Simple Ratings

[Mad Gambler]

Does anyone have or know a simple method for rating a race?

mad gambler

[Duritz]

How long is a piece of string?

[crash]

The daily Newspaper has prices for each runner. Mark them off in order of favoritism 1,2,3, etc. You have just achieved a simple rating system. Any other rating system is not necessarily any more accurate or reliable regardless if they are free or you pay for them. They are someones opinion or have followed some mechanical rules to end up at a rating number, also no more reliable than what you have achieved from the Newspaper.

[davez]

the unitab ratings are probably as good as any mad, if you are looking for quick & easy

[Duritz]

There are far, far more reliable methods than the newspaper prices.

One of them is this:

Duritz's Simple Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings:

1. Add up the horse's last three placings (if worse than ninth, use 9), and divide by the number of runs you added together. Multiply this figure by -1 then add 10.

2. Add up the horses prizemoney, divide by it's number of runs, and multiply by it's place strike rate, (expressed as a decimal, rounded to two places), and divide the figure by 1000.

3. Assign a days since last start quotient factorial to the number of days they have had since last start, where 1 is for 0-7 days and for every bracket of 7 days 1 over that 1 is added - if > 21 days since last start, use 4. Then multiply this figure by -1 and add 5.

4. If an apprentice jockey, assign a jockey quotient factorial of 1, otherwise assign a jockey quotient factorial of 2.

5. If horse is 1st up from a spell, assign a Runs From Spell (RFS) quotient factorial of 1, if 2nd up, 2, if 3rd, 4th or 5th up, 4, else 3.

6. If said member of equinity has barrier 11 or wider, assign a barrier quotient factorial of 1, else 2.

Write down these 6 Lucky figures in six separate columns in your Lucky 7 tabulator book, then multiply these 6 figures together and write the resulting figure in the Lucky 7 column.

Whoever is highest, is the top pick. Head for the bookies ring with ears back and caution sitting idly at home, and back it until your guts swell up.

And there you have it! A simple, Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings method.

[crash]

Want to put that lot of tedious hard work up [or any ratings you choose] against the simple Newspaper system I mentioned here Duritz?

I have a $20 here that says you will lose over the next 2 Saturdays, main Metro E/states :-)

[lomaca]

There are far, far more reliable methods than the newspaper prices.

One of them is this:

Duritz's Simple Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings:

1. Add up the horse's last three placings (if worse than ninth, use 9), and divide by the number of runs you added together. Multiply this figure by -1 then add 10.

2. Add up the horses prizemoney, divide by it's number of runs, and multiply by it's place strike rate, (expressed as a decimal, rounded to two places), and divide the figure by 1000.

3. Assign a days since last start quotient factorial to the number of days they have had since last start, where 1 is for 0-7 days and for every bracket of 7 days 1 over that 1 is added - if > 21 days since last start, use 4. Then multiply this figure by -1 and add 5.

4. If an apprentice jockey, assign a jockey quotient factorial of 1, otherwise assign a jockey quotient factorial of 2.

5. If horse is 1st up from a spell, assign a Runs From Spell (RFS) quotient factorial of 1, if 2nd up, 2, if 3rd, 4th or 5th up, 4, else 3.

6. If said member of equinity has barrier 11 or wider, assign a barrier quotient factorial of 1, else 2.

Write down these 6 Lucky figures in six separate columns in your Lucky 7 tabulator book, then multiply these 6 figures together and write the resulting figure in the Lucky 7 column.

Whoever is highest, is the top pick. Head for the bookies ring with ears back and caution sitting idly at home, and back it until your guts swell up.

And there you have it! A simple, Sooper Dooper You Beaut No Worries DIY "Lucky 7" Ratings method.


Hi Duritz!
Thank's for your extremely valuable input.
While for some! it may appear complex, I think this is actually the very essence of ratings, reduced to it's most comprehensive and at the same time to it's most simple form.
I whipped up a small programme and ran it through 3 years of past data.
I have to admit, I have taken a small liberty of multiplying the above mentioned quotiens by "-1" before doing the factorial permutations, in order to obtain a more realictic outcome.
Since it was your idea I do not feel empowered to publicly post the results, however, let me just say this, Duritz you have done it !!!!
Email sent!
Many thank's and please let them coming!

