Prime Factor for increasing SR

[Bhagwan]

How many times have you backed your inform trusty stead which looks like it has the race won, only to be knocked on the line by a 30/1 box headed shot & to add insult to injury, it keeps happening all day, where ones selection runs 2nd to inferior looking horses.

One will read from so called experts that its best to target good class races .
Then that raises the complicated question of what defines class.
So lets make it simple.

I have found that horses with strange form, seem to win less often if one where to target only the races where there are one or more last start winners in the field.

This tells us that the race field is not a total dud, class wise.

One will find ones selction SR should increase, if using any form criteria & less chance of zero form animals knocking you off.

One will find that most races where outsiders get up are usually in races where there are no last start winners in them.

If one had say a SR of 1.6 winners in every 8 races (20%) & we were able to delete the races with no Last Start Winners in them .
That could mean that ones SR could then maybe become say 1.6 winners in every 6 races , this in effect means the SR could now go from 20% to 26.6% . Thats an improvement of 33%

This could show up as increased profit potential on ones current selection criteria.

To test this idea, have a look at any race where outsiders have got up & in most cases, it will be in races where there are no last start winners in the field.

Check it out.
Cheers.

[Mr Quaddie]

You are right.

I feel maiden races can produce the odd rough result.

I use to bet on horses that are $26 or $31 on the tote, when the field has no prior last start winners. It keeps you going, cause there is going to be one that lands every 30 or so.

[rumply]

interesting observation bhagwan, i guess one could also target those races with no last start winners to be better propositions for their longshot selections, so maybe there could also be a strike rate improvement in those type systems/selections

off the subject slightly, but i often read or hear those that say wet tracks should be avoided because of the increase in 'rough' results, however after a couple decades of punting have not found this to be true. my results over the winter periods do not differ that much from other times of the year, except for a reduced number of bets, probably due the less meetings, smaller fields etc

any observations on the subject of wet tracks?

[michaelg]

I once read from a respected punter (can't remember his name) that he prefers wet tracks because it is generally known which horses can handle them and those that can't.

Another punter said that the fave strike rate is consistent over all track conditions.

However, both Mark Read and Don Scott advise(d) against betting on rain-affected tracks. Maybe for several reasons its more difficult to frame a market as they both do/did for wet tracks?

[Bhagwan]

I did a test on pre-post favs over all different track conditions using some 50,000 races.

I found the SR on heavy & slow was slightly less than good or dead tracks plus the average price was better on wet tracks.

I also found that all the systems I was running had the same SR but the average div was better therefore more POT.

Another observation was that it was better to back a horse with zero wet track experience than a horse that has had a run & failed on a wet track.

Also a horse with 1 success from one wet track outing performed better than horses which had 3 wet track successes.
Two success was stronger than three successes , weird.

The stats revieled that it was safe to delete all runners with wet track experience & go for the horses with zero wet track experience when rating a track that is slow or heavy.


It seems that if the horse found a wet track an unpleasant experience it, might play on his horsey brain & run accordingly.

The stats show that the highest No. of winners came from horses with 0-1 wet track experience.

One thing I also found, is wet track horses that have a history of only been placed on a wet track , very rarely ever went on to win on a wet track.

So in a nut shell, wet tracks upset most horses which have had wet track exposure over horses with zero wet track exposure in the past.
Try & target horses with 0-1 wet track runs.

Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

Amazingly Fast is the worst, Heavy is nearly as good as Good.
Transitional tracks are the one's to steer clear of, Dead and Slow.
That's why I get confused to why the "Dead or worse" rule is often applied???

[schonegg]

One of the many problems of punting on wet tracks is that a Heavy rating on track A is different to a Heavy rating on track B. So a previous winner in the wet may not 'handle' the wet surface on another track.
Another problem is racing off the rail. You hope that your wetracker will then able to race in the 'fast' lane.

[crash]

Amazingly Fast is the worst, Heavy is nearly as good as Good.
Transitional tracks are the one's to steer clear of, Dead and Slow.
That's why I get confused to why the "Dead or worse" rule is often applied???

These claims must be based on the number of favorites winning[?] For heavy conditions there will be a lot of scratchings. It makes sense that less runners = more chance the fav. will win. The theory then is only ever back favorites and back them only on Heavy, Good or Fast tracks?

[rumply]

whilst it makes sense that on average wet track events will have fewer runners & therefore the favoured runners more likely to win, it doesnt explain why average fav sp would be higher, one would expect the opposite i would have thought

perhaps with wet tracks there is generally a lack of confidence in betting markets & the books have got to get a bit generous to get the cash out of the wallets, & less bookie money being layed off on the tote means better prices for all? duno

[cinna]

I'm thinking that the wet/dry track stats quoted are as a result of races run Ozwide & that perhaps, were they assessed state by state they could be quite different inasmuch Vic & Tassie runners have far more wet track opportunity than WA gallopers. Can someone make sense of this for me? I know what I'm trying to say but it ain't making much written sense is it or is there an Einstein in here? Can't get the LOL smiley to fire!!

[TWOBETS]

As always I'll not help this discussion, but I'll still burden you all with my observations cause although I'm stupid, I've been doing this for so long I've noticed stuff. Fact is I can find a couple of my systems that refuse to show a profit until heavy and slow are discounted and on the other hand I have a little sweety of a system that couldn't give a rats rectum about track quality.

My point? Good question. Really I guess I'm just saying I think it's wrong to try and pigeon-hole any criterea as I feel so many things are inter related.

[crash]

I guess it comes down to punting style. Some people use massive stat data-banks and some don't because it's just not their style or doesn't suit their head space. Regardless of method, there is no guarantee of success. For any selection method, there is a massive amount of info. that is unattainable. 30% of favorites win, so theoretically 70% of info. is unavailable pre-post. Finding good prices seem to be to only road ahead regardless of method.

[rumply]

My point? Good question. Really I guess I'm just saying I think it's wrong to try and pigeon-hole any criterea as I feel so many things are inter related.must agree wholeheartedly

[darkydog2002]

TWOBETS.

The same thing was told to me by the master of the punt Warren Block.

Absolutely correct .Every horse is an individual.

Cheers.
darky.