Filante Ratings - Sandown - 22/12/04

[Filante]

Sandown 22/12/04

RACE 4

1. $2.2
8. $3.75
2. $7.0

RACE 5

1. $3.5
9. $3.9
2. $5.0
5. $8.5
13. $10.0

RACE 6

1. $1.6
4. $6.5

RACE 7

9. $2.6
5. $2.9
7. $5.5

RACE 8

9. $3.2
12. $4.2
1. $5.5
2. $6.0

Best Bets are:

Race 4 No.1 Music Star
Race 6 No.1 Our Court
Race 7 No.9 Cedar Tee (each way)

[sportznut]

Doing pretty well so far.

[Filante]

Thanks Sportznut. The value's there, but the "good things" keep going down - today is a horrible day for favourites Sydney and Melbourne.

[Rudolph]

Ive had a terrible day on the punt, need All Elegance to dig me out of a big hole, created when i had alot on Rapid Chess in the 7th.

[Filante]

4 value winners from the five races rated:

Race 4 No.8 Twisted Times (assessed $3.6, $5.5 available)
Race 5. No.1 Power and Faith (assessed $3.5, $5.5 available)
Race 6 No.4 Lisas Bewitched (assessed $6.5, $7.5 available)
Race 8 No. 2 Dane's Jester (assessed $6.0, $13 available and much better on the tote)

Tough day for best bets with none of them getting up.

[Duritz]

Filante those results are good, but I need to know when do you consider your selection a value bet? Your market is I assume framed to 100%, and with that being the case do they merely have to be longer than those odds to be value, or is there some other parameter? As you know with mine I simply use the old Don Scott method of 80% as an arbitrary figure, how do you decide?

[Filante]

Value = anything above my price. I'll back any such horse to win. The higher the value the more I put on. The higher my bank goes the higher my multiplication factor. For example, if my multipication factor was at 100 I would bet as follows:

Twisted Times: 100/3.6x5.5 = 152@5.5

Power & Faith: 100/3.5x5.5 = 157@5.5

Lisas Bewitched 100/6.5x7.5 = 115@7.5

Dane's Jester 100/6x13 = 217@13

Winners at Flemington last Saturday at that multiplication factor were:

Processor: 100/2.1x3.1 = 148@3.1

Demerger: 100/5.5x7 = 127@7

Bruges: 100/4x6 = 150@6

Broadband: 100/2.8x3.8 = 136@3.8

Catscan: 100/5x6.5 = 130@6.5


As far as framing the market goes, I first eliminate the horses I don't think can win. If this leaves me with between 1 and 5 chances I rate the race to between 75% and 100% depending on the reliability of the form. Today's ratings ranged between 78% for race 6 (only 2 selections) to 96% for race 5 (5 selections).

Cheers,

F

[Duritz]

Interesting. That's a form of dutch book I suppose I would be right in saying?

Interested to know - how do you decide which horses cannot win? When I ask that I mean for you to go beyond the pale - do not state the obvious about well worn paths of form analysis, do you have any new insights to add about horses which you feel cannot win? I ask this because the best value races (as I am sure you already know) are those in which you find a fancied runner, preferably the fave, who you can confidently and with solid evidence declare has no hope. Those are always the best betting races because if you're right you're "buying their dollars for 75 cents", to quote Pittsburgh Phil. However, not enough faves have no hope, so for the rest of the time we usually have to grind away being smart and disciplined enough to make a percentage. Would you agree? Your thoughts on this are very interesting and let me say I am very glad I found this forum.

Duritz.

[sportznut]

I'd just like to ask all the people that do ratings, how do you decide on what is the qualifying run?

I'm just starting to get interested in doing ratings again but I'm looking at keeping everything VERY SIMPLE. Looking at some of the results over the last few days, I think it's possibly a good idea to simply use the horse's latest run, or perhaps it's best rating run out of it's last two starts or something. But what about horses resuming after a spell. What do you do with them?

