Previous Two Starts Finish

[Luckyboy]

Hi All,

Can someone run a quick database check for the previous two start finishes of all winners for the Syd/Mlb/Brs/Adl metro areas?

i.e. race winner's previous two starts were - 34

I have been tinkering with something over the past few weeks with some moderate success and would like to get a bit of perspective to it...


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Stix]

Not going to run through the stats(Leave that to someone who has the time), but would say restrict your age and last two starts to finishes better than 5th and you have a sound start...

[Luckyboy]

Stix,

That is pretty much where I am coming from, but I wanted to see some stats to check is there was some factual proof to support my initial theory.

Thanks for the reply.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[crash]

Last 3 starts adding up to 9 or less is and old tried and true formula [Spell or 0=10]. 4 and 5 yr. olds are good as they [mostly] haven't been flogged to death. Their SR often drops off after 5yr. due to niggling injuries etc., just like any older athlete thats been at it for awhile.

[Luckyboy]

crash,

Yes, I have heard of that method too...

What I have been tinkering with involves the last two starts along with some other filters, but what I beleive I have found is the 'value edge'.

Some stats would hopefully provide a bit of theoretical comfort...


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[jayjones1]

that method is not that good i would stay away from thathttp://c08y1024qmyi129.imageshacknow.info/img/1981/t08g1114ocrq/1.gifhttp://c08y1024qmyi129.imageshacknow.info/img/1808/t08g1114ocrq/1.gifhttp://c08y1024qmyi129.imageshacknow.info/img/1795/t08g1114ocrq/1.gif

[Stix]

Stix,

That is pretty much where I am coming from, but I wanted to see some stats to check is there was some factual proof to support my initial theory.

Thanks for the reply.


Cheers,
LuckyboyUnlike Crash, I wouldn't go near 5 year olds (and older horses), im my experience they are harder to catch when up and fit..... 3 and 4 yearolds in form will give you a solid base, think outside of the square (not the obvious system rules) on a few other filters and you will have a winning system..... it worked for me.

[Luckyboy]

stix,

Thanks for that.

I have a pretty successful method that I have been using for about four years now, but over the recent months I have been thinking 'outside the square' and possibly stumbled onto something.

But before I launch into it I had one piece of missing information - 2nd last start finish position...

It's a stat that just have not kept a record of. Dammit...


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Stix]

stix,

Thanks for that.

I have a pretty successful method that I have been using for about four years now, but over the recent months I have been thinking 'outside the square' and possibly stumbled onto something.

But before I launch into it I had one piece of missing information - 2nd last start finish position...

It's a stat that just have not kept a record of. Dammit...


Cheers,
LuckyboyMy system is not so worried about the last start but more about the 2nd and 3rd last starts......I use 1st to 4th (not margins - although you could, but I don't) for 2nd last start......

So:
348 = yes
022 = yes
551 = no
407 = no
3X7 = yes

Hope that helps..... see if I can manufacture some time tonight to dig up some stats...

Glad to hear you have something that works. I had Western Coup and Minroy today (I know...I know....not that it matters as I never posted them :o)

Good luck...

[Luckyboy]

stix,

Your insights are much appreciated. I like the notion of ignoring the last start. It's outside of the square as you would say and definitely out of the media hype!

Thanks again.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Stix]

Yep, less than 2 legths from winner etc are over cooked by the average punter/tipster

I did post the stats last night, but then thought again about it and removed them (not sure why, maybe this website has jaded me), but will say that a very large % all winners (all ages, All Metro tracks, all track conditions, all states) finished better than 5th at their second last start......

[Luckyboy]

Stix,

Thanks for that, and I can understand 'jaded'. If you search my nom de plume you'll see I have offered some friendly advice and stats previously, without giving away the whole box and dice so to speak.

Your point of a very high percentage of winners finishing better than fifth at its second last start has strong resonance with my emerging method.

Thanks for your assistance.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Stix]

Stix,

Thanks for that, and I can understand 'jaded'. If you search my nom de plume you'll see I have offered some friendly advice and stats previously, without giving away the whole box and dice so to speak.

