The 2-Logical system from 1st etc

[Barny]

Here’s the bare bones of something that YOU could turn into a decent system.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p< font O:p<><O:p< p O:p<> </O:p<></O:p<>

<O:p< font O:p<><O:p< p O:p<>

There’s no way I’m going to give the Win% I use, and other limits, because punters could lose, I’ll get hammered here, and it’s of no use as you’ll see.
<O:p< font O:p<><O:p< p O:p<>
1) Use a high Win rate % as your base<O:p< font O:p<>

2) Get rid of the over raced 2 y/o and early 3 y/o that have had their wins. There are plenty of examples where horses have a couple of campaigns early and win quite a few races 5, 6 or 7 then do virtually nothing for the rest of their career. You’ll get rid of a lot of losers here, and you’ll also find that these types are really short too.<O:p< font O:p<>

3) Set a minimum number of wins. For example, no point having say 40% Win S/R and applying it to a nag that’s had three starts.<O:p< font O:p<>

4) Set a minimum number of starts and a maximum number of starts so that you get a horse that’s got some decent history behind it, but not one that hasn’t any more improvement left in it.<O:p< font O:p<>

5) With regards to the minimum number of starts, you can adjust downwards for geldings.<O:p< font O:p<>

6) Do not back the horse if it has lost a number of races in a row, this campaign, more than you would think it should in relation to the Win S/R you’ve set. This rule does not apply to nags in their next campaign.<O:p< font O:p<>

7) Don’t back mares or fillies backing up too quickly. Even tho’ my system’s logic is based on finding a decent horse and trusting the combo of horse / trainer, there seems to be just some rules that are worth following. Thanks Chrome Prince, this is a beaut.<O:p< font O:p<>

8) Horse must have won at listed level / country cup etc, or above for obvious reasons.<O:p< font O:p<>

9) You may wish to apply a price filter.<O:p< font O:p<>


<O:p< p O:p<>This selection method comes up with some decent priced horses, especially those coming from interstate where their form is undervalued. <O:p< font O:p<><O:p< p O:p<></O:p<></O:p<>
</O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<>

[Barny]

Unusual, but there's 3 possible qualifiers in R6 Caulfield tomorrow depending on the Win% you might want to use, and a couple of other factors listed in my post as relevant. In some of the better races during the Spring Carnival you can have multiple selections, and you can also surprisingly have a single selection far more times than one would think.

The beauty of this method is that when you settle on a Win%, and look at the test results, you'll be disappointed at the outcome ..... which means that you need to appply handicapping principles to eliminate some losers AND if you are of that ilk, ironically, you wouldn't be following a pre-determined Win% rate as a selection method. You'd be more likely to follow Top Win% in each race. My system is a sort of 'stable' if you like, with a rule or 2 to narrow down / eliminate selections.

[Barny]

One rule I did forget folks, and it's an important one too.

Assuming a horse has qualified with regards to Win% S/R (first port of call) we don't back it first up if it's obvious to all and sundry that it's now classified as a distance horse and will probably be set for a couple of reasonable distance events. Plenty of winners are found when following a horse (provided the Win qualifies) from say 1400m to 1600m to 2500m for example in it's current campaign, BUT, the in the next campaign it is prudent to avoid it because the trainer may have set it for a slow build up to a decent distance race.

An example of an eliminator tomorrow might Moudre, depending on the Win% you've set ......

Sounds complex, but it's not.

[norisk]

So back-fit to your hearts content & she'll be sweet... I think I get it;)

[Barny]

norisk, EXACTLY the opposite my friend.

This could been seen as handicapping which cannot be put into the same basket as backfitted systems.

This could be seen as developing a 'stable' to follow which cannot be put into the same basket as backfitted systems.

Next time may I politely suggest your try to understand the message before you type such absolute nonsense. No wonder people get put off here !!!

[Barny]

You have been TOUd for this post. Profanity is not permitted here. Thank you. Moderator.

[Barny]

"This could been seen as handicapping which cannot be put into the same basket as backfitted systems."

Well no, not handicapping, I misspoke. A selection method for a nag to follow for possibly only one run to several runs. It ain't a backfitted system !

[Barny]

An old post which might help you out norisk .....

