Selection criteria

[hermes]

I'm fairly new to punting and I'm still learning the basics. I've collected lots of opinions and info on selection criteria and methods. I'm trying to make sense of it and get it clear in my mind. I'd greatly appreciate any further ideas or advice from punters on-line here.

I'm a hobby punter, not a professional, so there are limits to the amount of time I can devote to studying a race. I want to limit it to what I can easily extract from the Sportsman guides.


It seems to me I need to look at:

1. Physical factors

Barrier, weight, number of runners, length of race, state of track. etc. The immutable parameters of the race.

2. Non-horse factors

Trainer and jockey. (Horses are not greyhounds after all.)

3. Career Form

Place average, prize average, performance over the distance and at track. Class. What calibre horse?

4. Recent Form

Last four starts, last run, days since racing etc. Improving? How's it running?

5. Analysts

Handicappers and race analysts, tipsters, the markets. I can never have the depth of analysis of the experts: I'd be a fool not to listen to what they have to say.



That's an aweful lot of data to synthesize. I'm spending about 45 mins on a race. And then, of course, having studied it in depth, and having ruined your eyesight on the fine print in the form guide, you might come up with... the favourite.

I'm looking for an elimination device. How can I narrow a race down to a manageable number of runners to study without eliminating winners too often?

What is best? A ranking method of analysis or an elimination method? I've been working on a ranking system. No doubt there are hundreds of them around already, but my way is to build my own system from scratch so that I understand each element. I'm keen to hear voices of experience though...

Great forum. Some very useful stuff. Thanks to all. Happy punting. Not a good weekend for me at the track. Oh well...

Hermes

[becareful]

Hermes,

Welcome! Just my opinion but if you are only interested in being a hobby punter and have limited time then developing your own rating/elimination system is probably out of the question - it takes a long time! For example I have been working on my current system since around last October and I didn't start betting with it until March. It is now giving me a nice profit but I have put a LOT of time into it. You need to collect a lot of historical data and do many hours of analysis to come up with some ideas - then there is testing, refinement, testing again, etc.

If you are really just after a bit of fun then you could do a lot worse than simply use some of the simple systems described in the forums here (Numerators 5678 system has been working well recently) or follow some of the other selection methods (eg. Equine Investors jockey system or stable system - these take a bit more work as you have to monitor your jockey/stable selection). The other option is the various tipsters posting tips here - Friedman's Outsiders seem to have quite a good payoff from the weeks I have looked at their results - you could go back over all their old posts and check the history yourself.

Whatever you do make sure you set and stick to a budget and keep records of how you go. Best of luck!

Don't spend 45 mins on a race - that's 6 hrs for 8 races - not viable.

No more than 20 mins per race - you you cannot make a decision after 20 mins - the race is too hard, so forget it.

You need to follow the races for a few months, after that you'll know what to look for. In most races there are only half a dozen realistic winning chances. Sometimes there may be 1 or 2, other times 10 or so - avoid those races unless you get very good odds about something you like.

Refer to Brumby's stats - you could build a system around those figures that will provide plenty of winners over time.

[Equine Investor]

hermes if you are new to this game it might be an idea to take a tried system that will throw up lots of winners, I.E. high strike rate.

One such system that I might suggest is to look at your formguide and circle any horse in the top three that has won it's last start.
Then eliminate any that are not ridden by one of the top three jockeys on that states premiership table.
The ones remaining are your bet!

Strike rate is very high and usually throws up quite a few winners...but papertrade first to get the gist of it before investing hard earned dollars.

(just a suggestion to get started, not a moneyback guarantee)

[hermes]

Thanks for the advice. Does anyone put any faith in systems of number calculation such as "nines". Nines is where you add up the place numeral for the three best of a horses last four starts. Any horse with nine or less qualifies. Eg. 14521 = 7 (qualifies), 31604 = no qualify. Or there is also something I found called "Turfies Tops" which involves multiplying the last start numeral by 5, second last by 4 and so on. Again, lowest score qualifies. Such systems are easy to do. Do they get results long term (if used in conjunction with other factors)?

[hermes]

Thanks Equine Investor. When you say circle the top three, measured by what? Do you mean saddlecloths 1, 2 and 3? Or the three best horses measured by place averages, or what?

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-06-18 08:34, hermes wrote:
Thanks Equine Investor. When you say circle the top three, measured by what? Do you mean saddlecloths 1, 2 and 3? Or the three best horses measured by place averages, or what?


hermes, yes I mean saddlecloths 1,2,3 because they are the topweights made by the handicapper in most cases. Also if there is a scratching just treat it as a non runner do not go down to number 4. The methodology behind this system is great when you look at it overall.
1. Most races are won by either 1,2, or 3 saddlecloth.
2. If it's a last start winner you know the horse is fit. (Don't back it if it is coming back from a spell, I.E. first up)
3. Most races are won by the top three jockeys on the premiership table. (And you know you have a jockey riding your horse with experience and a high strike rate of winners).