[Imagele]

Sports
For what it is worth, why go to all the trouble of doing your own ratings when a site such as Ozeform has a rating figure for every run a horse has had in it's entire career.
I have been using this facility exclusively for about 2 years and my method is to keep it very simple.
Regards which rating to use, you have to use your discretion and select a rating figure most pertinent to today's event.
To give an example, I tipped Valashka on the forum today but in actual fact the rating figure indicated it might finish exactly where it did.
I arrived at the figure for Valashka in the following way:
The horse had 2 runs since res. from a spell so I considered it was ready to produce it's best.
I went back in it's history and discovered that on march 4th. 2004, Valashka was beaten 1.1L in event equal to the one being contested today.
The base rating for that run was 57.
To arrive at a rating figure I simply deduct the weight allotted today from 100 and add the base rating figure of 57. Any apprentice claim is added to that figure.(the claim has got to be added because the Ozeform rating figure reflects the actualweight carried)
Valashka's rating was 99.
If you look at the last rating figure for Power and Faith which was a rating most relevent to todays race and apply the same procedure, Power and Faith's rating was 103.
Fuchsia lady's base rating was it's latest one and her rating figure was 102.
Now we come to Rocketeer who seemed to surprise getting into 2nd place.
I did not initially rate Rocketeer but on looking back at it's record, it had had 3 runs since resuming from a letup.
Before the letup, Rocketeer had returned base ratings around 55 on 4 occasions.
Using this figure for today's race plus the claim for M Payne, Rocketeer's rating was 104.
So, we had Rocketeer, 104, Power and Faith 103, Fuchsia lady 102, Valashka 99.
A base rating for Iona Avenue for this distance would have been around 55 for a final rating of 101.
This method might seem too simplistic for a lot of the Gurus but it will be around the mark enough times to compete with any selection method.
Another big advantage I find with Ozeform is to suss out those horses that always perform well at their 1st run back.
One example of many is Command and Conquer which won 1st up over 1600m. at lucrative odds of around 20/1.
Command and Conquer had won 1st up in it's last preparation over 1500m.
For mine, this is not an advertisement for Ozeform but without it, I would probably not bother.
PS. It has taken me so long to type this, the page has probably timed out.

( Yeah. It has.)

[Duritz]

OK. Too many questions to answer in one post except to say this - there is no one answer. What ratings do is express ability numerically to cut out the comparisons of different tracks and classes against one another. If you have a horse who rates 70 (say expressed in terms of lengths) and another across the other side of the country who rates 68, both at their best, then you know that the first one is two lengths better. Then, of course, comes the arbitrary judgement about what you think they will rate given today's circumstances. This is where your questions are coming in - what do you give them as a rating tomorrow?

There is no answer that is right, as you know the market is not the true expression of what's going on, merely the expression of what the mass conglomerate of punters out there think. And remember, they're influenced by a billion different factors.

So, the rating you give it is UP TO YOU.

As a guide, though, look at what it's best rating is at the moment (say last two or three starts) and if in your opinion it is more likely to be better suited today, bonus it a little or if otherwise penalise it slightly.

The important thing is to have reliable ratings. If you don't have them, you're stuffed. The next step is knowing how to use then. Start by reading Don Scott's book Winning More, it's a good start. Then ask me again, I'll tell you more.

[sportznut]

For what it is worth, why go to all the trouble of doing your own ratings when a site such as Ozeform has a rating figure for every run a horse has had in it's entire career. I have been using this facility exclusively for about 2 years and my method is to keep it very simple.


Actually, that's EXACTLY what I was planning on doing. When I said 'doing ratings', I meant simply using Ozeform's ratings figures and adding a couple of small bonuses or penalties of my own. Above all, I want to keep it SIMPLE, because I reckon you can think too much about these sorts of things and get yourself all confused. If you keep it basic and simple, you lessen that confusion.

I've only been looking at them again for a little while and just using the horse's last run would have been quite effective in the races I've looked at. Now that seem's TOO simple to work long term. I'm going to have to look at it a bit more closely over the next few days, because I'm planning on starting to use something like this come January 1.

By the way, when it came to horses resuming, I was simply using the rating from their previous first-up run, providing it wasn't out of the ordinary from it's other first-up runs. I reckon there's probably a better alternative than that? With horses 2nd up, I looked at their previous 2nd up runs to see how much improvement they made after their first-up runs and then simply added that amount on to their last start.

As for that race yesterday, simply using the last run, Power And Faith came out on top and Valashka was only rated equal 5th. Rocketeer AND Parliament both rated fairly highly considering they weren't really given much hope in the betting. The first4 paid $20000 and it certainly wasn't impossible to get. Then again, it's easy when you're looking at them AFTER the race has been run.