[crash]

....and what was the 'realictic' outcome?

[Duritz]

lol I dont' know what my email address is listed as here!

Mad what email did you send it to? Just give me the bit after the @ and I'll know.

[Duritz]

Hey Crash - if someone can program that one for me I'll test it against the newspapers, and take the $20 bet naturally!

[Bhagwan]

Target the 7 shortest Newspaper pre-post priced horses.
Races with 11-13 runners only.
Race fav must be $2.60+ at jump , otherwise its a no bet race.
Re-Frame the total of the 7 horse's pre-post prices ,market percentage value by multiplying its current percentage by 1.10 & bet the overs.
e.g. market % for the 7 horses could be 106% X 1.10= 116.6%
Now input this 116.6% into the box & every thing will be worked out for you in one second.
Bet same amount on each.
This hits on plenty of winners.

One can use Ozrace tools to do all this for you.
Market Re-Framer.

http://www.ozracetools.com/modules.php?name=Market_Framer

Cheers

[lomaca]

Hey Crash - if someone can program that one for me I'll test it against the newspapers, and take the $20 bet naturally!

I think I'd better keep my day job, obviously no good as a comedian.
And somet, I'd like to know, why was my post edited by the moderator? Said absolutely nothing defamatory, wasn't even promoting crackers!
Incidantally Duritz, there are no factorials of negative numbers, hence (liberty of multiplying by -1)
Thought, it would click with all of you, sorry.
Retired member of this forum.
Good luck to all of you.

[xptdriver]

I think I'd better keep my day job, obviously no good as a comedian.
And somet, I'd like to know, why was my post edited by the moderator? Said absolutely nothing defamatory, wasn't even promoting crackers!
Incidantally Duritz, there are no factorials of negative numbers, hence (liberty of multiplying by -1)
Thought, it would click with all of you, sorry.
Retired member of this forum.
Good luck to all of you.

RANT MODE ON

Some of the edits that occur by moderators on this site are, at the very least mystifying at times.. I have read on numerous occassions that the owners of the site, as is their right, are cautious of potential legal action being wrought against them... Whilst it is obviously the owner of the site's right to be cautious, I will also reserve the right to be, how do I put this, bemused, by some of the things that are done in the name of moderation..

With this in mind, I recall the following There was a moderator, a few days ago on another thead who posted, when a contributor was waxxing lyrically about diseminating information from this site to the public domain :

This Forum and the internet sites smartgambler.com.au and propun.com.au are the assets of OZmium Pty. Ltd. They have a substantial financial value.

They DO NOT belong to the public.

If someone, for example, copied our Punt to Win betting advice articles and published them in a book our lawyers would take legal action.


and then promptly closed the thread... tsk... what? No discussion? Just a gag... what is this? the Australian Senate? have the Libs taken over here and we haven't been told? , Any dissent and we will close you down? Again it may well be the right of the owner to do so, I am not arguing that it is not...

The above post by the moderator may be totally correct, and probably is.... My point? The only mention of litigation that I have seen on this site has been from the moderators themselves.... Not by anyone who has claimed be defamed or otherwise injured by comments on this site, by contributors... Maybe the moderators are just a wee bit precious, in what they deem inappropriate.. in their over zealous editing practices. at one stage they had software running that would not aloow the word horse to be posted... we are afterall adults.. But hell.. what do I know? I would guess on this site, I am not entitled to hold that opinion... Time will tell

RANT MODE OFF

[xptdriver]

Now after my rant...

Simple ratings.... I think a pretty fair base of any ratings is beaten margins, I believe they are very important to knocking up some ratings that are worth a cracker.. Another area that I have looked at is an SP profile.. this alone seems to point you towards the main chances in a race. Using the usual, distance/jockey/trainer/track/formline/W%/P%/API etc added to the 2 I mentioned above, I think will bring the main contenders to the fore..