Your point of a very high percentage of winners finishing better than fifth at its second last start has strong resonance with my emerging method.

Thanks for your assistance.


Cheers,
LuckyboyGot an email address, I'll send the info through.

[Luckyboy]

Stix,

Very generous of you...

Thanks in advance.

luckyboypunts(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Stix]

Stix,

Very generous of you...

Thanks in advance.

luckyboypunts(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au


Cheers,
LuckyboyHave sent email....

[Luckyboy]

Hi Stix,

I have tried a couple of times to send you an email in response to your question, but it has bounced back.

Sorry for the time in responding, but I only check that email address, knowing something has been sent.

Anyway to answer your question. No I don't have the contact details for the person you seek.

And also, the little system I was working on that you helped me out with is bubbling along okay. Another three months and we might be cooking...


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Silver_and_sand]

I did post the stats last night, but then thought again about it and removed them (not sure why, maybe this website has jaded me), but will say that a very large % all winners (all ages, All Metro tracks, all track conditions, all states) finished better than 5th at their second last start......
Just out of curiosity I had a quick look at three random Saturday's racing. What I found was that 50-60% of the winners had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start. That sounds great, but then I went through and counted up all the horses that had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start, which ended up being between 50-60%. With all due respect, isn't it a bit like saying that a very large % of all winners have four legs, and trying to build a system around it? Or did I randomly choose 3 bad Saturdays to look at? Please understand that I'm not questioning your statistic. I'm questioning whether it is a statistic worthy of incorporating into a selection method, given the similar ratios of winners to the field.

[Stix]

Just out of curiosity I had a quick look at three random Saturday's racing. What I found was that 50-60% of the winners had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start. That sounds great, but then I went through and counted up all the horses that had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start, which ended up being between 50-60%. With all due respect, isn't it a bit like saying that a very large % of all winners have four legs, and trying to build a system around it? Or did I randomly choose 3 bad Saturdays to look at? Please understand that I'm not questioning your statistic. I'm questioning whether it is a statistic worthy of incorporating into a selection method, given the similar ratios of winners to the field.
All I can say is it is something that has been thrown up and I continue to use it..... I look at inform 3-4 yo's not rising in weight by more than 1.5kgs.......this is basis for all my selections. Obviously other rules are used........all the best S&S.

[crash]

I think what Stix is saying is useful, but could be refined a bit more maybe. From those horses that had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start [which ended up being between 50-60% according to Silver_and_sand's figures], if we check the race times of those 2nd last starts [and why not last starts too?] and ignore the horses that were in slow races, that 50-60% would probably narrow down to about 10%. Now that would be meaningful.

[Stix]

I think what Stix is saying is useful, but could be refined a bit more maybe. From those horses that had finished between 1st and 4th at their 2nd last start [which ended up being between 50-60% according to Silver_and_sand's figures], if we check the race times of those 2nd last starts [and why not last starts too?] and ignore the horses that were in slow races, that 50-60% would probably narrow down to about 10%. Now that would be meaningful.Totally agree Crash.

[Luckyboy]

I have been refining a system (with thanks to Stix data) over the past few months.

What I have found is that the statistic second last start, 1 to 4 is a good filter but enhanced when combined with the last start being 1 or 2. These two filters are only two of seven that I am looking at. Others include SP, win/place percentage, weight, barrier.

Presently, I am refining win and place percentage. It is a labour of love at the moment!


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[Maurice]

Last 3 starts adding up to 9 or less is and old tried and true formula [Spell or 0=10]. 4 and 5 yr. olds are good as they [mostly] haven't been flogged to death. Their SR often drops off after 5yr. due to niggling injuries etc., just like any older athlete thats been at it for awhile.It has been around while, .... 0=10 ...but for a variant try a sliding scale depending on distance when it comes to spells, off the top of the head , min(max((dist-1000)/100,1),10) these days I find the spell isn't the bug bear it was when this was first thought up ........part of something.... just for fun.