Eliminating False Favs

[go4it]

Have been testing a stringent set of rules for getting rid of false favs.Has been quite promising so far.Don't want to post the rules as yet,but for anyone interested here are the ones that don't meet the criteria for tommorrows races.

Randwick
R3 Top of the Top
R5 Primus
R7 Courts in Session
R8 Montmello
R9 Diego Garcia

Moonee Valley
R1 Rulan Ruby
R7 Spielmeister

Doomben
R4 Stepping
R6 Fleeting Echo
R7 Rassmussen

These were the only qualifying races according to the criteria,but having posted them on here they will probably all win!!!

cheers and good punting tommorrow

[crash]

I think you mean false pre-post favourites. By race time, a lot of them might not be SP favorites.

[partypooper]

Crash, I've done years of research into Pre-post favs, amazing thing is the overall picture is surprisingly the same as for actual favs, i.e. S/R, LOT etc, even the picture when sorted by price, type of race, LSW etc etc. I'm talking about over 1000's of bets here, although of course as you say the actual bets can alter as sometimes the fav is not the pre-post fav.

I've found a slight improvement when the pre-post fav IS the actual fav, and also when 2 or more sources agree on the pre-post fav, various other filters can get it down pretty close to break even/slight POT.

[crash]

30 favourites won last Sat. apparently. Don't know how many were PP.
Bookies must have coped a hiding :-))

[go4it]

Crash,

yes,I operate my rules on the prepost (friday) market.I find this works best for me,and again you are quite right,with market flucs and volume of money for different runners some may not even start fav,but I can only work with whats in front of me at the time.

cheers

[syllabus23]

A lot of favourites become false favourites between the stables and the saddling enclosure.

I dont mind a punt but mostly enjoy the races.I like to be there to see what's happening for myself and generally attend at least two race meetings a week.

The first horse that I checkout is the favourite.They can stand in their stalls quite happily being cuddled and kissed by some pretty strapper,(lol and some pretty ugly ones too)Take them from their stall to the mounting yard and they frequently turn into sour cantankerous monsters.

Who knows why?? They just do.The brief shots on sky and tvn quite often do not show the full picture.But you can almost guarantee that if they behave badly in the yard they will perform the same way on the track.

A lot of punters just cant make it to the track.But if you can it's worth the effort.

[Bhagwan]

Heres a simple idea that is very successful weeding out False Favs
It works most days , but it does have its days where most decide to all get up ,but this is very rare.

FALSE FAV RULE
All Favs starting from Barrier 9+
That's It.

Example
Using TAB favs for this exercise.

Fri 24th Aug had one 1.70 winner from 8 races
Thur 23rd had 3 winners 3.20,5.20,3.40 from 6 races , one of those days.
Wed 22nd had 2 winners 1.80,3.80 from 11 races

If one only targeted races where the Fav is 2.10-2.90 starting from barrier 9+
Some good value could be had betting several others to beat it.

There are usually quite a few qualifying races in this price range & this is the range you want them to fall over if lay betting or seeking value on the others,
e.g. If Dutch betting.
It would have done very well over the 3 days shown above ,
in the said price range.(that is False Favs falling over)

Correspondingly , if one feels they must bet the Race Fav in barrier 9+ , make sure it is paying $3.20+ so as to justify barrier to value.

If one only wanted to have one selection per venue , try working from race 8 backwards & settle on the first one that qualifies, if using the newspaper
Pre-post.
The logic is ,more shorter priced Favs seem to get up in the first half of most meetings for whatever reason.

[jfc]

Heres a simple idea that is very successful weeding out False Favs
It works most days , but it does have its days where most decide to all get up ,but this is very rare.

FALSE FAV RULE
All Favs starting from Barrier 9+
That's It.

Example
Using TAB favs for this exercise.

Fri 24th Aug had one 1.70 winner from 8 races
Thur 23rd had 3 winners 3.20,5.20,3.40 from 6 races , one of those days.
Wed 22nd had 2 winners 1.80,3.80 from 11 races

If one only targeted races where the Fav is 2.10-2.90 starting from barrier 9+
Some good value could be had betting several others to beat it.

There are usually quite a few qualifying races in this price range & this is the range you want them to fall over if lay betting or seeking value on the others,
e.g. If Dutch betting.
It would have done very well over the 3 days shown above ,
in the said price range.(that is False Favs falling over)

Correspondingly , if one feels they must bet the Race Fav in barrier 9+ , make sure it is paying $3.20+ so as to justify barrier to value.

If one only wanted to have one selection per venue , try working from race 8 backwards & settle on the first one that qualifies, if using the newspaper
Pre-post.
The logic is ,more shorter priced Favs seem to get up in the first half of most meetings for whatever reason.


This is simply DEAD WRONG.

Consider runners <= 2/1

Bar - ROT
>=9 : 97.3%
1,2 : 87.5%


It's almost as if you're deliberately trying to steer your disciples onto the dole.

[Bhagwan]

Steering . Deciples?
What the #*** are you talking about.

As stated , it has days where they all decide to get up & many more that dont get up on a given day ,so maybe its best to target one race a meeting if looking for a false Fav barrier 9+

[crash]

Chrome,
Your peddling the same mistake those 'winning barrier' books seduce punters into believing .....an enormous, [but false] bias exists for inside barrier wins.

