A Profitable Angle

[wesmip1]

Since a lot of people like to use the neurals and the unitab ratings and the don scott ratings here is a profitable angle for you.


1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
Loses 11% on unitab figures.

1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
3. Barrier 5 or wider
Loses 4.1% on unitab figures.

1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
3. Top Don Scott Final Rating
Loses 7.7% on unitab figures.

1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
3. Top Don Scott Final Rating
4. Barrier 5 or wider
Loses 0.6% on unitab figures.

Remember these are unitab figures.

Now I reckon 50% of people reading this post will find these figures useful. 20% might actually bet it, 95% of those will give it away at the first losing run. Leaving us with 1% who will use it to make a profit.

[Dale]

Interesting that both angles are improved roughly 7% by the barrier filter,not one by 5% the other by 9 or anything like that,both by 7!

[thorns]

Interesting that both angles are improved roughly 7% by the barrier filter,not one by 5% the other by 9 or anything like that,both by 7!Barriers are one my most successful filters for most of my systems, both backing and laying.

What sort of turnover are you getting from those Wesmip? Many bets a day?

[stugots]

interesting to see the barriers have such an effect as i my opinion they are overrated as to a defining a nags chances of winning.

at some tracks being drawn inside or wide at certain distances can severely hinder a nags chances of saluting, but overall i place much more emphasis on the field size, track condition & the jockeys ability to overcome what is perceived as a bad barrier(not much trust involved there, lol).

those can be difficult elements to fit into a mechanical system tho

[Barny]

That's really good information wesmip1. I use a "stable" for betting purposes and I can recall analysing the form on a couple of occasions and deciding not to back one of my stable ..... DOH. I can also clearly recall one decent bet I had, against my better judgment on Swiss Ace a couple of years ago in The Oakleigh Plate when it drew "an impossible barrier" in a top race.

The "bad" barriers certainly improve the odds.

The "bad" barriers can also be a legitimate excuse, and often overlooked for a poor finish, and hence even more decent odds next start.

I back my stable no matter what these days ...............

[Vortech]

I always thought the div from the R&S reflects the BRR and in fact matches the unitab ratings?

[beton]

Hi Barrier as a filter has many variables. First being the course. Second being the distance. Third being field size. Fourth being surface condition. fifth being rail position. another factor is prevailing wind. A good jockey should overcome all these. Unfortunately some get boxed in. You will find that on some courses >barrier5 will be a winning factor whereas on another course it will make little difference. If you split the number of races to each of these variables then the sample will be too small to be objective. I remember reading that UK racing has a program that will give the value of a barrier for a distance and field size for the major courses. Some barrier draws are utter losers.
Regards Beton

[The Ocho]

1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
3. Top Don Scott Final Rating
4. Barrier 5 or wider


Calling Shaun. Can you do that excel thing you do for the above wesmip1 winning system so we can list the picks and keep tabs on the winnings that will roll in?

I take it the Final Rating is the FR column on the R&S worksheet but I'm not sure. Is this right wesmip1?

I can then run it on my bot at the same time as the Ocho favs system and see what happens.

[Dale]

Not sure if people are picking up that its not about performance but how the inside barriers are overbet by all these tab legends and this creates a situation where the larger barrier numbers are over their true odds.

People dont like change,dont like using research to change opinions that have taken a lifetime to form,opinions that are often false.

[wesmip1]

I take it the Final Rating is the FR column on the R&S worksheet but I'm not sure. Is this right wesmip1?


Yes.

I wasn't going to give this one away but im being generous today:

1. Top CP rating
2. Top Don Scott Final Rating
3. Barrier 5 or wider

Profit on Unitab Prices = 2.6%.
Sample Size = 935

The profit on the above on betfair prices (assuming 5% commission) is 20%.

Why aim for 5% profit over 1000 bets (the so called professional profit) when its possible to pick up 20%.

[The Ocho]

Thanks wesmip1. That is VERY generous.

Shaun, Can you make up an excel sheet for this one?

1. Top CP rating
2. Top Don Scott Final Rating
3. Barrier 5 or wider

[wesmip1]

Thanks wesmip1. That is VERY generous.

Shaun, Can you make up an excel sheet for this one?

1. Top CP rating
2. Top Don Scott Final Rating
3. Barrier 5 or widerI can afford to be generous and anyway I know that 9 out of 10 people (possibly more) will disregard it at its first losing run.

[wesmip1]

One more tip.

