winning favourites

[syllabus23]

This topic comes up so frequently and the 30% average for winning favourites is so embedded in my mind that I seldom question the validity of it.

I came across these track by track figures and some of the statistics surprised me.The percentages are based on an average of the past thirteen meetings at each track.

Eagle Farm.....Winning favourites 29%..Right on cue..But...in five out of the last thirteen meetings (or 38.5%)the average number of winning favourites was a mere 7%..Naturally it follows that the other eight meetings had a very high strike rate of winning favourites.

Doomben.....Winning favourites 30%..Right on cue again..But,,similar to Eagle Farm seven out of thirteen meetings (54%) the average number of winning favourites was a very modest 10.8%.

Rosehill had an incredibly high percentage over thirteen meetings..,.41%

Randwick/Ken was also high at 45%

Sandown/Hill 34%

Caulfield 31%

Belmont (for KV) was 38%

So whilst the average may well be steady at around 30% the wild fluctuations used to finally arrive at that figure make it less than reliable.Also I must acknowledge that thirteen meetings is not a very good population for statistics,but these were the only figures available.

[KennyVictor]

Belmont over the last 2700 races gives 33% favorites and Ascot over about the same amount gives 32%.

The size of the fields no doubt determines the percentage of winners to a large degree.
Now Kojonup, where we're all headed tomorrow has a return of 47.61% favorites over the last 42 races in 7 years or so.

KV

P.S. But then if you'd bet the first horse in alphabetical order at kojonup you'd have scored 35% winners and made a 6% profit. Last horse in alpha order only 21% winners and a loss of 40%.

I think some people on this forum could base a system around that :-)

[syllabus23]

Mate,,,,There's no pub....

Accommodation in Kojanup

No accommodation listed for Kojanup

Though I did find this,,so i might come too.

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Perth, Austraya
Posts: 36
http://www.dirty.org/forums/images/misc/im_icq.gif (http://www.dirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1676#)

http://www.dirty.org/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif
well on saturday just gone i had a rockin 21st in a shearing shed on a farm 15km north of a town called Kojanup, in West Aust. (about 250k's from Perth)

130ppl, enough piss to drown all of the farm animals and still get drunk when your finished, people who you don't know talking to ya as if you've known them your whole life, decent tunes (here and there, thecountry folk get a little odd with the country music), sleeping on the rocks in a swag next to the car, waking up at 6am buy guys doin 'nuts in the paddock next to ya, then havin a bbq for breaky...does it get much better?

Well i couldnt do it every weekend, cause i'd turn into a total country hick, but every now and then its all good dirty fun
__________________
We'll ride the spiral to the end, and may just go where no-one's been.
Spiral Out.
Keep Going

[BJ]

You must remember that it is an average over a long period of time....

While your stats over 13 meetings might suggest strange happenings to you, you must consider other factors. The biggest of these would be the price of these favourites. Some meetings run with small fields all day, where you would expect shorter priced favourites and obviously a higher strike rate....

I think the most important thing to remember is this: The chance of a horse winning is generally represented by its market share. A horse showing $2 will win about 42-45% of the time returning about 90% of your investment. This is the same for all horses in a race ( although once you get down passed $15-$20, the winning chance becomes alot more volatile.... )

Please note : These are average figures. Alot of people in here will argue that there are $2 favourites that should be almost certainties whereas other $2 favourites are questionable favs....
My opinions here are based on passed stats, and only looking at dividends as opposed to form/class etc....

[partypooper]

BJ, you have touched on something that has worried me for a long time!! i.e. no matter how the selections are arrived at, they all seem to adhere to the ultimate law. i.e. all 1/1 money chances will win I dunno , about 45% of the time, all 4/1 shots will win about 20% of the time etc etc. Unfortunately it's quite sobering!!
What I'm saying is that whichever the system, whatever the S/R whatever the ave. SP, when its annalysed over a long period of time, it always seems to follow this unwritten law!!
So it's my belief (even though I bet to the contrary) that this will ALWAYS be the case over time. THe reason of course is that 4-1 is NEVER given for a 4-1 chance (well not for long anyway)
1/1 is NEVER given for an even money chance etc etc. eg. if I flipped a coin I would not give you evens, I would offer 10/11 AT BEST, you see what I'm getting at!!!! Yet we are all still convinced that we can beat the book. It is a bit like the big firms offering 20% deposit bonus, yep they know "overall" they can give you 20% and still beat you!!