As has been said earlier, the newspapers are pretty good too :)

[mem2299]

How long is a piece of string? Don't you Know?
It is twice half its length

[crash]

Hi XP.

The editing business you were referring to, I think was mainly about the claim that amounted to declaring the forum is a public domain [public property] and all the material in it could be copied and sold as a book . I think Neil was pointing out the obvious for anyone reading the post now or in the future, that in no way is this a 'public forum' but a privately run commercial operation that to become members off and use, members have agreed to 'term and conditions' of use.

I imagine that posts asking for explanation are [usually] not answered because explanation inevitably leads to more posts and even possible argument. I guess moderators have better things to do with there time than justify themselves or their actions and if we don't understand them, 'tuff luck' would be the expression that is probably on their lips :-)

As far as ratings go, they are only another tool, a piece of the jigsaw puzzle we are trying to fit together in finding winners, hopefully with more value than their SP suggests. By themselves they are useless.
No ratings, regardless of how well put together they are will put food on the table without some handicapping effort involved as well or are used as an ingredient in a profitable system. The top 5 selections in good ratings might have 85% of all winners among them, but so do the top 5 newspaper form prices which can also be used as a guide to handicapping and in systems just as readily.

When accountants are working out tax returns they use a calculator or adding machine of some sort, not because they are incapable of doing all the calculations themselves without one, but because it saves them time, money and contributes a great deal to the overall efficiency of their business operation. Good quality calculators cost peanuts. So do good quality ratings.

[lomaca]

Some of the edits that occur by moderators on this site are, at the very least mystifying at times..

The bit deleted, was the claim by Duritz regarding his intellectual property right to his post.
Like registering his title to it? don't want to use the proper word, it might be deleted automaticly.
I just noticed, it was deleted from his original post as well.
Good luck to all.

[crash]

Anything written on this forum becomes the property of the the site owner[s].
That is very clearly stated in the terms and cond/t. of use that we all agreed to, regardless if we read them or not. Obviously Duritz hasn't and nor had I until just recently. That's why it's fresh in my memory.

[Top Rank]

Hi Mad,

Getting back on the track of this thread, for something very simple have you tried ranking certain factors to come up with a rating.

For example: 10 horses in a race, best av. prizemoney gets 10, next best gets 9 and so on down the line.
Then add win strike rate ranking and place strike rate ranking.

Sportsman Chartform is good for this.

Pretty simple, easy to calculate.

Good Punting.

[marcus25]

Hi Mad,

Getting back on the track of this thread, for something very simple have you tried ranking certain factors to come up with a rating.

For example: 10 horses in a race, best av. prizemoney gets 10, next best gets 9 and so on down the line.
Then add win strike rate ranking and place strike rate ranking.

Top rank!
Not wanting to be a wet blanket but, - unless you only wanted this to be an example of what can be done -, this method will guarantee you the short priced favourites. What's the point of working that out?
It's all there for you already.
I would include the proviso, of not having had a win, or preferably even a placing, in the last 3 runs, unless all 3 runs were way up in class!
Good luck

[Top Rank]

Hi Marcus25,

No problem with the wet blanket,but you would be surprised that your assertion is not entirely correct at all.
You will find that it will find most of the best chances in the race.

It was just an easy assist for Mad.

Good Punting.

[crash]

Why would anyone use the Sportsman to calculate a sub-standard rating figure [comparatively speaking] when the Sportsman's rating are actually quite good all by themselves?. Also there are good ratings in the Wizard and the Whitway ratings in the Winning post aren't bad either.

Seems like after reading some of the posts here, a ratings system is not the goal, but a mechanical method of selecting winners [a system]. There are other skills and judgments involved besides ratings in making a profit, that cannot be given a rating figure. I think we a searching for a shovel here, not a spade. Mad wasn't looking for a shovel.

The original question was basically, 'I'm looking for simple way to find ratings'. Look at any of the racing papers which have professionally done ratings already there for you or even use the odds in the Newspaper. I can't think of anything simpler [?].

[crash]

I think we should all take a step back here and look at the 'view' gentleman.


