CR2000 RATINGS

[GEOFF]

Has anyone had any experience with cr2000 rating service on the web?
I would be interested in any comments.

Regards

[becareful]

Haven't had any personal experience but having just had a quick look at the website I would be a bit careful about signing up. It looks like they haven't updated their website with results for the whole of this month and as at the end of last month the results were pretty ordinary - profit of only a couple of percent over the last year - not enough to make any decent return on.

[Bhagwan]

I also checked it out .
I feel its not worth the effort or expense for those sort of returns.

You would be better off chasing the 2nd. & 3rd. Fav from the Teletext 2 min. before jump, & backing the stronger of the 2 for either a place sraight out or for a win straight out.

If you want a good way of splitting them , use the TABQ weight rating as shown on their internt site, http://www.tabq.com.au

You will find the majority of those types of services struggle just to break even.

So save your money & use it for the punt instead , that way if there is a stuff up, its YOUR stuff up.

[Reenster]

CR2000 used to have a free 2 week trial, I'm not sure if they still do but if they do, have a look for yourself.

In about September last year I signed up for their free trial. Not to bet, just to gauge the quality of the service and ratings. One of the things they were offering (and still are I think) is that if you have a losing month on their Phase III selections, you get the next month free. After my 2 week trial I signed on for a month (they had a special for about $100 or so). That was in October.

My one month membership ended in May this year.

They're not having a great run at the minute.

Cheers

[yubet]

Bhagwan,

when you say back the stronger of the two(2nd+2rd Fav),how do you define stronger ?

Shortest price,or better form line ?

I take your point about using the AAP rating which is on the TABQ site,but am interested in your definition of "Stronger"

Cheers,Yubet

[shy]

Just wondering... can someone confirm where Unitab get their ratings from and if they are available prior to the day of the race?

[becareful]

Shy,

As yubet mentioned the ratings that Unitab list are from AAP. I don't think they are available until the morning of the race but maybe someone else can confirm this.

[Bhagwan]

Yubet,
as stated ,the stronger one of the 2nd. & 3rd. fav. could be the one with the best weight rating on tabq , if still a draw , take the one with best last start.

I`m sure everyone has their favourite mini handicapping systems that they like to use to seperate situations such as this.

When ever these 2nd. & 3rd. favs get up , they pay well.
The trick is ,not cancelling the horse that ends up winning , it can be very frustrating at times.

[hermes]

I find the QTAB ratings very useful. I don't look for 2nd or 3rd favourites but consider any runner rated equal to or above the favourite. There is often a clear selection (often second or third favourite but often further down the order). At Benella R6 today, for instance, I picked up a good winner with this method.

The favourite was Dance D'or, $3.20, rated by QTAB at 96. The only horse with an equal or a better rating was #7 Trust & Betrayal, rated 100, paying $9.10. (I grabbed it on Vic TAB for $9.30). I was backing that the rating was right and punters wrong.

If there are two qualifiers I look for the better prospect comparing ratings with price. Or use last starts or whatever to separate them. Yes, very frustrating.

Where there are three or more qualifiers there are value bets but I have no luck separating them. Also frustrating.


Another use for the QTAB ratings:

*Any horse showing $10 or better with a rating of 95+.
*Where there are two or more, take the horse with the lower TAB number.

I've tested this. A big sample of 516 races (till my eyes went bleary). A remarkable return of $691, $511.40 on places, or 33% POT on winners, 25% on places on races in second half of 2001. The win/loss sequence on wins is very erratic, but on places pretty steady, except several nasty runs of outs compensated by big $30+ winners.

Picked up one of these today too. Benella R2. #3 Dancer's Belle. There were several runners in that race rated 95+ and starting at over $10. It came down to #3 or #5 Tarazam. I went with the bias towards lower TAB numbers (my mini-filter) so #3 was the selection. Dividend $11 on QTAB.

In another post Bhagwan recommended rated 100 horses as placegetters. I tested it unfiltered. Lots of placegetters certainly - a solid strike rate - but a LOT overall. The rated 100 horses are probably the nearest thing to a sure pointer to a placegetter but you need to be selective on price. Lots of rated 100 horses are short-priced favourites not worth backing.