Sorry thats a bit negative isn't it, let me close by saying that I've beat em' for more than 2 years!!

[kenchar]

PP,
That's because you are a place better.

[Duritz]

The difference is this, and the reason why they can be beaten is this:

Within those horses going around at evens, who win say 45% of the time, there are some who win 45% of the time, some who win 40% or so of the time and some who win 50% of the time. The thing is - they average out at that 45%, so people say "oh, it all comes back to the unwritten law that even money chances win 45% of the time." True, averaged out they do, but if you use your nouse and do the form properly, you can pick which ones are the "true" evens chances (ie win 45% of the time) which are the false ones (ie win 40% or less of the time) and which are the value ones (who win 50% or more of the time). The reason they win 45% on average is because it is ON AVERAGE, just as on average I score about 85 for 18 holes, but it can fluctuate wildly depending on many factors, like course, track condition, distance and sobriety.

The trick is to know which are true, false, and overs. and to bet accordingly.

Duritz.

[crash]

Trying to find profit from Fav. 'in the numbers' alone without hindsight is of course impossible [a lot of punters still try], but as Party pointed out profit is possible, if you can find an edge and somehow he obviously has.

Some simple examples of creating an edge that would increase that overall Fav.30% SR average would be to remove from the stats. [a no bet fav.] all Favourites carrying over 57kg., or perhaps ignoring all Fav. in races over 2200m or less than 1100m., F&M and Cup races come to mind too as races with poor Fav. SR's that could be excluded as no bets [on Fav.].

Removing any of the above races will improve the 30% SR and removing all of the above would improve things even more.

[syllabus23]

While your stats over 13 meetings might suggest strange happenings to you, you must consider other factors. The biggest of these would be the price of these favourites. Some meetings run with small fields all day, where you would expect shorter priced favourites and obviously a higher strike rate....

I totally agree with the logic that small fields will produce more winning favourites.However the twenty-six Brisbane meetings all had the usual big Brisbane fields.Twelve out of twenty-six meetings producing an average of less than 9% winning favourites seems odd.

Perhaps it is an anomaly.Certainly in a true scientific study those statistics are not significant.However,they are there staring at us,and as gamblers they give us food for thought.

Most forumites would know that I am getting my information from the AAP site.Just click a meeting and you will find the course stats towards the bottom of the left hand column.

[BJ]

To ellaborate? on my previous post as agreed by partypooper(at least for the first point anyway)...

If you bet level stakes on a horse showing the same price, every race you would average about an 85-90% return on the tab..
If you bet on every horse in the race on the tab and outlayed $100 you would return $86 (at the price when you bet, not allowing for shortening divs...).
To me this suggests that we as punters as a combined entity, are able to give each horse in a race an accurate(reasonably) chance of winning.
If this is the case, a horse that starts at $2 on the tab actually represents $2.35 value meaning that if you can get $2.36 or better you have an edge.

Presuming all this, one must get a reasonably accurate figure of the end price of a horse on the tab. You cannot do this by watching the tab market. I find that a certain fixed odds company, let's be dyslexic and call them isa, provides a reasonably accurate depiction of the favourites end price on the tab. Some races it is obvious that they are prepared to risk a horse so occasionly this is not the case but it gives you a pretty good idea.

This is certainly not a certainty by any means, but if you can get about 25% better div than the tab then you should not lose your money quickly (provided that the results come in as expected) and I think that this would give you a better advantage than leaving out some races.