Mad Gambler is often starting new threads and always the questions are newbie type questions and for some strange reason he never seems to respond in any of the threads he kicks off. I ask you gentleman, why would a punter here who is 3rd from the top in a current very difficult tipping comp, involving many punters here, be asking newbie questions ?

You wouldn't be a moderator here would you mad, creating debate with simple questions to keep the forum pages ticking along ? Mad's more recent thread effort in the poker pages promoting various sites seem a bit sus too:-)
-------------------------------------------

Pretty good going for a punter who can't figure out simple ratings :-) LOL LOL

Overall top 3 placings in Sportz's RACE OF THE DAY COMP

877.5 . wesmip1
827.5 . mad
800.0 . Duritz


lol , lol

[Merriguy]

Not just a pretty face are you Crash? Has had me wondering too!!

[lomaca]

Mad Gambler is often starting new threads and always the questions are newbie type questions and for some strange reason he never seems to respond in any of the threads he kicks off.
Just a stab in the dark!
maybe "mad" <> "Mad Gambler"?
As to "never respond"? see the way he asked for Excel help before!

[marcus25]

Hi Marcus25,

you would be surprised that your assertion is not entirely correct at all.
You will find that it will find most of the best chances in the race.

Thank's Top Rank, you might be right, it's just that every time I add these criteria to my ratings, I wind up with the hot favs. like everyone else.
(I skew my selection process so as to avoid the favs.)
Probably used on their own it is a different matter.
Thank you.

[baco60]

Finally someone woke up to his tricks.
Good on you Crash.

[partypooper]

Gee, my sheltered life is really starting to get embarrassing!!! HUH?

[crash]

10 points for effort and 'dash' Mad. Who knows though, perhaps we are just getting paranoid and misaligning the fellow. Reds under the bed anyone?

[Chrome Prince]

A simple system...

Take the Techform or Unitab ratings.

Add 1 point for any horse which finished in the placings last start

Deduct 1 point for any horse which finished unplaced last start.

Deduct 1 point for any horse first up

Add one point for any horse backing up within 7 days

No alteration for any horse starting between 8 and 44 days.

Now, add up the difference in points like this....

<pre>(TAB) (NEW RATING) (POINTS)
1 101 20
2 98 17
3 95 14
4 92 11
5 92 11
6 90 9
7 87 6
8 85 4
9 81 1
10 81 1
</pre>
So you are adding up the number difference between the bottom rating, but a minimum of 1.

So now you have prices and percentages:

<pre>(TAB) (POINTS) (PERCENTAGE) (PRICE)
1 20 21.28% $4.70
2 17 18.08% $5.53
3 14 14.89% $6.71
4 11 11.70% $8.55
5 11 11.70% $8.55
6 9 9.57% $10.45
7 6 6.38% $15.67
8 4 4.25% $23.53
9 1 1.06% $94.34
10 1 1.06% $94.34</pre>

Either back any horse initially rated over 100 points after the rules are applied and WIN!!!

Or back the overlays and WIN!!!

A gift, can't get much easier than this - enjoy :D

Only proviso is don't bet maidens or first starters, hurdles, steeples, or fields where more than two horses are first up.

Anyone savvy with excel would be able to check this out as fact over a long period of time. You won't win every day or even every week, but you will win in the end.

[partypooper]

Chrome, do I take to mean that 45 days is considered 1st up?

[Chrome Prince]

Hi Partypooper,

I sent you an email regarding your spreadsheet.

Yes, 45 days is usually denoted in the formguides as a spell, although this is not strict and you can modify it to suit yourself.

I looked at horses example 112x and found this formline to be over rated, depending of course on the opposition.

The ratings tend to decipher this kind of thing anyway

Track condition or barrier did not make any noticeable difference to the outcome.

[crash]

Nice shovel, I mean 'system' Chrome !

[salty]

Chrome Prince

Could you work through an example, as I can't see where you got your second column of points from.

Thanks

Salty

[Chrome Prince]

Chrome Prince

Could you work through an example, as I can't see where you got your second column of points from.

