Ratings maths
 

Say for example you had a set of ratings which showed a 79% strike rate from the top 5 rated horses, and the average win dividend was $5.47, would this show a level stakes profit? I'm not enitrely sure which way you would calcutlate the profit/loss of this.

Would it be $5.47/5=1.094

Then 1.094x79=86.426 to work out the P/L?

Any help on this would be appreciated.

And if that is the correct method that I have used above, any suggestions on how to try and improve this? Perhaps only backing the top five horses which are paying $5 or more?

Hi thorns,
I believe your maths are correct, but you seem to be assuming that the 86.426 is the return on 79, when it actually the return on 100.00 resulting in a loss.

AFA only backing horses paying $5.00 or more, I think you would find a significant reduction in your strike rate. Maybe someone with a database could help confirm this.

Rgds,
Den

thanks for that, I thought that the 86 was LOT, but didnt make that very clear, but the fact that your maths comes up the same is what I was really after.

Another way to estimate how your system would perform would be to estimate the results after a certain # of races, say 200 for the sake of convenience.

# of selections = 200 races x 5 horses per race = 1,000 selections
# of winners = a winner found in 79% of 200 races = 158 winners
average price per winner = $5.47

So based on $1 bets, your 1,000 selections will return $5.47 x 158 = $864.26, which means after 200 races, you could expect a loss of roughly $1,000 - $864.26 = $135.74, or alternatively, a loss on turnover (LOT) of 13.574%.

Personally I would steer clear of trying to bet on so many selections in each race. Also, one of the most important lessons I've learnt so far is that you don't have to bet in every single race. When developing a system, you should constantly be trying to think of new filters that both increases your profit on turnover (POT), as well as your strike rate. Look for similarities in the majority of your winners, as well as the majority of your losers. Weeding out more losers from your system is just as important as finding the winners.

And then when you've refined your selection process to be as good as it can be, then focus on what kind of staking plan is most appropriate. Personally I prefer betting a certain percentage of the bank on each selection, which helps preserve the bank when a run of outs strikes, but also helps compounds profits when the winners come rolling in. Hope that helps. Good luck mate.

Thanks for the reply. I realise betting that many horses would be hard work to make a profit, I guess really I was more interested in finding the P/L, as those stats are form a particular ratings provider, and the way they were advertising made it sound impressive. But now that I have seen the actual "real life" figures, its not that great after all.

Cheers

thorns - no ratings method ever devised in the history of the world can level stake 5 horses a race regardless of price over virtually every race and make a profit. It's an unrealistic expectation. Don't look for that as your answer because you won't find it, anywhere. 79% strike rate in the top 5 is a very good strike rate, and given that the LOT is only 11% level staking all 5 of them (and I do mean ONLY, because backing 5 horses a race flat stake regardless of price is a fast way to the poor house, therefore 11% is a good result in that scenario), then it is highly likely that you can turn that into a sustainable POT, with sound betting practises. As always, the key is to look for value in the selections, not to flat stake regardless of price.

Good luck.

I back 5 horses in a race according to my ratings, but usually only 3 or 4 races a day.

Up to the 22/1 the results are

55 races
275 selections
47 winners

out 275.00
in 306.10
+31.10

Grand Armee,

I am currently testing a sort of mechanical method with real money in qualifying races where I bet half the field, less the fave, to Win using level stakes.

Admittedly there have only been 44 races (for 39 winners) but the POT on Win betting is currently 69.80%. I also box the selections (including the fave) in quinellas for a current POT of 40.80%, and trifectas for a current POT of 47.09%.

Today I missed Swan Hill R9 because I was not at my computer, which was a qualifying race. I would have snared the winner of $14.40, the quinella of $111 but I'm not sure of the $1,450 trifecta. This race will not be included in my results.

I am saying all this not out of conceit or anything like that (I will reveal the rules of the system if it continues to perform but will test the method for a much longer period of time) but just like Benny has stated it is not impossible to bet a large number of horses, but IMHO only if you have rules that select particular races.

Grand Armee, I fully agree when you say virtually every race - I believe you have to be selective in the races you chose.

michael g and benny - that's why i said "virtually every race" and "regardless of price", because they are the stipulations that thorns is talking about.

Both Benny's method and michael's method target a few races only, and therein lies the difference.

Also, I don't want to burst any bubbles lads b/c your results are very promising but you obviously need a much bigger sample.

A good example of the sample size thing: I am currently "live" testing (ie not back testing but recording each day) a method which, after 133 races, is winning 43.8% on turnover. Promising, yes. But I know from past experience that I need far, far more than that.

Preferably, you want a sample of 10,000. That's a bit unrealistic though. IMO 1000 is bare minimum, but I've seen methods change their profile after more selections than that. 3000 is a number where, from my experience, it does seem to settle down. So, I'll be waiting on 3000 selections before I get too excited about this.