I would suggest from what I have seen, that you can get this sort of value on about ~25-35% of races providing about 10 or more betting opportunities on wed-sun racing per day, if you bet in the right places...

Loose ends...
When I say tab, I am always referring to the home state tab.
Maybe you can only get this value because there is late money coming for other horses, hence reducing the favs chances? (I have no real opinion about late money.)

Question: If I am right about the tabs market share representing the horses chance, what difference would the type of race make? Do we suddenly lose our abilities when a maiden race occurs?
All horses have ran before, whether it be in a race or a trial.

Sorry everybody, but I am really bored and have nothing better to do.....

[woof43]

BJ,
Its wrong to assume by backing every runner in every race that the money return equals the total less Takeout.
Try this exercise, total the number of runners at each meeting then total the Payoff for each winner, then do this for a number of meetings an see what your results tell you...this is an important subject when one studies the Market Efficiency of Wagerers at each track(if you take it a step further, you can do it by each day of the week).
On your other query,
If you produce ratings that show individual Standard Deviations based on LTD performances, it will become apparent that races that have a tigher overall average STDev are Golden, it doesn't matter on the races actual Classification, its the runners ability to be consistent, the STDev is your tool in this cluster type of analysis

[La Mer]

Try this exercise, total the number of runners at each meeting then total the Payoff for each winner, then do this for a number of meetings an see what your results tell you...this is an important subject when one studies the Market Efficiency of Wagerers at each track(if you take it a step further, you can do it by each day of the week).


The problem with your theory woof43 is that if you are basing the payoffs on tote dividends then the affect of rounding down has more impact in races where the favourites win or place.

[woof43]

Hi La Mer,
Yes i would hope most people would understand the difference between Natural odds an Tote odds.
But there is more then just knowing that, this is more about how you design wagering strategies from track to track

[KennyVictor]

BJ,
Its wrong to assume by backing every runner in every race that the money return equals the total less Takeout.
Try this exercise, total the number of runners at each meeting then total the Payoff for each winner, then do this for a number of meetings an see what your results tell you...this is an important subject when one studies the Market Efficiency of Wagerers at each track(if you take it a step further, you can do it by each day of the week).


Would you care to elaborate on this Woof? I'm not sure exactly what point you are making.

[BJ]

If I bet on every horse in a race on the tab, I would need to spend $117 to return $100. That is why there markets add up to 117%. If you decrease that outlay to $100, you return $85.5. I know I am not wrong about this. I can only assume that you are talking along similar lines as on another post, where you are talking about betting patterns of other punters(trifecta thread), and punting to beat them as opposed to beating the bookies. Whilst making an interesting read and obviously worthy of some thought, I don't see how it applies here...
As far as standard deviation goes, I don't have the same type of setup as you so I really don't understand what you mean. I know that consistant horses are better permanent betting propositions, but really don't see how it ties in with anything I am saying.

My point is: If 30% of favourites win paying $2.9-$3, you lose 10-15% of your money.
To turn this into a profit, you either have to increase the dividend to greater than $3.34 or increase the strike rate to greater than 35%.

As the favourites are determined by thousands of punters, I don't beleive for a second that I can increase the strike rate, leaving me with aiming for a greater dividend.
If I were to study the form and pick who I thought was going to win, there is no guarantee that I am gaining an edge. Yes I might be winning, yes this might last for a long time, but there is no proof that you have an edge. The only proof is your opinion and the fact is you are just gambling still.

I am not saying that you cannot gain an edge like this, I am just saying that you cannot prove that you are...
Whereas, if you bet on every $2 favourite and could back it at $4(wishful thinking), well I think you all know my point...

[woof43]

Hi,
Maybe I wasn't too clear, here it is again if you place $1 on every runner in every race at one track then sum the winners payoffs.

I just did a quick look at yesterdays dog races here are the results as per above;
The Meadows Outlay 94/ Return 68.8
Bulli Outlay 79/ Return 68.4
Gold Coast Outlay 75/ Return 52.4
Angle Park Outlay 62 / Return 45.5
Ballarat Outlay 76 / Return 65

Now do you really think the win payoff will equal monies invested less Take Out.