<O:p< font Investor< Equne by; O:pPosted>Posted by; Equine Investor

Based on over 5,000 selections, over 70% of city class horses win within five starts if they have won at least one metropolitan race previously in their career.<O:p< font O:p<>

The average winning price is $7.11<O:p< font O:p<>

The most long priced winners all come from horses which did NOT run a place at their previous start.<O:p< font O:p<>

Of those longpriced winners (over 20/1), over 80% only ran out of a place a maximum twice in their last 5 starts.
<O:p< font O:p<>
The winning horses that ran a place at their previous start had an average winning price of $4.60.<O:p< font O:p<>

40% of horses which won within five starts also won more than one race.<O:p< font O:p<>

E.G. 14321 or 16115.<O:p< font O:p<>

Maybe some might find this another useful approach. I actually took a formguide and went through it with a fine-toothed comb.<O:p< font O:p<>

If you had backed every single horse running in every metropolitan race, in every state, for it's previous 5 starts...(including the donkeys and excluding maidens and hurdlers),<O:p< font O:p<>

You would have made a small profit!<O:p< font O:p<>

Astounding.

With the correct class of horses, and a good staking plan to multiply the winnings, you could make a very good profit.<O:p< font O:p<>

For those curious, my stable system is showing a skinny profit with the 80 horses previously selected in my posting only having an average of less than two runs each.<O:p< font O:p<>

Because I had many adverse comments about it, I won't post weekly selections, but will post the final results in table form which can be verified using Ozeform horse query and the TAB results. (VIC DIVIDENDS)<O:p< font O:p<>

Posted by; Guest<O:p< font O:p<>

How could you make a profit by backing every horse in a race that has won 1 metro race? Not probable.<O:p< font O:p<>

Posted by; Super Soul<O:p< font O:p<>

Lumbarsua, I think EI meant the probability for each horse is there to win, not actually backing all of them at once in a single race. That is, following such a horse could make you a profit.<O:p< font O:p<>

It makes sense- a horse which is capable of winning as proven, in the right field at the right time will do it again. I did not realise the frequency though...
<O:p< font O:p<>
Posted by; Equine Investor<O:p< font O:p<>

You have to look at the figures a little more objectively. No, you can't obviously back every horse, or back every horse that was unplaced at it's last start. The figures are meant as a guide only in order to formulate a refined system. There is an absolute bounty of statistics on this forum; it's how you make use of these statistics which will pay in the end.<O:p< font O:p<>

Average dividends are just that averages. There is no reason to take into account distortion because just as there will always be horses paying upwards of $20 there will also be horses paying $1.50 etc. Averages will always balance themselves out, given enough races / horses.<O:p< font O:p<>

The idea with the data is to apply it to horses at big prices, which have been overlooked by the betting public due to unplaced form. Trainers do not keep racing horses which are well below form, they spell them after a few bad runs. I.E. four or five bad runs. Therefore you have to read stewards reports etc. Maybe a horses poor performance could be because it is a leader and has drawn wide over its last few races over say 1400m.<O:p< font O:p<>

Then suddenly it draws barrier four or six and wins at 10/1 even though it's past form was average. The point being the horse always had the ability, it was the victim of poor riding, interference or badly drawn.<O:p< font O:p<>

I think when devising any system, luck in running etc. is very underrated. That is why there will always be long priced winners that are overlooked.<O:p< font O:p<>

I am not talking about "donkeys" which finished 10 lengths behind the winner at three of it's previous starts, or only ever won one metro race out of 50 starts. I am talking about good horses that are down on recent form.<O:p< font O:p<>

Lady Wild for instance will salute at huge odds when she wins next, because her latest form is below average, but we all know she is capable of a good win. She has had a couple of placings at Sandown and was a Listed Race winner in July last year.<O:p< font O:p<>

Sportsbrat won at $13.00<O:p< font O:p<>

Sheer Devotion won at $8.60

Just some examples.<O:p< font O:p<>

There is value out there, it's just a matter of finding it, rather than going for obvious choices, which sometimes fail at poor odds anyway. <O:p< font O:p<>
</O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<></O:p<>

[darkydog2002]

Here,s one,
Locked in a bank vault for 44 years and now reluctantly released once again for a 1 year short period.
Its no good backdating this one .Its strength lies in forward testing.

Exactly 9 Runners

Won last 3 in current campaign.

May the punt be with you.

darky

[Barny]

GET IT OFF THE SITE !!!!

Can't have the unwashed joining the elite .....

44 years eh ?

[norisk]

Next time may I politely suggest your try to understand the message before you type such absolute nonsense. No wonder people get put off here !!!

Lol, that rich coming from the likes of a poster such as yourself.

The overwhelming response to your 'ideas' should give you an idea to how well this tread is travelling...

