this site right? I mean, that's what you were implying earlier today when I said anyone who followed tips on this site needed their head read.

On 2002-07-02 22:03, Placegetter wrote:
[quote]
"But it's okay to follow suggestions on this site right? I mean, that's what you were implying earlier today when I said anyone who followed tips on this site needed their head read."


I wasn't implying anything - just highlighting what you think of the tips that are posted here by several people, including yourself.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-02 17:58, hermes wrote:
The issue of what a horse's opposition went on to do and its relevance to selection has been thrashed out in this forum in the past. The concensus of the heavy weights everywhere is that it is irrelevant.

Well I'm no heavyweight hermes, but I think the consensus (whoever that is) has it wrong. Why do we buy FORMguides instead of STATguides. Come on, are we seriously saying that how a beaten horses conqueror has fared is irrelevant? What races are you betting on? I'll mark them down as specials.

I have no problem not agreeing with the consensus. As I remember it, less than 5% of punters/investors/gamblers are profitable in the long term. Says something about the consensus.

If you do not use a stat based system and do not have access to each weekends (or weekdays for those who must) videos, you practically must rely on this information.

I look forward to seeing the response from the site providers.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-02 22:09, freddy wrote:

I wasn't implying anything - just highlighting what you think of the tips that are posted here by several people, including yourself.



Okay fair enough. I know what I think of my tips..........they are profitable. I just couldn't imagine signing on to a site, seeing that someone has backed a few winners and then blindly following their tips next week. I guess you worked that out already.

No harm intended, I'm sure you're all fantastic punters. There's only 370 members on this forum, so it's conceivable we're all in the 5% who are profitable, but if I were a betting man :smile: I wouldn't stake the claim.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-02 20:48, Luckyboy wrote:
G'day. New poster on the block. Be gentle...


Luckyboy, how can we be gentle? You're rule doesn't make sense to me and I need some more explanation please.

How can you be from a school of thought that doesn't bother about a couple of kilos or so and then state that you have a rule relating to the weight the horse is set to carry?

If you didn't care about the weight then it wouldn't be a filter?

Sorry to attack from the first post, but I think I missed the point.

Placegetter

[Luckyboy]

Placegetter,

You're reply is gentle enough. Thanks for allowing me some latitude as I'm new to this caper.

My intent was to say that weight is a factor that one can get 'weighted' down on when assessing a horse's chance in a race.

The vagaries of weight are never endless. Therefore, I sought a stat based approach to the problem. I find it works for me. My on-going monitoring of the rule supports this too. Maybe others have a different approach?

L

[hermes]

If you've got any sense, do NOT follow my tips! :smile:

Welcome to luckyboy and thanks for the rule-of-thumb on weights. How can a few kilos make a difference to such powerful running beasts? In recent discussion in this forum - the same post as the old chestnut, I think - someone said "its like superfit athletes..."

I was thinking it over. The comparison fails. Superfit athletes these days worry about every gram of weight they carry. Sportshoes makers try to shave off those extra grams. Surely a few grams doesn't matter to such superfit athletes you might say? But it does. That little bit of weight adds up to lots of weight *over the distance*. It is *weight over distance* that counts, isn't it? This is commonsense. I can carry a few extra kilos in my pockets around the house and it won't faze me, but if I had to walk a few kilometres I'd notice it. Distance multiplies weight. The question is not can this big strong animal carry those few extra kilos - of course it can! The question is can it carry those extra kilos over that distance without feeling the drag of that extra weight?

No doubt pace and other things enter the equation at this point too.

H

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-07-02 18:48, freddy wrote:
Here's two rules you can use to eliminate badly weighted horses:
# Rising in weight by no more than 3kgs unless won $200k+ and top 3 by prizemoney/race.
# Carrying 58.5kgs or less, unless top3 $ and barrier 10 or less.
By following these rules, you will only back quality horses which are capable of handling the impact of weight.


1/ You assume that the amount of prizemoney a horse has won directly links to the ability of a horse to carry weight. No relationship whatsoever!

2/Class horses will always be heavily weighted in handicap races, even those with moderate recent form, therefore the statistics on heavily weighted horses which failed to produce on the day are warped by the recent form factor. Weight has minimal impact on a horse over 900m, 1000m, 1200m and maximum impact over 2400m plus. However, it's the run the horse obtains in the race which has the biggest bearing of how weight effects performance.

A horse can have barrier 22 with a big weight and still win if it's ridden correctly. If it has barrier 5 and is ridden badly or has no luck it sure isn't going to win.

As far as the opposition arguement goes...It does not matter one iota if a horse ran second to Sunline and then ran at another Group 1 race and be expected to win, just because it ran second to a great horse. This is the biggest mistake punters make.

If however, the horse ran second to Sunline and is dramatically dropping in class.....e.g. Group 1 to Open midweek race then it is entitled to be favourite.

In other words, it's not what the other horse has done that gives you a formline into your horses chances, it's the class of the opposition, or lack of class.

[Luckyboy]

Hi Hermes,

Ta for the welcome. You have posted some great information lately.

Your post above highlights the vagaries that I just frankly well… found to befuddle me.

Who can say a horse carrying 56kgs over a distance one week will be likely to put in the same performance with the same weight the next race?

Another thing I find amusing (and drawing from your analogy) is how come great sprinters (e.g. Maurice Greene) look to reduce their shoe weight by 0.0025kgs, but then wear a 1/2 kg gold chain around their neck? Amusing huh?

L

[hermes]

Placegetter,

No one is arguing against *Form*. In fact the reviewer (quapi?), with whom I was agreeing, said "A horse's performance should be judged on the merits of its actual run." That is form, not stats.