Which win market is the most efficient. This is your starting point prior to wagering at any track.

[BJ]

I am betting to return a figure, not betting level stakes....
A $2 runner would have $50 on it...
A $5 runner would have $20 on it...

Now if you do the same as what you have done, but this time bet to return $100... you will find that you will be spending $117 to return $100.

The tab market is 117% so this will happen every race at every meeting.........

[BJ]

If it was as easy as betting $1 on every runner in a race, then there would probably only be 1 or 2 people that have heard of the tab. The ones that bankrupted them.....

[KennyVictor]

Hi,
Maybe I wasn't too clear, here it is again if you place $1 on every runner in every race at one track then sum the winners payoffs.

The Meadows Outlay 94/ Return 68.8
Bulli Outlay 79/ Return 68.4


Sorry, still not clear.
I assume you mean sum the potential winners payoffs and this is what you would get back for a dollar bet on each dog at that meet. If so this means The Meadows only returns 73% odd of our money and Bulli nearly 87%. I thought (excluding rounding) the Tab bet to 117% ish on all tracks on the horses (I don't follow the dogs - maybe they're different). If this is what you mean, why the difference?

Or do you actually mean sum the winner's payoffs i.e. what you would have got back on the winner of each race. If so I still need elucidation.
Hope you can spare the time to educate us.

KV

[Duritz]

Guys it's really quite simple except that you're both talking from different standpoints. I'll explain them both:

WOOF43

Is saying that if you put $1 on every runner at the meeting, you're return will be less than 85% of what you outlayed. Think of it this way - 8 races at Flemington this day, all the favourites get up, ranging in odds from $1.50 to $3.20. Your total collect, with $1 on each of them, was $11.40, and your total outlay was $102 because there were 102 horses at this meeting and you had $1 on each. Incidentally there was a meeting at Caulfield one carnival years ago where roughies got up i think every race, that day $1 on each would have WON on the day. Sometimes (rarely) that will happen, but averaged out you will lose. When he says "the efficiency" of the market (I assume) what he means is how good it is at finding the winners, so the smaller your total return, the more "efficient" - or accurate - that market is.

BJ

Is saying that if you VARY your stake, and have whatever amount on them it takes to COLLECT $100 no matter which horse wins, then you will lose 15% per race, betting on the tote. This is TRUE. Example -

Race 1

A - $3.30
B - $2.00
C - $2.70

On A you have $30 (100/$3.30) to collect $100 should it win. On B, $50, again, collect $100 should it win. On C, $37, collect $100 should it win. Your outlay is $117, and whichever horse wins you collect $100, losing $17 or 15% of your money.

That's just an example of what happens because of the tote take. If the tote took nothing, then using that method you'd outlay $100 and collect $100 every race.

What he is further saying is that if you can therefore get BETTER ODDS than the tote, you can theoretically reduce the race % from the 117% that it is because of the tote take, to somewhere below 100%, at which point you begin making a profit.

Using the example from above, had you scrounged around the various betting agencies etc and obtained the prices below about your selections, this is what would happen:

A - $4.50
B - $2.50
C - $3.50

You wold have $22 on A, to collect $100 ($22*$4.50), $40 on B, and $28 on C. Total outlay = $90, total collect = $100, profit = $10 no matter which horse wins, or 11% on turnover.

Good job. Problem is getting those prices.....

[KennyVictor]

Thanks for that.
I hadn't considered that the bettors at one track would be better than those at any other track.
Another gem picked up at the forum (subject to several days programming and data searching to test it out of course).
Thanks again.

KV

[Duritz]

I'f be curious to know what you came up with KV, I have not the programming expertise to perform that kind of task. Any results would be greatly appreciated.

Duritz.

[KennyVictor]

Sure thing, I'll let you know soon as I have anything interesting.