1. Top CP rating
2. Top Don Scott Final Rating
3. Barrier 5 or wider
4. ?????

Add 1 more filter (and if you read my posts you will know the filters I usually apply) and you get a unitab figure profit of 17% and a betfair profit of 30%.

Or alternatively do this filter:

1. Top CP rating
2. Top Don Scott Final Rating
3. Barrier 5 or wider
4. ?????

and you get 15% unitab profit and a 22% betfair profit.

Add both those filters and you get a 41% unitab profit and a 46% betfair profit. Selections is down to 317 though.

Now you need to do your own research and work out what the 2 filters are.

[Stix]

Not won at distance?
3rd radio tab pick?
Less than 58kg
Finished worse than 4th?
Good or heavy track only?
Less than 1601m races?
4 to geldings?

....gee I could go through all my filters here :D

[The Ocho]

Is this the filter wesmip1?

If you can stay out of it then don't bet on dead or slow tracks at all. as darky said the track conditions are in between and how do you know if your horse is going to run on the good part of the track. Dead tracks tend to have more bias to certain areas, lanes and makes the race more of a lottery.

[Shaun]

What's the Final Rating?

[wesmip1]

Shaun,

Final Rating is the FR colum or as most people know the don scott rating. You can use the FR, PER or DIVIDEND field to work out the top rater. There are 2 other ratings on the don scott sheet (base rating and year rating).

Ocho,

It could well be :) ... if you follow the selections and do your own research on that area you might find it useful but it might not be one of my filters. I'm not going to give away the filters this time ... I've given away a very profitable base set of rules. I am sure most people can add their own angle to it and find their own filters...

Stix,

I have to say they are good filters ... :) I actually ran some of those filters and was amazed at the performance they generates (good and bad).

[Shaun]

Is this the correct sheet you speak of

http://www.racingandsports.com.au/form-guide/worksheet.asp?raceno=7&meetingid=15727

[wesmip1]

Yep that is the one. Final Rating is the FR column.

12m is the year rating and br is the base rating.

In the examples I posted I have used FR. They use FR to compute the PER, EM nd DIV fields so you should notice they are in the same ranking as each other.

[Shaun]

I will combine both in to one sheet with indicator of what method selected what runner, will have a go at it tomorrow.

[darkydog2002]

Wesmip.
What does CP stand for ?
Thanks .
darky

[Vortech]

CP - Past Form - Find this one of the most important factors, and essential at all distances, but moreso down at the shorter race end.

CF - Current Form - Often a disaster from 1000m-1200m, and perhaps out as far as 1400m. If used, in a race with first uppers, the neural system tends to give them no hope. Yet first uppers win between 19% and 33% of all races, depending on the distance.

(Both CP and CF, need consideration race by race. As an example, where there are lots of first uppers in the race, you may use something like CP3/CF0, perhaps CP3/CF1, then as distances increase, and first uppers go missing, to CP2/CF2, and perhaps from 1500m or 1600m onwards, to CP2/CF3).

TIM - Time - I personally find TIM provides more distortions, than it is of help. It will find the occasion long priced winner for sure, but I leave TIM on 0 at all distances.

(I may be wrong, but I do not understand how the neurals can differentiate between times from different tracks; generally there is about two seconds difference between track records at Flemington and Moonee Valley. Hawkesbury is one second faster than Canterbury, and so on....)
I also set my neural factors down the lower end of the points scale, and TIM1 often tends to over-power other points allocations.

JA - Jockey - One of the most important. Go back over past results, and you will find JA either on top, or near top for most winners, all distances.

TA - Trainer - No among the winners nealy as often as JA (or JT) but important enough to give it more than a zero.

JT - Jockey/Trainer combo - seems to fit somewhere between JA and TA - definitely has its moments.

BP - A medium range performer. Go back over past results and you will find it valuable one race, not worth a bumper the next. , don't set too high.

(And beware of BP on bush tracks. Watch what is actually coming up on the BP points allocations. The neural computer takes winning barrier statistics far too literally. You may find barrier 8 with 20 points, barrier 10 with 20 points, yet barrier 9 with no points - because barrier 9 has not won a race at that distance at that track. Totally illogical - then what happens when the runner in barrier 7 is scratched!) So beware of BP. Sometimes you may be better without it.

CRS - Course - Have found this to be of more importance in races of 1400m and over, and use it accordingly. Not sure why, but when I have checked past results, it has panned out that way. 1400m/1600m seem particularly relevant distances to apply CRS.

WT - Wet Track - I tend to use WT very sparingly, and generally only when tracks have been on the good side for a some time, then become rain affected. In mid winter in Melbourne for instance, doubt WT adds anything to neural accuracy. But a WT1 or WT2 probably doesn't do much harm either.