I'm open to any techniques that score results, whether they're backed by the concensus or not. On this issue there were few voices to the contrary when it was previously discussed. But if someone such as yourself strongly advises me to the contrary, I'II check it out for myself. My motto is: take no man's word for it. (Notice my placegetter stats elsewhere on this forum. I could probably buy a book of stats somewhere but - take no man's word for it - I'm compiling my own.)

The concensus view around forums like this is that placebetting will send you broke slowly. You know that's not true. (I only believe its not true - I'm gonna find out myself.) But I take your point - in a game where only 5% of punters win long term it pays to be very skeptical and to test things out yourself.

Placegetter wrote:

"As I remember it, less than 5% of punters/investors/gamblers are profitable in the long term. Says something about the consensus."

And about punting in general. I was a casual better who knew next to nothing about it. Fun, but well and truly in that 95% of losers. Then one day I sat down and had a good look at horse racing and pretty soon I knew enough about it to stop betting. It's deceptive. I didn't realise what a tight game it is.

I've only recently started betting again, small amounts, cautious bets while I get smart about it.

Thanks for your insights. I find there's a good mix of opinions on this forum. People with very different approaches. The fact that people like placegetter disgree with "conensus" views and want to challenge "the rules" is one of the things that keeps me here.

Cheers and good punting

Hermes

[quote]
On 2002-07-02 22:42, Equine Investor wrote:
"1/ You assume that the amount of prizemoney a horse has won directly links to the ability of a horse to carry weight. No relationship whatsoever!"

Wrong. Weight is relative to other horses.



"2/Class horses will always be heavily weighted in handicap races, even those with moderate recent form, therefore the statistics on heavily weighted horses which failed to produce on the day are warped by the recent form factor."
WHAT???

"A horse can have barrier 22 with a big weight and still win if it's ridden correctly. If it has barrier 5 and is ridden badly or has no luck it sure isn't going to win."
NOT LIKELY.


"As far as the opposition arguement goes...It does not matter one iota if a horse ran second to Sunline and then ran at another Group 1 race and be expected to win, just because it ran second to a great horse. This is the biggest mistake punters make."

Incorrect.

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-07-02 23:20, freddy wrote:

# Rising in weight by no more than 3kgs unless won $200k+ and top 3 by prizemoney/race.

Wrong. Weight is relative to other horses.



"As far as the opposition arguement goes...It does not matter one iota if a horse ran second to Sunline and then ran at another Group 1 race and be expected to win, just because it ran second to a great horse. This is the biggest mistake punters make."

Incorrect.


[/quote]

Correct, ask anyone else in the know.
How many horses are expected to win due to city wins and drop back to country class are sent out shortpriced favs and fail?

Lots!

freddy:
I remember one of Hawke's horse win its first race, then followed that up with a win against TTK in a group 1 at 80/1. That doesn't mean that the horses which placed behind the other horse good bets in subsequent races.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-03 00:05 ]</font>

[Placegetter]

On 2002-07-02 22:44, Luckyboy wrote:
Ta for the welcome. You have posted some great information lately.


Couldn't agree with you more Luckyboy, hermes is really getting into the analysis side of it these days. We all need to do it at least once. You'll learn more about yourself than anything else, what type of bets you can handle and the sequences you'll put up with.

Regarding the half kilo gold chain. I asked a sprinter about that last year because I had already made the comparison and he said that it was no where near the feet and that's the only thing they are concerned in turning over.

A more correct comparison would be a horse wearing racing plates versus standard irons. Often the chains sprinters wear are for "luck" anyway.

The harder I work the luckier I get - (Jefferson?).

Placegetter

[Mark]

Interesting that Sunline should be used as an example. Surely there is no better horse to run a formline through, yet look at what horses who have finished near her have done at their next couple of starts. Overall, very little, and usually at skinny odds.

[Equine Investor]

My point exactly Mark.

At it's very best, a horse may run second to Sunline and yet not perform at it's very best next start.
The criteria for any performance is consistency. That's what separates quality horses, professional golfers, tennis players etc.

[thekey]

My two bobs worth re: relatively small weight changes (eg. +2kgs for a 500kg horse).

Perhaps it's a case of the straw that breaks the camel's back. Horses should be running with maximum effort each time, so just a minor increase in weight could be enough to send them over the top and cause a significant drop in performance.

It is very enlightening to look back through a horses form and see what weights it has successfully carried.

A recent example was Sundial which won @ EFRM on June 8, it had won 7 times in its career (17 starts) and for each win had carried between 55.0 and 56.5kg - today it is carrying 56.5kg.

In all of its wins it has never started wider than barrier 8, but in 5/7 wins it was drawn between 5&8 - today barrier 7.

Also worth noting was the engagement of Z Purton who had previously won on the horse.

Sundial holds the track record for this T&D.

The more you know about a horse and under what conditions it is likely to produce its best form the better it is for you.

As a side note Run Just Run started favourite in this race despite just 1 win from 16 starts, its first start, as a 2-year old, on a heavy track. This horse did return some good ratings in the spring behind Chong Tong (1200) and Gordo(1400) but had since failed to live up to these performances in 6 subsequent starts and yet goes out favourite in a 1000m race.

The prices - Run Just Run 5.50
Sundial 8.00

Take your pick!

The result Sundial 1st, Run Just Run 8th beaten 4.5L.

[Equine Investor]

Thanks for adding that "thekey"...I am sure we can all draw similar examples which prove formlines in general to be myths when judged by what ran second or third to what.