KV

[Shaun]

Now way the punters are better at one track than another....if you consider they are all the same people then it would be in fact the track it self that produces more favourite winners.

[KennyVictor]

If that is the case, and it sounds like a pretty sound argument to me, is it because some tracks have shorter straights (more favorites get boxed in on the turn or whatever)? Is it because more favorites get nobbled at some tracks? What is the reason? And if it is pure unpredictability rather than less astute punters can we really take any advantage from the different returns at different tracks or are we as likely to suffer the consequences of unpredictability as everyone else.

[Shaun]

Every trck has it's own features and some horses run better at some tracks.....it is a very hard thing unless you study the tarck and the way it races....but here is one pointer...when looking in the form guide the horse with a "C" by it's name could be one to check out if it is in form

[Duritz]

Flemington is rarely biased, Caulfield is rarely not. That makes Flemington a better place to do the form, and it means horses who don't deserve to win can win at Caulfield if on the right part of the track. That makes an analysts job harder at Caulfield than at Flemington.

[KennyVictor]

We were talking about putting a dollar on each horse in each race at meetings some time ago and what the returns meant, well I've come up with a few results to mull over.

These are returns over the last 10 years on the NSW TAB if you plonked a dollar on pretty much every horse in pretty much every race (I say pretty much because data on the net just ain't perfect).

Over the 10 years 79.0% Returned overall (i.e.$79 back for every $100 bet).

1995 - 2001 is fairly consistent around the 79.6% area then progresses to 77.8% by 2004.
I guess the punters are getting more accurate.

There is only 2% between the highest and lowest yearly return so it's pretty consistent.

What puts the meaning of this ROI in perspective for me is the returns under different track conditions.

Avg Var from
Year to year
Fast Tracks 79.0% + or - 5%
Good Tracks 77.8% + or - 2%
Dead Tracks 79.6% + or - 5%
Slow Tracks 82.0% + or - 4%
Heavy Tracks 84.8% + or - 5%

You can see the punter does a more efficient job on Good tracks than any other sort. Heavy tracks overall are only 7% different and as many people say leave the punt alone on wet tracks it shows what a difference that 7% makes.

Metro tracks: 78.7%
Non Metro: 79.2%
Not much difference here.

1 to 8 Runners: 80.0%
9 to 12 Runners: 79.3%
13 to 25 Runners: 78.2%
This is a strange one. Does it mean we bet more efficiently in bigger fields? I'll be interested to hear anyones explanation of this one.

Canterbury: 77.5%
Rosehill: 78.1%
Randwick (Kens): 75.0%
Royal Randwick: 78.9%
Warwick Farm: 76.9%
Caulfield: 79.95%
Flemington: 82.7%
Moonee Valley: 82.4%
Ascot: 80.1%
Belmont: 77.0%
Eagle Farm: 76.95%
Doomben: 77.6%
Morphetville: 81.4%
Sandown: 80.05%
Hillside(03-04): 86.0%
Lakeside(03-04): 75.0%

6% ish difference from easiest track to hardest. Almost as much as Good track to Heavy track.

Well, Duritz said Flemington was a better betting prospect than Caulfield and the figures bear him out. We are 3% better at our job as punters at Flemington than Caulfield. About the same as we are better on Good tracks rather than Slow tracks.

Returns by the three TABs 1/8/02 to 31/12/04.

NSW Tabco UniTab
All courses: 78.0 77.6 77.3
NSW Races: 78.0 77.7 78.2
QLD Races: 77.9 77.9 76.4
WA Races: 77.0 75.8 75.9

Hope you find this interesting. Any ideas how we can use it to improve our betting?

KV

[KennyVictor]

Use your imaginations with the headings above the figures. They shifted in the move from white page to green page. Sorry.

[crash]

It is well known racing history that some tracks are harder to win on than others.

It has more to do with track layout than track bias [a different thing].