Hermes

[hermes]

Another idea:

Two selections per race.

1. Find the runner with the highest QTAB rating among those TAB numbers lower than the number of the favourite. Bet $4 to win.
2. Find the runner with the highest QTAB rating among those TAB numbers higher than the number of the favourite. Bet $3 to win.
3. Where the fave is #1 take the two highest QTAB ratings in the field (but not the favourite). $4 on the lower TAB number, $3 on the higher.

Only tested this over 60 races but it pays good POT in that sample.

Lots of uses for the QTAB ratings, and they're free.

Hermes

[becareful]

Hermes,

Trust and Betrayal was one of my winners from yesterday but through a different selection procedure! Paid $10.80 on NSW :smile:

Might have to have a closer look at the QTab ratings - I do store them in my database but have not been able to come up with a reliable system based on them. Might try some of your suggestions over a longer period and see what comes up.

[Bhagwan]

Keep up the good work Hermes.

There`s some very interesting observations being shared here ,great for those system research pundits out there, to research further & possible refine.

[becareful]

Hermes (and anyone else interested):

I did some analysis on my database using the QTab ratings and thought you may be interested in the results. I have the QTab ratings for all races run this year (since 9/1/02) so I looked at all races since that date (quite a few races - I need a faster PC as it took some time for each query!).

First I just looked at 96-100 raters that started at $10 or more which gave 6094 qualifiers for total divs of 5291 (87% return). I then tried various price ranges (eg. $10-$20, over $20, $8-$12, etc) which gave various results but nothing profitable. Restricting the selection to 99 or 100 raters made a very small profit (about 1% POT).

I then tried looking at the data by the day of the week and found that weekdays were better than weekends - Sunday was particularly bad. So I cut out weekends but was still very marginal. I then looked at it by the race state and track condition and finally came up with some profitable figures.

The best criteria I came up with was:

99 or 100 raters only
Approx div at jump between $11 and $20
Ignore ACT, NT, TAS & overseas meetings
Weekday meetings only
Only bet on Good or Fast tracks

This gave the following results based on which TAB you use for the selection price and dividend:
TABCORP: 351 qualifiers paid $559 (59% POT)
NSW: 325 qualifiers paid $556 (71% POT)
QLD: 342 qualifiers paid $451 (32% POT)

Including the 96, 97 & 98 raters still resulted in a profit (with the other conditions) but POT is significantly lower so wouldn't really recommend it.

Applying the same criteria to Saturday meetings gave a small profit on NSW (around 15% POT) and break even on Tabcorp/Unitab.

So there you have it - a very simple but profitable system based on Qld rating. Can't say whether results will hold up in the future but it could be worth a shot!

PS. This is only for gallops - Harness racing shows a marginal loss with the same criteria and Greyhounds a big loss.

[Equine Investor]

Very interesting results there!
Use the QTAB ratings for free to return a profit. Nice little earner and provided you use filters it seems to work on a steady basis. Becareful, I would say that the sample you used was broad enough to make a good judgement providing QTAB doesn't change anything in it's method of ratings - without telling anyone. That could be a disaster!

Would be interested to know what the average price and strike rates are.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-08-24 22:41 ]</font>

[hermes]

Great stuff, becareful. Can't argue with a database like that. You wrote:

I need a faster PC as it took some time for each query!).

I'm doing it by pencil and green highliter! Gotta get me a program that sucks html data off the TAB site!

In your initial sample - 6094 qualifiers for total divs of 5291 (87% return) - you don't distinguish between runners per race? So if there are three qualifiers in a race, three bets? I don't suppose there's a quick and handy way to cut it down to one per race in your database, eg. lowest TAB number or best last start. If the sample counts all qualifiers, even several per race, then 87-90% return isn't too bad, I think. In many races there are two or three or more $10 jobs rated 95+. I wonder what proportion of races have two or more qualifiers? If ALL qualifiers net around 90% return there's hope of finding a mechanism to find the best of them where there's two or more in a race.

In my (midget) sample I found weekday country meetings best, metro Sat. meets worse.

You wrote:

Restricting the selection to 99 or 100 raters
made a very small profit (about 1% POT).