There are more 7 to 12 horse races than 13 to 18 horses races, Instant [false] winning bias for barriers 1 to 9.

All races need to be looked at as separate betting propositions. All the horses in that race have an optimum starting position depending on their running style, track layout, condt., distance, jockey, other horse's running style, including their jockey and barrier.

Most vitamized mass data as a means to making a punting profit, in my book anyway, is a certain road to the poor house.

[Wunfluova]

Crash, your last post could use another edit - the first word looks a bit dodgy http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon12.gif

[crash]

The first word?

I might be getting slow, I don't understand your post.

[manygeese]

You seem to have chrome and bhagwan confused, wesmip (that'll confuse you even more crash)

Randwick
R3 Top of the Top 1.60
R5 Primus 2.80 1.40
R7 Courts in Session 5.10 2.10
R8 Montmello 1.90
R9 Diego Garcia 2.40

Moonee Valley
R1 Rulan Ruby unplaced
R7 Spielmeister 1.90 1.20

Doomben
R4 Stepping unplaced
R6 Fleeting Echo 1.20
R7 Rassmussen 2.10 1.30


Break even. Good run by Courts in Session

[crash]

Crash, your last post could use another edit - the first word looks a bit dodgy http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon12.gif

OK. I get it [thanks]. Sorry Bagman, I had a seniors moment and was confusing names.

[Marcus]

Im interested. But I've got no idea what this sign language and abbreviations like ROT means. Does bar mean barrier?

This is simply DEAD WRONG.

Consider runners <= 2/1

Bar - ROT
>=9 : 97.3%
1,2 : 87.5%

[jfc]

Im interested. But I've got no idea what this sign language and abbreviations like ROT means.

ROT = Return on turnover = POT+100%



Does bar mean barrier?

Could be.

I ran my test over my ~1,000,000 run database.

Furthermore there have been lots of posts about noting that wide barriers are over-penalised by the market hence often good value.

So Bhagwan's conclusions are once more a bit of a worry.

[Chrome Prince]

Hehe I seem to cop it even when I don't post anything and am not here, a bit like my relationships ;)

[Bhagwan]

Dear Chrome Prince,

Dont feel Paranoid.

They realy are talking about you.

Cheers.

[wesmip1]

jfc,

You are talking about ROT. Try looking at it from strike rate. I believe there is a bias to horses winning more often from the inside barriers but at reduced odds.

As the barrier goes up the strike rate goes down but the ROT goes up.

In my database (only 451,000 runs) it shows a direct bias to the first 6 barriers which scored a strike rate above 10% for win (above 30% for place).

To determine the bias you divide the number of wins (or places) by the number of runs in the barrier.

I think this is what Bhagwan was steering towards.

I do argee a high strike rate does not make a good system. I take the higher ROT anytime.

Good Luck

[jfc]

jfc,


To determine the bias you divide the number of wins (or places) by the number of runs in the barrier.




Actually I do compute that ratio (= "fair share" for argument's sake) in all my tests. It is obviously more meaningful than Strike Rate.

Consider these tests based on my original sample comparing barriers 1&2 (inner) versus 9+ (wide):

Constant Field Size of 10, Any Price:

10.7% Inner S/R
9.4% Wide S/R

Or as Fair Share: 107% versus 94%.

Suggesting the wide have a negative bias:


But with Constant SP of precisely 2/1 and any Field Size:

27.1% Inner S/R
29.7% Outer S/R

Or as Fair Share: 186% versus a whopping 342%.


Damning evidence that for favourites the Market overpenalises wide barriers.

[wesmip1]

I definitely agree that the market over penalises the outside barriers.
I have numerous systems that take advantage of this fact.

Good Luck.

[blownhemi]

Im interested. But I've got no idea what this sign language and abbreviations like ROT means. Does bar mean barrier?

Im with Marcus WTF :( is ROT?

[wesmip1]

ROT = Return on Turnover

99% = 1% loss (or LOT)
100% = break even
101% = 1% profit (or POT)
Good Luck.

[blownhemi]

Muchus clearer now

thanx wes

[DR RON]

Pure sttrike rates for each barrier wont tell you much on their own. You have to take into account the number of horses in each race as well. For example barrier 15 at track x may have a very poor s/r as against barrier 1, however the horses from barrier 15 will have at least 14 others aginst it whereas horses from barrier 1 may only have another 3 or 4 in some races. So the average number of horses in a race will average about 10, whereas in races where barrier 15 is involved may average 16 or 17 therefore producing an incorrect bias. The inside barriers will still come out better overall but not as significant as what some people think.

[wesmip1]

Dr RON,

What you want to know is what percentage higher than average is the barrier winning for each field size combination.

Also some peoples stats don't take into consideration scratchings which were inside the barrier assigned to the horse and tihs can give misleading stats.

Barriers can be analysed a fair bit and the usual result is the lower the barrier(1-4) the higher the strike rate but the higher the barrier (10+) the higher the ROT.

Mind you the barrier has less effect on longer races and also on races with less runners (less then 12) in regard to strike rate.