Kiwi

[sportznut]

I have to reply to your earlier question here. My other thread has been deleted because some IDIOT was making a total nuisance of himself! (suggesting among other things that you aren't actually a real person, but someone I invented) :roll:

Anyway, in response, I have to say that I don't use the ratings in that longshot system, but perhaps I should. I think your idea sounds pretty clever. Good thinking. I thought I had the whole 'bottom horse' idea to myself, but apparently not. :smile:

Let's face it, longshots are simply horses that most punters have ignored, some with good reason and some not. When people look at a race, where do they start? Number 1 of course and they work down. By the time punters get to the bottom horse in the field, a lot have already decided to back another one. Some punters probably don't even look at the bottom horse if they're keen on another. That's why these horses often start at ridiculously high prices.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-10-07 13:04 ]</font>

[kiwi]

Greetings Sportz
These are the rules i use:

1. Field size 10 plus

2. Any race although the lesser the exposed form and class of horse the greater the chance of an upset.

3. If the top two are either 99 or 100 there is no bet.

4. If the top two are not 99 or 100 then the horse at the bottom is the selection.

I'm experimenting with T c and d as filters
on the bottom bracket of horses weighted on the minimum to try and increase the strike rate.
At the moment my investments on the lowest numbered animal are minimal because of the number of bets involved.

To increase the strike rate examine all horses weighted on the minimum and select the horse with the highest rating.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kiwi on 2004-10-08 12:58 ]</font>