Again, if that includes scenarios of two or more qualifiers in a race, that's not too bad.


You wrote:

Including the 96, 97 & 98 raters still resulted in a profit (with the other conditions) but POT is significantly lower so wouldn't really recommend it.

How significant is significant? I'm wondering about strike/out patterns. Personally, I'Ii accept a lower POT if a system is more stable with shorter runs of outs and more happy evenings with that winning feeling.

Your findings on good and fast tracks was surprising, but there it is.

Your findings on greyhounds was very surprising and have saved me heaps of work and probably a few bucks as well.:smile:

Among those rated over 95 starting at $10 today I snared Maron Chevel ($13.90) and Idealistic ($18.50). Marstic, Calming and Senate Lease good placegetters. Ahead on the day.

Great analysis. Many thanks becareful.

Hermes

[hermes]

There must be some sub-clause of Murphy's Law that says when you start taking samples from old races you get spectacularly good results which then get worse from there. This ensures that people like myself waste countless nights chasing false hopes.

I had another idea (based on some statistical hunches): - selection is any horse rated exactly 3 points below the favourite on the QTAB. I thought it might follow a hole in the figures.

So I started a sample, turning first to Aug 21, 2001. Five qualifying races that day. First race - $1.40 placegetter. Ok. Second race - $34.50 winner. Third race - $8.10 winner. Fourth race - $4.20 winner. Fifth race - $5.80 winner!!! Amazing!

So I moved on and took a stab at 22nd July 2001 - Sixth race - $35.20 winner. Race seven - $2.90 placegetter. Race eight - $12.70 winner. Race nine - out!

No kidding. Amazing run.

Since then my figures have settled down considerably. I don't think it will pay in the long run.

Hermes

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-08-24 23:08, hermes wrote:
I'm doing it by pencil and green highliter! Gotta get me a program that sucks html data off the TAB site!


Now that's dedication hermes!
I find it time consuming enough doing it by computer and excel etc. Manual entries would take you forever.
:eek:

[becareful]

Hermes,

No I didn't distinguish between runners per race with any of the analysis so if there were 2 qualifiers in a single race I assumed that we backed both of them. Personally I don't think there is a problem with backing 2 or even 3 $10+ runners in a race (different if you are looking at $5 shots) and trying to eliminate runners can get rid of just as many winners as losers.

On NSW figures with 99/100 raters we had 325 selections for 556 in divs. If we include the 96,97,98 rated runners we get an additional 878 selections (so 1203 in total) and an additional 965 divs (so 1511 in total) so the POT on the 96,97,98 selections is about 10%. Not too bad but way below the 71% POT on the 99/100 raters. Again this is with no elimination of double/triple selections.

I don't know how the QTab ratings are calculated so I don't know if the track condition filter is surprising or not. If the ratings do not consider track condition then it is probably not suprising they are less accurate on wet tracks? Personally my own system works better on Good/Fast tracks (although it also works fine on Dead but not very good on Slow/Heavy) so it seemed a reasonable filter to me!

Just had a look at the "selections" for last couple of weeks based on 99/100.

For last week there were 13 selections but no winners.

For week beginning 12/8 we had 18 selections (0 Mon, 1 Tue, 8 Wed, 3 Thu, 6 Fri) with 4 winners. There was 1 double selection (SR8 on 14/8 - 7 Quadri rated 100 and 10 Think On rated 99. Think On won so eliminating based on TAB No or lower rating would have got rid of the wrong one). The winners were:
14/8 SR8 10(Think On) - $12.00
15/8 BR3 10(New Method) - $18.50
16/8 BR3 8 (Toobanna) - $11.50
16/8 BR8 2 (Credit Limit) - $17.40

The previous week (5/8) we had 15 selections and 3 winners. There were 2 double selections and in both cases one of the selections won! The winners were:
5/8 MR2 4 (Limerick Belle) - $11.70
7/8 BR1 10 (Kananga) - $13.00 (also 6 Diamond Zoff)
7/8 WR7 5 (Great Fingall) - $12.10 (also 3 Mikis Prospector)

_________________
"So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?" - Yoda

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-08-25 10:29 ]</font>

[becareful]

On 2002-08-24 22:38, Equine Investor wrote:
Would be interested to know what the average price and strike rates are.