Think about how you will use WT, on the day the wet track happens.

DIS - distance - Checking past results, distance has never stood out as a major neural factor. I use DIS1, but at around 1400m, I tend to increase it to DIS2. There is a feeling that 1400m, is perhaps more of a specialist distance than some others. Feel that DIS, set low, doesn't impact overall results, one way or the other.

$ - prizemoney - In the early days, I always set $ very high, but have now dropped it back somewhat. Definitely doesn't feature in the profile of winners, as often as CP or JA, for instance, but remains important.

DLR - Days Since Last Raced - this one is important - to leave out of contention in all races up to around 1450m. DLR anything, tends to send first uppers to the sin bin. From 1500m and beyond, yes, it becomes important. However, you will find the DLR points allocations, across the scale 1-5, are so tightly grouped, that you need to actually look at the figures in isolation, to get value from them. (for example, should I dismiss all runners, which have a DLR allocation, of say 14 points, on my setting).

The neurals are obviously applied differently by everyone - there are so many combinations - then to use the information to advantage.

The neurals do find winners at longer prices, and from that point alone, perhaps have their advantage and place, over the pre-post or starting price markets.

In fields of 8-13, for instance, my neural setting can find the winners of 2 races in every 3, in the top four selections. (At certain distances, it is slightly better). The pre-post market can do much the same thing. But rarely will any market order, snare that $20, $30 or $40 winner, in the top two or three selections.

Taking the neural selection order to the next stage, and using it to a profitable advantage, is another matter altogether.

The neurals, are not the be all and end all to selecting winners, but they are different, they are fun, and they are enormously accurate for a computerised selection method.

They are an interesting challenge. And they are FREE

Wesmip1 has provided some very good information. I also like Trained at Track and only horse in the race to have won, Speed Maps and horse settling important and days last start

[Stix]

Shaun,

Final Rating is the FR colum or as most people know the don scott rating. You can use the FR, PER or DIVIDEND field to work out the top rater. There are 2 other ratings on the don scott sheet (base rating and year rating).

Ocho,

It could well be :) ... if you follow the selections and do your own research on that area you might find it useful but it might not be one of my filters. I'm not going to give away the filters this time ... I've given away a very profitable base set of rules. I am sure most people can add their own angle to it and find their own filters...

Stix,

I have to say they are good filters ... :) I actually ran some of those filters and was amazed at the performance they generates (good and bad).G'day Mate

Have just emailed you the neural work I've been working on......My Holy Grail if you like......crazy? I don't know....time will tel.....l when it's being sold in a glossy race mag :rolleyes:

Nothing like a bit of faith shown by a forum member, and hope what I've provided has repaid in kind.

Stix

[darkydog2002]

Thanks Vorteck,
Much appreciated.
Cheers
darky

[Merriguy]

Agree --- valuable for me and many others I,m sure.

[Stix]

Thanks Vortech

I personally use CP, CF, JT, BP, D, $, DLR settings only, all others are always set to 0.

Good Punting...

[wesmip1]

thanks stix and vortech.

Stix,

Sent you an email.

Vortech,
That was a very good run down of the neurals.

I agree JA is a good one to use and I find it a good filter to apply to most ratings.


I also agree with the speed maps. I record them as well. I can say that if a horse is classed as a OM on R&S then you should avoid it. For some reason they perform even worse the BK. Leaders and Pacers are the ones to be on. OP are overbet and provide little value. Midfeild goes ok though.

Anyway thanks for your take on the neurals. Very intersting info which I will go play with now.

[garyf]

yeah good summary vortech i guess the only problem that i saw with the (j/a)(j/t) rating in the neurals was the fact that putting it online two days in advance the actual jockeys that r+s had down to ride weren't the actual jockeys that rode the horses thus the rating would be different you know the spiel jockeys unable to ride due to illness become indisposed during the day etc etc but for all that they are definetly a great alternative for those who want a different approach to the traditional weight ratings i guess the only other service that provides neurals are the gtx ratings from the t.r.b run by dennis walker this service is (A1) but with everything comes at a cost for a free service you really can't beat the neurals on the R+S website
cheers
garyf