Cauifield is not much more than a trotting track [329m straight] that they tried [and failed] to fix and Sandown had it's hill. Canterbury is tiny [straight also only just over 300m] and hard to punt on. Ranwick is almost square and is notorious for taking your money too.

Basically size really does matter here. The larger tracks create a more even playing field [Brisbane tracks for instance but the huge race fields have to be avoided].

[KennyVictor]

Crash, this track bias of which you speak. I've heard on wet tracks of jockeys heading for the "better" part of the track because the going seems better there. Is that the track bias? or is it something else?

[crash]

Your right there Kenny. Track bias is an overused description applied far too often to a situation that usually just isn't there ['overlay' is another word similarly overused and misunderstood].

When Oliver walks a track with his metal prod zig-zagging at 45% angles around a track he is looking for the firm going that may or may not exist at various track sections. One whole section may be firmer on the inside and another in the centre etc. What he is looking for is the firm ground which he can use to his advantage. This would be called a 'track bias'. Everything else is track layout and is also to be considered [differently] for various race distances.

Track bias is a hotly contested topic and my opinion above is only that.

[KennyVictor]

Thanks for that Crash. Is this track bias reputed to exist only when track conditions are less than perfect, i.e. slow or heavy going, or are some tracks supposed to have better sections whatever the weather?

[syllabus23]

Randwick had a dreadful track bias until they did some deep rooting,that seemed to fix it up.

[Sportz]

Makes for an interesting mental picture. Some people might actually suggest that the Randwick track was already well and truly 'rooted'. :o

Seriously though, it seems to be going pretty well now.

[Duritz]

The less returns in the big fields interests me. I can offer you one POSSIBLE explanation: small fields tend to almost always be slowly run. They dawdle. In slowly run races, horses who shouldn't win can because of getting the run of the race, the right ride and falling in. In big fields, truly run affairs, the best horse tends to have it over the bad one. No doubt you've heard the race callers making that great racing generalisation, in their peculiar nasal tones - "Well, how often do you see it. Small field, and the outsider gets up." Slowly run races are a farce, and they mean form doesn't become the most important thing, where they are positioned does.
To illustrate the point: 16 horses running over 1600m-2000m at Flemington, in a truly run affair, the cream rises to the top. 7 horses in a crappy class6 at MV on a Thursday night and anything can win. I have seen 1000m races at MV on Thurs nights which have been crawled in front.
A good example of a jockey counteracting this was Jason Benbow on Highclere on Saturday. Whilst he rolled along at a good pace, a true pace, the kind of pace conducive to running the best times, the rest of the field sat 10-12 lengths behind him. THEY were in a slowly run race all of their own while he was running a race the pace it should be. Well, evenly run races always run better times than slowly run ones, so little wonder the other jockeys found themselves scratching their heads after the race, wondering how he had managed to keep going on Highclere. The horse wasn't going too fast, just so ingrained in the minds of these uneducated dwarfs is the culture of the slowly run race that they no little else, and have no imagination to deal with it.
You know what they say - if jockeys were one foot taller, they'd all be unemployed.

Hmm. Just re-read all that. Kind of got off the topic. Sorry..
Duritz

[crash]

Wet weather doesn't in itself create a track bias. Wet weather MIGHT create track bias depending on the track. Rail position being moved and creating firmer going on the inside couple of alleys though would create a bias [biased toward the inside] as those alleys are now faster. This 'bias' [or punter perception of it] could and often does change during the day.

I never [seriously] bet on any track worse than 'good'. The punter has enough things working against him already without worrying about his runner having crap kicked up into it's mouth and face at galloping speed as well !!!

[KennyVictor]

I just read my earlier post (with the figures) which showed Caulfield returning 79.95% of our cash and Flemington 82.7%. I wrongly said this confirms Duritz's view that we are more accurate punters at Flemington than Caulfield. Although this is the case over the last 10 years the last two years show Caulfield about 82% and Flemington 76.9%. So although I made a mistake in my original musings Duritz, on recent figures, is still right.
Interesting Flemington had a wild year in 2002 where it returned 103%. So if you'd bet a dollar on all 2858 horses that went around Flemington in 2002 you would have got about $2944 back. This year is exceptional (by about 9%) for Flemington. Did something happen that year at Flemington or are the figures biased by a few long price winners?

