an interesting article from the Mars Chronicle

[Barny]

The TAB and corporates take is around the 15% mark, so they pay out around 85%.

Therefore the average punter needs to improve his selection process by around 20% just to get to breakeven. To get to roughly a 20% POT, which I consider borderline, the average punter needs to improve by around 50%.

To get this 50% improvement (or 50% better than the crowd), one must look at areas where the crowd isn't looking. (I note that Angry Pixie's thread about profiting from the crowd was interesting)

So where do we get that extra 50% from ???

Get the best odds, look at trackwork, forgive a bad run, study trainers moves ..... Give these notions a miss universally and apply them logically "must have started in "x" number of days", ..... anything to do with weight other than to point to a class rise / drop, "never won at the distance" (well then why is the trainer running it at this distance ??), ..... it's endless

Don't get me started on rrrrrrrrrrratings ......

So if you stick to the standard systems (and rrrrrrrrratings) that can easily be tested then you're a canditate for Prez of the 85% Club. It's the weight of money that ultimately determines the price of a horse ..... so look where the others aren't

[Barny]

Forgot the most important pice of info ........

If you can find the winner of a race with a piece of information that is not easily identifiable by the majority of punters, and this piece of information MUST identify that the horse is favoured to win this event ..... then you get well over the odds.

[Shaun]

Most times it is not one bit of info but a bunch of info to get the winner.

[Barny]

You're missing the whole point shaun. If that bunch of info is the stock standard handicapping stuff / system stuff / ratings stuff, then you're consigned to the losing punters club 'coz that information is well and truly incorporated into the odds .... overbet !!!!

[Barny]

If you backed every 100 Point Ratings horse you'd lose ..... all the known info is in the Ratings Value ..... good Win% S/R but the odds are too short 'coz they're overbet ..... everyone and their dog is on them !!!

[gunny72]

I don't even go along with the over bet argument.

I believe that the betting market generally provides a very accurate summary of each horse's chance in a race, and horses will win in proportion to these prices. All the ratings, systems, opinions etc that Barny mentions factor in most of the available knowledge about a race and are used by punters to produce these prices. What makes it difficult for punters is the take so in the main punters will lose.

This is why I agree with Barny that something radically different is needed, not so much to get overs but rather to know when a particular horse will win regardless of its price, because as I have said, the price is most likely right. Inside info would help but that is not available to most punters.

I have found that really studying form and making my own selections works best but it is extremely time consuming to do properly. Alternatively one needs to find another factor not generally used by other punters. For several years (about 20 years ago) I had a very good run with place percent before it was well known but it seems to be factored in now along with all the other info.

[moeee]

You have been TOUd. Please do not flame people by abbreviating a mild profanity to describe their post. Thank you. Moderator 3.

[Shaun]

The thing that makes ratings different is the points you allocate for each rating factor this is why if you looked at 5 different people that produce ratings you will see they often have different runners in different orders with different prices.

This is because they use a different method to apply ratings to the current information.

the same can be said for people that study form they have there own ideas on what form factors are more important to them, for example, nothing i do with form has anything to do with pace or time yet there are other people that may only use these 2 factors as the main selection criteria.

Do they select more winners than me? well i guess we would have to compare results and run tests.

in today's tech world there is not that much that has not been explored to find winners and what info one person has more than likely another person can obtain just as easy.

It is the way you apply the info that matters and ratings are just another way to apply them.

[rails run]

I don't even go along with the over bet argument.

I believe that the betting market generally provides a very accurate summary of each horse's chance in a race, and horses will win in proportion to these prices. All the ratings, systems, opinions etc that Barny mentions factor in most of the available knowledge about a race and are used by punters to produce these prices. What makes it difficult for punters is the take so in the main punters will lose.I have to agree with gunny72. I haven't found a more accurate rater of each runners chance than the market formed by Joe Public. They almost have it down to 'an exact science'.

There are basic human expectations at play on supposed outcomes that the public still fumbles within. This creates an opportunity to profit where they (Joe Public) almost get it right.

Put simply... At what point in price does ones confidence in the favourite waiver between high and low? If it is at a short price we are fairly confident the public has identified the winner for us. When it is priced at, say, $4.00, are we as confident to back it or is this a point where we might chance our luck on the 2nd favourite instead? (Thereby up-setting the balance of true odds)

A look at odds increments for each of the top 5 favourites will identify the tipping point at which Joe Public starts to twitch! When you find that increment you can exploit the mistake.

[gunny72]

I take the point that different punters use different weightings for factors but the large number of punters means that most of the weightings average out overall and the result is the same as far as the market is concerned. Of course a few punters may hit on to a combination of factors that virtually no one else currently uses but at some stage punters will use a similar combination and the winning system will deteriorate like my place % Method did.

[Barny]

Of course a few punters may hit on to a combination of factors that virtually no one else currently uses but at some stage punters will use a similar combination and the winning system will deteriorate like my place % Method did.
Your place% criteria would always been seen as a big factor for form analysis, it just increased in it's popularity to a reasonably small degree.

I'm looking for factors that eliminate horses from contention, or at the very least are dismissed by punters.

I'm not looking to splitting hairs on what have always been popular filters. Weight is another one to have undergone a re-rating by punters over the years.

[Shaun]

Weight and Class are the 2 biggest things to have changed in the last few years with pace being a contender for the newest thing.

[Barny]

Weight and Class are the 2 biggest things to have changed in the last few years with pace being a contender for the newest thing.
We're only talking weight and class filters in a marginal sense here tho' aren't we?

[gunny72]

Place % strike rates are the same today as they were 20 years ago but the odds have shortened. There used to be lots of $50+ winners from the top three place rankings. Now these longshots seem to be around the $20-$30 mark as more punters back them.

I too am investigating an approach that has not been highlighted and the results are encouraging but requires nerves of steel to follow and not waiver.

I agree totally, Barny, that one must use totally different factors (and not just different weightings of common factors) from the majority just as DS did with his weight ratings but even they faltered pricewise once the idea caught on generally.

[Barny]

I agree totally, Barny, that one must use totally different factors (and not just different weightings of common factors) Spot on, EXACTLY what I was trying desperately to convey, but you've done it much better gunny72

[Barny]

I too am investigating an approach that has not been highlighted and the results are encouraging but requires nerves of steel to follow and not waiver.
I worry abut your statement of needing nerves of steel ..... You cannot afford to miss even ONE winner when following a longshot system. There was a beaut thread on here about a longshot system, very enlightening, but it was obvious that if you had missed that one winner, you were gone for all money. I hope your approach is unambiguous, black and white selections, no grey areas gunny72. Then you're in with a show!