[garyf]

the anomalies vortech was explaining with the barriers scratchings (OBVIOUSLY) could also be explained by the starting prices of the horses that actually contested those barriers when i do a survey on barriers at certain tracks i split them into an odds group(odds on)(2.0-3.0)(3.1-6.0)(6.5-11.0)(12.0-26.0)(26.0>) this then gives me a clearer guide as to the barriers worth as you find certain barriers continue to have starters that start at long starting prices where other barriers tend to throw up horses at the lower end of the market thus giving false readings of a barriers actual worth talking straight statistics only here no form or assessments taken into account
cheers
garyf

[bluegumby]

i used a neural system last year sometime but didnt have a chance to continue it. ill post the raw picks. i was excluding maidens and races with less than 8 starters these picks wont exclude.

from the time i started it had
68 bets
44% strike rate
POT 75.1%
profit with $1 bets
$55.10

these are the picks for today

sale r7. 2

ipswich
r2. 6

moonee valley
r1. 1
r2. 4
r4. 1
r5. 6

sunshine coast
r2. 11
r7. 1

taree
r4. 3
r5. 1


hope this is a good place to post this

[Try Try Again]

Welcome Bluegumby,

Good luck with the selections!

[The Ocho]

I will combine both in to one sheet with indicator of what method selected what runner, will have a go at it tomorrow.

Hi Shaun, How did you go?

I notice that Black Caviar is actually ranked 3rd on the NR neural rankings but top in most of the other columns and lowest DIV on the spreadsheet and of course 100 rated on Unitab.

Grand Duels is ranked highest and then Warm Love.

How does that works peoples?

I've lost confidence in the Neurals if a horse as good as Black Caviar is only ranked 3rd on that column.

I think I might use the CP column for my favourites thread instead of the neurals.

[wesmip1]

Black Caviar is rannked thrid because of 2 columns.

See form guide below for those interested.

http://www.racingandsports.com.au/form-guide/neural.asp?raceno=6&meetingid=15751

It as a rating of 1 for CF and 1 for TIM. The two above it have 40+ in both these columns. This is where understanding what the neural's are trying to measure can help greatly. CF is measuring runs this preparation. Black caviar is returning from a spell thus 1. Personally I think you need to check the first up form here and make adjustments. Black Caviar is 4 from 4 first up. TIM on the other hand is a hit and miss variable that I can't understand when they update and when they don't. I suggest its times this prep as well though.

If you want those not affected by a spell use the following settings only.
CP, JA, JT, TA, BP, CRS, DIS, $,

Using these and setting the others to 0 Black Caviar is the top rater with 290. next closest is 179.

Hope that exaplins it.

The NR value is just a combination of all the other variables (added up).

[bluegumby]

doesnt look a good day for first set of selections. would look alot better minus the <8 runners race. neural/ds always seems to miss out on them (maybe not enough data for a accurate rating)

tomorrow selections

doomben
r2. 4
r5. 5

flemington
r6. 7

gold coast
r4. 6

morph
r3. 3
r4. 3

newcastle
r5. 1

rosehill
r6. 1

toowomba
r1. 1

[YoungBuck]

I've been following this thread with great interest. Wesmip has always has been worth listening to IMO.

Speaking of various filters I have been playing around with a lay system which revolves around Days Since Last Win (DLW). Looking at it through R&S.

1. 300+ Days since last win
2. Horse API is lower than race API
3. ??
4. ??
5. Betfair price is under $8 but not starting favourite.

I've left a couple of rules to myself but results since Jan 1st are:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="142"><col style="width: 59pt;" width="78"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 14.4pt; width: 59pt;" height="19" width="78">Ave Odds:</td> <td class="xl63" style="width: 48pt;" align="right" width="64">$6.30</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19">Selections</td> <td align="right">97</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19">Losers:</td> <td align="right">88</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19"> <td class="xl64" style="height: 14.4pt;" height="19">%</td> <td class="xl65" align="right">91%</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Would be interested to here thoughts on this one and possible suggestions. (sorry if this is thread hijack)

[Dale]

I notice that Black Caviar is actually ranked 3rd on the NR neural rankings
Grand Duels is ranked highest and then Warm Love.

How does that works peoples?

I've lost confidence in the Neurals if a horse as good as Black Caviar is only ranked 3rd on that column.

.


The Ocho,

I hear what your saying but these things happen,my ratings didnt have it on top either,i know the reasons why and im comfortable with it,basicly you cant have a ratings approach that produces winners at decent odds that also rates every short priced favorite highly.

Its not possible.

All we need to ask ourselves is are the ratings we are using providing an edge and helping us into profit?

[wesmip1]

I've been following this thread with great interest. Wesmip has always has been worth listening to IMO.

Speaking of various filters I have been playing around with a lay system which revolves around Days Since Last Win (DLW). Looking at it through R&S.