The odds will not be great on these horses but they range from odds -on to $10.00 with the average being about $4.00. The strike rate is very high approaching above the 70% mark providing you stick to the rules!

Recent winners include...

Ruby Slipper $2.00
Storm Attack $1.90
Robert Royale $4.50
We're Dancing $3.60

Just to name a few.

As far as adding up the numbers of previous starts, I don't hold much confidance with that as it doesn't take into account class of race, such as a win at Rosehill Grp 1 or a maiden at Kembla Grange!

Also it doesn't matter if a horse finished 8th, if it was 1 length from the winner, or it may have finished 3rd 5 lengths from the winner.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-18 11:11 ]</font>

EI - You were all against favs before, now you're recommending them???
What happened to looking for value???

[Equine Investor]

Chief I was never against favourites, I was simply stating that in a race with an odds on favourite, especially a Group 1 race, there may be better value as favourites do get rolled.

My advice to hermes was based on a high strike rate system with a profitable outcome which I have researched. I myself use three systems at once so as to insure against long losing sequences.

Some favourites are good value, some are poor when you rate the opposition.

[Placegetter]

On 2002-06-18 16:10, Equine Investor wrote:
Chief I was never against favourites.


Back you up there Equine Investor, you've been shoving value down our necks so long I almost changed my system. "It can be the favourite and still be value", I think you said something like that.

Yes he has. I thinked he has realised from all the stats saying that the top few in the mkt dominate the winners circle, one must bet on these in order to make regular profits. If you're only looking at horses that win less than 20% of races, you can have a long run of outs. Sometimes the fav in pre-post mkts can drift out to $10 on race day. Plenty of value there!!

[quote] from Equine Investor:

"The odds will not be great on these horses but they range from odds -on to $10.00 with the average being about $4.00. The strike rate is very high approaching above the 70% mark providing you stick to the rules!"




Approaching above the 70% mark!!
Clear as daylight.
What absolute bollocks.
$4 avg and a strike rate near 70%???

That's 180% POT.

"Short memory, must have a short memory"
You're not familar with the Midnight Oil song I take it.

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-06-26 16:36, chief wrote:
[quote] from Equine Investor:

"The odds will not be great on these horses but they range from odds -on to $10.00 with the average being about $4.00. The strike rate is very high approaching above the 70% mark providing you stick to the rules!"




Approaching above the 70% mark!!
Clear as daylight.
What absolute bollocks.
$4 avg and a strike rate near 70%???

That's 180% POT.

"Short memory, must have a short memory"
You're not familar with the Midnight Oil song I take it.



REPLY: You obviously misunderstood my posting, as did amateur. Obviously you can't get 70% winners.

70% of races are won by:

1. 1,2, or 3 saddlecloth.
2. last start winner
3. top three jockeys on the premiership table.

Not necessarily all together.

Bollocks!

You clearly said approaching above the 70% mark provided you stick to the rules.
Well this bloke stuck to the rules and guess what?? He's struggling.

I've never heard so many excuses for bad advice.

100% of winners have 4 legs - should people back every horse with 4 legs?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chief on 2002-06-26 16:56 ]</font>

[becareful]

No - but I certainly wouldn't back any that only have 3 legs!

[hermes]

Each way bets for Dem voters.
Nat voters - on the nose.
Lib voters - Dutch book.
One Nation - all-ups.
Exactas for the left wing intellectuals.
Hardcore Labor voters - "Nah, the dogs mate--"

[Big Orange]

Elections...... a two horse race in which the newspaper tipsters promote the inevitable loser into pre-post favouritism.

Elections are like Flemington when the rail's out ten metres ....... None of the contenders run true to form.

Elections........ Even when you pick the winner, you never see a dividend. :smile:

[supersoul]

Anybody out there who can "actually" give us a figure- strike rate- for:

1. Last start winner, AND
2. Saddlecloth 1,2 or 3, AND
3. Ridden by one of top three jocks in the state, AND
4. Excluding roulette races like swimming tracks... slow/heavy, and once a quarter country meets...

Top three jocks will be a bit difficult as it should be for the time of the race... not that it varies that drastically over short periods!

Perhaps just apply this for the past month or three... Of course if I had the knowledge and means, I would run a check on diff class races, set weights, distances, etc etc etc. One could end up with a few diff "systems" or "selection methods" to keep in mind...

As a newcomer like Hermes, I appreciate any "researched" and "experential" information- as some people have generously shared with us already.

Thanks to you all!