Regarding your (mild) digression to Moonee Valley on a Thursday night Duritz. Moonee Valley, 1 to 8 runners (all days of the week combined), returns 85.1% (which makes it about as easy to pick as the average heavy track).

[crash]

Hmmm, those figures might be a bit bendy for using to make assumptions [Caulfield is easier to bet on] beyond the obvious facts of win/loss % there ....for those that bet Cauilfield anyway.

I'm sure a lot more mug money [a huge amount more] gets spent at Flemington, especially during the spring and Melb. Cup carnival, that ever gets spent at Caulield, which would 'load' the loss figures at Flemington. A lot of average punters avoid betting on Caulfield because of it's difficult reputation, but it also draws a lot of specialists which perhaps loads it's win figures and lightens it's loss figure [?].

It might be drawing a long bow to jump to conclusions about punting difficulty or anything else from basic track win/loss figures at any track. Do you see my point ?

[woof43]

From studying each Tracks Win Efficiency, it tells you, you have to change things from track to track. Every handicapping factor performs differently from track to track. And the track regulars understand their track's "performance parameters" and adjust their play accordingly. So to take advantage of the crowd's tendencies, you DO have to study and understand wagering at each track as an individual entity. That's not to say there aren't a lot of similarities from track to track. And the general effect of crowd size behaves much the same from track to track. But the amount the crowd overplays or underplays any given factor does depend on that factor's performance at each track.

Another study would be to look at win efficiency by the day of the week (public holidays and special events), by doing this you will get another crosshair on when Favs are over played an longshots underplayed and vice versa an when you need to use different wagering strategies.

Remember people are creatures of habit, and they will reward you time after time with profits IF YOU ARE WILLING TO LOOK IN THE RIGHT PLACE. If you are looking at factors, you are trying to beat the HORSES. If you are looking at wagering, you are trying to beat the CROWD. Of those two, the only one who actually offers you money is the crowd! GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. Let the HORSES take care of themselves! the thing that makes it SO HARD to make a profit using a standalone ranking/handicapping method IS THAT IT'S ABOUT THE SAME WAY THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT. When everybody is doing it, IT'S GOING TO BE AN UNDERLAY! Only by slicing out your own private little 5% do you have a chance with such a method.

Imagine You're giving up on 19 races out of 20 because you're too blindered by steps #1 and #2 in your handicapping. You should be looking for ways to make your handicapping AS IS work on a high percentage of all races. That's possible, but ONLY if you study wagering instead of trolling for magical combinations of factors. Or trolling for your tiny slice of races where your combination of factors plus your wagering pattern AREN'T overbet by the crowd.

Imagine if your car broke down 19 times out of 20 when you tried to drive to the supermarket, would you say you have a well-designed car? If your computer locked up 19 times out of 20 when you booted up, would you say you have great software? If you chose 20 restaurants because of the colour of their awnings and got 1 good meal out of 20, would you think you have a good way of finding eateries? if you admit you can only play 1 race out of 20 this tells you something really important.

[KennyVictor]

Not a lot to be learned from a day of the week breakdown (not that I can see anyway).

Just lumping all tracks together for 10 years, NSW Tab returns on a dollar invested on all horses in all races (about 1.4 million in all).

Sunday, All tracks 79.14% Metro only 79.27%
Monday 80.51% Metro only 79.73%
Tuesday 78.99% Metro only 76.68%
Wednesday 77.34% Metro only 77.91%
Thursday 80.31% Metro only 79.79%
Friday 79.16% Metro only 78.28%
Saturday 78.77% Metro only 78.89%

Sorry, too hard to program public holidays or whatever.

KV

How the frig do you get things to come out in columns on the green?