[TheSchmile]

Quote:
'This system has few rules, few bets, a S/R in the mid 20’s% and half of the winners are better than 6/1, about a third of them double figures. Pen and paper they’ve been recorded by, and haven’t been “refined” within an inch of their existence to cut out the odd loser.
There is one overwhelming rule that cuts out loser after loser after loser, it’s absolutely staggering and doesn’t come up for discussion very much other than as an aside, but has been mentioned by all of the abovementioned posters, although not as a single topic, but it’s repetitive nonetheless as something to take note of. Combined with the other three rules to my system, the logic (as an afterthought) is “bang the forehead” stuff, as in …. How could you not think of that?????

I’ll finish 2011 stats and start making some serious money. In the meantime, keep plugging away at those lay systems and that all important form (all important to the bookies that is!). Follow the crowd and the odds end up too short to make a profit.'

Hi Barny,

I grabbed this snippet from your 'unleash the beast' thread and was genuinely wondering if you have been following this selection method in 2012, or were you just having a bit of fun?

The Schmile

[aussielongboat]

OMG
please don't start this one again

[TheSchmile]

Ha ha. :)

Hi Aussielongboat,

I realise the last thread turned pear-shaped, I'm not looking to start anything, just interested.

I'd like to stick to a purely to profit/loss conversation and cut the personal ****.

The Schmile

[Bhagwan]

Unleash The Beast -
Unleash The Beast -
Unleash The Beast -

I say...

and dam the torpedoes

[TheSchmile]

Bhagwan, I think we need a cage, 'Beyond the Thunderdome' style!!

"Two men enter, one man leaves"

The Schmile

[The Ocho]

You mean one man and one beast (or maybe a beastie boy). :D

[Barny]

The Schmille, the two threads were entirely different. The "Unleash The Beast" was aimed at finding a lightly raced, and 'unidentified' improving type with one rule that chucked out a staggering amount of losers. This thread is about finding a horse that has a really good winning strike rate (plus 40%, there is a limit tho') and applying a couple of logical rules to get your selection. This horse sometimes will qualify several times. Not too much different to Malcolm Knowles "Consistency" which is based on place%, but his is race based, mine is based on the horse itself, and following it for anything from one race to several.

Cannot see what's wrong with this .....

Sometimes some of you are so fixated on rigid mechanical systems that will lead you to the fav or seond fav all the time, that you just don't bother to open your minds and explore other oprions. There are plenty of posts on here about other methods of striking a winner.

[darkydog2002]

Yeah.My 5 second system is slaying them depending on what price one is willing to accept.($3 + for me )

[Barny]

You and you mate Bhaggy have hijacked my thread. I'll let yous orf this time.

Bhagwan, you've posted literally 100's of systems on here over the years, you have posted some several times and it's obvious that you have your favourites. After recently establishing that you probably have something productive to offer us (the toppie thingy put me off completely !! ..... dinkum !!), which I do think is generous of you (being GENUINE 'ere), I'm going to revisit some of your older posts. Thanks !!

[darkydog2002]

Sorry Barney.
Wont happen again.
Cheers
darky

[Bhagwan]

I sorry too ,
When is that Beast, Beasty Boy thing going to be unleashed if it was already being posted previously by others.
I promise to hold its collar while you take its lead off.

[Barny]

LEAD'S ORF ...... Under certain curcumstances, including a lightly raced horse, very lightly raced, NEVER back anything that's not going up in distance.

You'll need to put your cursor over the gap !!!! as the actress said to the bishop .....

[TheSchmile]

mine is based on the horse itself, and following it for anything from one race to several.

Cannot see what's wrong with this .....


Sounds sensible enough Barny,

if you look at the P/L tallies for the best horses in training, they are generally in the black.

Good luck with this angle!

The Schmile

[Bhagwan]

Thanks for that Barny

[Barny]

Thank you The Schmille, there are many examples of good winners. From memory these include Alcopop, when it had that decent streak, and it was good odds too, Swiss Ace, in the Newarket?, it was 33/1, Wall Street came over here with a better than 50% Win S/R, Arinos from Adelaide at 12/1, Pimpala Secret at 20's (just under 45% Win S/R and in the correct race), A couple of Taswegians, esp one who came here with a 12 for 7 win record and took home the bacon at 20's ..... There's heaps of 'em.

You do have multiple runners and need a sensible filter if you want one bet only.

Causeway Queen was the Tas horse I think. The geldings are good.

Anyway, the one I backed on Saturday ran very well but was just beaten by the horse ahead of it ......