Sorry EI - missed your question when I read the thread this morning. Strike rate/ave div for the 99/100 raters is as follows:

NSW: 39 winners, 12.0% SR, $14.30 Ave Div
Tabcorp: 40 winners, 11.4% SR, $14.00 Ave Div
Qld: 33 winners, 9.6% SR, $13.70 Ave Div

[Equine Investor]

Thanks becareful,
Seems the strike rate is not as low as I would have thought.

[becareful]

Thanks EI. The results sure surprised me! Had to check them 3 or 4 times to make sure I hadn't made a mistake. I can't believe I have spent hundreds of hours developing and refining a fairly complex system only to find a really simple method that seems to outperform it! Only problem is the fairly small number of selections means some weeks you will not get any winners.

[hermes]

The difference between 10% POT and 71% is considerable indeed, but it also gives very wide parameters for customizing the method to a punter's liking. I'd be looking for a little bit more action, so could include ratings 100, 99, 98 and still be assured of POT somewhere between 10% and 70%. Impressive flexibility!

I gather the ratings scale holds good throughout that range of POT, i.e. 96-100 gives lowest POT, 97-100 second lowest, 98-100 third lowest, 99-100 highest of all. Conversely, 96-100 gives most action, 99-100 least. Choose within that range to suit your betting style.

And if the ratings scale holds good like that it also follows you could bet accordingly. Rated 96 = 1 unit. 97 = 2 units. etc. Stack your bets with the probabilities?

(Beautiful day at the races at Bendigo today - now yesterday. Got severely stung betting with a bookie, saved by a last start lunge, went home happy. Love country racing.)

Hermes

[Bhagwan]

Well done Becareful.

Thanks for sharing your findings, has you computer blown up yet ? , have you still got eyes in your head after all that work.?

An EXCELLENT example of following through on a shared idea with some solid research using past data with the power of "modern" computers ..Brilliant POT.

The average No. of bets per day appears to be 3 for this system.
Good example of resticting ones No. of bets & confining to higher priced conveyances.
($11.00-20.00 range.)

For any of those in the market for computers at the right price, check out,
http://www.pc-club.com.au

[becareful]

I have had a look at the weekly figures for each week this year and if you are considering using this system be warned that you do need to be prepared for a run of outs. There was one 4 week period with around 40 selections in total and only a single $12 winner. Around 40% of weekly figures had no winners but there were also some great weeks - 18 bets for $59.40, 13 bets for $47.30, 10 bets for $40.80, etc. Like any long-odds betting you need to make sure you are prepared for the possible long gaps between drinks!

Hermes - Yes you could include the lower raters for more bets but there does seem to be a big drop between the 99 and 98 raters - in fact 98 raters perform worse than 97 raters but I suspect that may just be a statistical anomoly.

Bhagwan - Thanks for that. The long-term average is about 10 bets/week (so 2 per day) but it is quite variable - there were several weeks with only 2 or 3 bets the whole week (possibly because of the Good/Fast track restriction?) but other weeks with 20+ bets. You certainly need some patience but the plus side is you don't need to spend a lot of time studying the form guide! Today you only need to look at Queanbeyan and I don't think any of the 99-100 raters will start at over $11 (so far most of them have been under $5).
_________________
"So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?" - Yoda



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-08-26 15:15 ]</font>

[Big Louie]

On 24/8/2002, becareful wrote:
quote
Hermes (and anyone else interested):

I did some analysis on my database using the QTab ratings and thought you may be interested in the results. I have the QTab ratings for all races run this year (since 9/1/02) so I looked at all races since that date (quite a few races - I need a faster PC as it took some time for each query!).
unquote

becareful,

You say you have the QTAB ratings in your database.

Can I ask how you got the data in there?

Do you enter it manually, or do you download it or buy it from somewhere?

I, too, am interested in the QTAB ratings and had recently embarked on a 'manual, eyeball mission' to update my database, but then read your post and I am hoping I can download it from somewhere to update my history.