Thanks

Salty

Hi Salty,

Let's say we have used the rules to "modify" some set of ratings, be they Unitab or Techform or something else.

After applying the rules, there are amended or revised ratings.

101
99
97
96
95
94
93

What you do is now add up the DIFFERENCE in rating points between the bottom rated and the next highest. BUT you can only have a minimum of 1 point, so 0 = 1 point still.

Looking at the above scenario, start from the bottom and work up...

93 - 93 = 0, so 1 point (minimum)
94 - 93 = 1 point
95 - 93 = 2 points
96 - 93 = 3 points
etc etc
right up to the top rated

101 - 93 = 8 points.

So in this case the top rated horse is 8 points above the bottom rated.

Convert this to a percentage by dividing the points for each horse by the field total points.

convert this pecentage to a price by dividing 100 by the percentage.

We then have a field rated to 100% market.

This gives the hypothetically true odds and you work from there.

You can of course back the highest rated runners, providing they are over 100 after applying the rules.

Hope this helps.

This is actually just a quick way to get some prices, based on sound system rules. You are still getting ratings of a sort and if you look at how the selections perform AFTER applying the rules as opposed to using the initial ratings raw, you'll be pretty amazed ;)

[Shaun]

In regards to what is printed on the forum belongs to the forum, if you don't want it public then don't print it because what is visiable to others can and will be used by others, as evidence of some mags out there that have used our very ideas to profit from.

I have my self copied a few system from these forum pages not to be printed but definetly to be profited from.

[Chrome Prince]

Shaun,

There is a distinct difference between a punter profiting from information derived from postings on the forum and unscrupulous "others" that sell it as their own ideas for profit.

The issue is claiming something publicly as your own work when it is not, plagerism, and selling something for profit when it was provided for free and with good intention.

I personally have no problem with any individual taking information for personal use - that's what the forum is partly here for.

As you say though, I have certainly cut back severely on sharing anything publicly due to the vulcher element.

Whatever I share here now, is simply general or fun stuff, not serious discoveries, of which I have made a few.

For example: The trainers methods post which I made and was plagerised almost word for word a month later, continues to do well, but, since that time, I've made a much better discovery in relation to the method and now cannot post it for fear of the "vulchers".

It's just not right in my opinion, and rubs me up the wrong way - it's downright deceitful!

It's a shame, because it shouldn't have to be this way.

[partypooper]

Stating the obvious I know, but I think everyone here keeps the "Gems" to themselves, just in case it is the "goose". But still there is a lot of food for thought, which can be developed into something useful. I have definitly benefitted by things that I read on the forum, maybe not in their raw form but when I put my own tilt to them. Hopefully I have also made a few people think in a different way, eg. many people STILL do not look for the best possible return, even something as simple as opening an account where you can bet at best of 3 totes can make an incredible difference overall. I know of one very astute backer who bets for the place where he gets AVERAGE of 3 totes (for the place that is) when he could be investing half at best of Supertab and NSW and the other half at Unitab, this GUARATEES about 5% increase in returns, but he doesn't do it, don't ask me why?

[Bhagwan]

Thats an excellent idea of yours Chrome Prince...excellent.
Thanks for shareing that.

One way of making the exercise a little easier
is to write down say the six contenders .
Deduct one point off the lowest rated.
e.g.
83---100---17
83---84---1
83---96---13
83---89---6
83---94---11
83---98---15

Go to Ozracetools site & open up the Rating to Price section .
Place the resultying figures into the allocated space & Bingo! (17,1,13,6,11,15) your in action.

The prices are now all worked out for you...laughing like a god-dam Hyina .

One could now target a race where there is value & a chance of the Fav falling over for us ,then Dutch bet all six to take out say $100 by dividing the resulting price above into $100 (or any other amount) & if one of the six gets up you will ususally be in profit or a small loss.

I would recommend making the shortest price $4.00 even if its showing less than this , if one is going to run with this exercise so as to keep the outlay down.

One could place all bets before prices are put up & hope for the best outcome.

Cheers.