1. 300+ Days since last win
2. Horse API is lower than race API
3. ??
4. ??
5. Betfair price is under $8 but not starting favourite.

I've left a couple of rules to myself but results since Jan 1st are:


<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=142><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 59pt" width=78><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" height=19><TD style="WIDTH: 59pt; HEIGHT: 14.4pt" class=xl64 height=19 width=78>Ave Odds:</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 48pt" class=xl63 width=64 align=right>$6.30</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" height=19><TD style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" class=xl64 height=19>Selections</TD><TD align=right>97</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" height=19><TD style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" class=xl64 height=19>Losers:</TD><TD align=right>88</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" height=19><TD style="HEIGHT: 14.4pt" class=xl64 height=19>%</TD><TD class=xl65 align=right>91%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Would be interested to here thoughts on this one and possible suggestions. (sorry if this is thread hijack)

I have you with a (1 - 9/97)-(9/97*6.3) = 0.90 - 0.58 = 0.32 positive expectation.

That means before commissions you are getting 0.32 for every dollar staked long term.

If it holds up over more bets its a pretty good system.

[Jimmy]

Hi Wesmip,

How is your original contribution to this thread performing ?

And what are the figures with the addition of last start run unplaced?

Cheers
Jimmy

[wesmip1]

1. Top Unitab rating
2. Top NR rating
3. Top Don Scott Final Rating
4. Barrier 5 or wider



This is showing since 15th Feb : 113 bets for a unitab return of $112.50
Imagine you were betting betfair or best tote, that 50c loss becomes a nice profit.

If you incude unplaced overall the figures show a 8.7% profit but you drop the bets to 1/5 of action.

[Jimmy]

Interesting wesmip,

Thanks this is a great platform to play around with some filters

[peakester]

"If you incude unplaced overall the figures show a 8.7% profit but you drop the bets to 1/5 of action".

Sorry to bother you Wesmip, do u mean by adding a further filter - ie unplaced at horses last start, the profit improves to 8.7%

Cheers Tony

[wesmip1]

Yes thats right. But you only have 1/5 the bets. So it depends on whether POT or P is your primary objective.

If you lose 80% of the bets for only a 4% incrase in profit over turnover is it worth it.

1000 at 4% profit = $40
200 at 8% profit = $16

Which do you prefer ?

[Stix]

thanks stix and vortech.

Stix,

Sent you an email.

Vortech,
That was a very good run down of the neurals.

I agree JA is a good one to use and I find it a good filter to apply to most ratings.


I also agree with the speed maps. I record them as well. I can say that if a horse is classed as a OM on R&S then you should avoid it. For some reason they perform even worse the BK. Leaders and Pacers are the ones to be on. OP are overbet and provide little value. Midfeild goes ok though.

Anyway thanks for your take on the neurals. Very intersting info which I will go play with now.Any feedback on the neural methods I sent you through mate?

[wesmip1]

Stix,

Short answer is no.

I have been trialling so many new systems lately on a new angle that I just have not had time. I will look into it by this weekend and get back to you.

[Stix]

Stix,

Short answer is no.

I have been trialling so many new systems lately on a new angle that I just have not had time. I will look into it by this weekend and get back to you.Sure thing...

[New punter]

Hi Guys,

As I mentioned earlier in another post I am quite a new punter, I have been reveiwing this thread and really like the methadocial nature of this selection system.

I have attempted to prepare the selections myself, however I have one question that would be helpfull if you could address?

When using the neural seetins, I have set the CP to 5 and everything else to 0 is this correct? Or if not are you able to advise what settings you are using for this method?

Furthermore what are you suppose to do when the Uni TAB top rater is teh same?

Thanks in advance.

[wesmip1]

When using the neural seetins, I have set the CP to 5 and everything else to 0 is this correct? Or if not are you able to advise what settings you are using for this method?


Yes that is one way to do it. Or you can just look at the CP column without changing the settings.

Furthermore what are you suppose to do when the Uni TAB top rater is teh same?

Only 1 top unitab rating should amtch the top cp. In the results if there were 2 cp's that matched 2 top unitab ratings then they were both included (but not sure if this ever happened).

[New punter]

Thanks Wesmip.

It appeares yesterday there was one selection which ran second at Sale Race 7 no 1.

One further question if you dont mind, I notice that if you change the other columns in the R&S worksheet it changes the FR, Is this method based on using the default FR or am I meant to adjust that somehow?

Thanks again!

[wesmip1]

default only