Any advice you could give would be most appreciated and I will gladly share any new findings with the rest of the forum.

Thanks & regards
Big Louie

[becareful]

Big Louie,

I have my own database and wrote a program to download all the price data from the QTab website (actually I get the data from all three TABs). At this stage I am not selling the program that I use as it contains all the logic rules behind my own betting system - if I get time and if people were interested I may split the downloading part of the program from my betting system at some time in the future.

[dinodog]

hi becareful

i'd be interested in that.

do you do any computer work for others as a norm? i have a couple of things i've been looking at , but every time i mention horse racing to programmers they "poo poo" me

regards

mal

[becareful]

Mal,

Yes I currently do contract programming for anyone willing to pay me! Hopefully soon I will be able to give that up and live off my punting income but in the meantime you can have a look at my website and email me if you want to discuss anything. I am not opposed to working on betting systems!!!


Latest update on QTab Ratings:
I left my computer running all night to download the QTab ratings from their website for previous year from 1/2/01 onwards (glad we have unlimited internet plans these days!).

On a quick analysis the results for previous year for 99-100 raters are good but not quite as good as this year (particularly the 99 raters which had some bad months). 98 raters were better than this year. 97 and below is quite variable and nothing below 95 seems to work.

One thing that does seem to improve returns is to increase the minimum and maximum bet limits for the lower raters. So we have $11-$20 for 100 raters, $13-$22 for 99 raters, $15-$24 for 98 raters, etc.

[Big Louie]

becareful,

You wrote:
I have my own database and wrote a program to download all the price data from the QTab website (actually I get the data from all three TABs).

My question:
Can you reveal what programming language/tool you use to do this download from QTAB? I have a programming background too, but I can't imagine how you would do it.

============================================

You wrote:
At this stage I am not selling the program that I use as it contains all the logic rules behind my own betting system - if I get time and if people were interested I may split the downloading part of the program from my betting system at some time in the future.

My comment:
Yes, I would be interested if I can't achieve it myself.


Hope you and the others keep up the interesting feedback on this thread.

Cheers,
Big Louie

[becareful]

Big Louie,

I use Visual Basic for the data retrieval and store results in an Access database. The program uses an internet control to download the web page as a html text object and it then searches through to pull out the bits of information I want. The tricky bit is working out how to locate each bit of information you want - basically you have to search for certain HTML strings to locate each item and then strip away all the excess HTML formatting. Each of the three TAB's obviously has to be handled seperately and you also have problems when they decide to change the formatting of their websites - luckily they don't do that very often! Queensland and Tabcorp are good because you can go back several years and get full details for each race, NSW deletes their detail pages at the end of each day so you cant get past history (they only have summary results for past dates). Be warned that there is a lot of data transfer involved so you need an internet connection with unlimited MB data transfer (eg. my effort last night for 11 months of gallops data only from Qld was about 250MB of data transfer).

[Equine Investor]

becareful, I use Froggy ISP 56k dial-up.

Gets a little slow at times, but unlimited downloads for a reasonable price. Only catch is they disconnect you every 3 or 4 hours.

P.S. I wish I had some Visual Basic knowledge but it's all double dutch to me!

:sad:

[becareful]

I currently use Optus - got sick of the 4 hour disconnects so I am paying a bit more but get a very reliable service with no disconnections. My current session has been going for 33 hours and 380MB download! Supposed to be getting broadband cable past the house next month if it doesn't get delayed again!

[becareful]

I will be trialing this ratings system during the tipping competition just to see whether a completely rule-based system can outperform the tipsters (including myself - pretty sure this system will beat me at least!!!). The rules I will be using during the trial are as follows:

* Good and Fast Tracks Only
* Monday to Friday meetings only
* All Qld/NSW/Vic/SA/WA meetings
* Betting on 98, 99 & 100 raters (QTab Ratings) according to following:
Bet on 100 raters if price from $11 to $19.90
Bet on 99 raters if price from $13 to $19.90
Bet on 98 raters if price from $15 to $24.90

For the trial the decision price will be the last price on the Tabcorp web site prior to the jump (usually labelled 0m) - if that price is within the range above then we will assume a bet.