Oh, are you sure about the apprentice jockey's allowances? How has that worked for you in your ratings? Has it been a big help?

[Imagele]

Sports
I have found it is folly not to make adjustments for apprentices.
Why do trainers use them if it does not enhance the prospects of their mounts.
Would Dane's jester have won yesterday without the 3kg. allowance.?
If you look at how quickly top apprentices lose their claim and then the winners dry up, it demonstrates the advantage they have over other riders.
As I said in my previous post, the ozeform rating is based on actual weight carried after the claim, therefore a claim for today's race has to be factored in. (that's my opinion anyway. everyone to their own.)
Claims are probably more important with horses handicapped near the top of the weights.
Referring to yesterday's rating for Valashka, this horse was on an improving cycle and ready to produce, i. e. right race, right distance, therefore it is necessary to look for a rating pertinent to the event it was contesting today.
Had valashka won that race it would have returned a rating possibly 3kg. higher than it had produced before, a task that is probably beyond it.
The rating previously produced of 57kg. ws attained carrying 55kg. with the aid of a claim.
This is most likely this horses peak rating for all time. Who knows?.
One thing seems certain from watching yesterday's race,If Valashka had 3kg. off it's back it would have been fighting out the finish with Power and Faith.
Hope this helps. It's free.

[Filante]

Duritz,

Big topics!

I start out with a speed map and a set of ratings and first eliminate horses with poor form (cut them off at 5 lengths from the top rated horse) or horses who are going to settle back in a slowly run race. Position with 600m to go, pace of the race to that point, finishing speed and the weight to be carried are all important. Beyond that its a matter of experience, judgment and personal taste. I don't have any particular secrets or special way of doing things.

I think it's important not to rely on your initial rating assessment (i.e. the raw ratings figure). Give bonuses and penalties for your own particular likes and dislikes.

The staking method I employ is a variation in the standard dutch book. My view is if you have a horse rated $3, if the bookmaker gives you $6 you should have 200 on it, if he gives you $12 you should have 400. Once you escape the "bookmaker market intimidation" mentality you free yourself to make substantially better profits.

If I don't have a hangover after Christmas I might post boxing day at Caulfield, and then go through the staking horse-by-horse.

Cheers,

F

[Duritz]

Those ratings no the Ozeform site are pretty much the same ratings that IAS use when doing the form etc, so you'll find no problems with using them. They're probably the best ratings you could access to be honest, and they're free, and you get the whole history of the horse too. The only qualm is the laborious nature of typing in every horse. If you could access them by clicking on them in the form part of the website it'd be excellent.

Remember one thing when you're doing the form with ratings - there's no rule about what you should do every time in any given circumstance, because (and though it might sound cliched it's true) all horses are different. There's no right or wrong either, the only measure of right or wrong is whether you end up winning or losing. Try different things, but always look back on what you did and see what worked and what didn't.

[sportznut]

Duritz,

Just a question. I assume weight allowances for females are already factored in?

By the way, I'm having trouble accessing some of the ratings. It seems to be just horses with an apostrophe in their name like today for example - He's A Hula, Bosun's Piper and Dancer's Edge. I remember a few years ago, you had to do something different when typing in such names, but I've forgotten what it was. Could you possibly help me out here?

[sportznut]

By the way, I'm having trouble accessing some of the ratings. It seems to be just horses with an apostrophe in their name like today for example - He's A Hula, Bosun's Piper and Dancer's Edge.

Hmmm, I just managed to get the form for Frisco's Harem, so I'm not sure what was wrong with those other ones.

[moeee]

Sorry to hear of your timeout Imagele.
But if it helps any,I appreciate the long over.
In fact the hair on the back of my neck is standing up and a head rush.
Can't wait to get to that site and suss out the ratings.
I used to play with ratings,but think I might have taken it much too seriously.
I like your simplified approach.I feel you can know too much whereas in my younger years I thought you could never know enough.

[moeee]

I didn't find no ratings on my first jaunty,so I'll try registering and see if they appear.

[sportznut]

If you're talking about Ozeform, yes, you have to register.

[moeee]

I had a go and couldn't think of a horses name,I said I was new,so I typed in Lionhearted and a big blue screen with "FATAL EXCEPTION OCCURRED" greeted me.
I'm scared to go back!