'general rules' rather than system?
 

Hey folks,

Here is one I have been thinking about for a few years. Let me know what you think or how I might improve it... I created it to try and take advantage of ratings based handicapping (RBH) but it might work well everywhere, even if there is not RBH.

I bet on fast/good tracks only.

1. Race is a class 1 thru 6 at any track except tasmania.
2. Runner ran 1st, 2nd or 3rd last start, or was beaten less than 2 len.
3. Runner must be up in weight since last start (RBH rewards good runs)
4. Runner must be ridden by a senior jock.
5. Runner must be drawn inside gate 10 or fit barrier profile for that track
6. Runner must be in the first 4 favourites nearing jump time
6a. If more than one runner qualifies rules 1 thru 5, back the shortest one. If more than 3 qualify rules 1 thru 5, ignore the race.

All of these rules are based on sound handicapping techniques but I wonder if ultimately the starting price might be the downfall. I would love to know what you think...?

Whats wrong with the apple isle!?

...and are we including the NT? :)

..sorry ! just 1 more question....re point 6....Runner must be in the first 4 favourites nearing jump time....nearing would equate to eg. 2 mins or less??

Hi Westwinners,

It was interesting reading your general rules. I think if you were to go into your local TAB and ask the punters for some of their "general rules," you would probably get at least 100 different rules. There's just so many different ideas for filtering fields and finding one's final selections.

1. No group races? Also, many punters prefer to just stick with metro Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide races.

2. I think the placed in last race rule is a good one as it helps to find horses in good form. I haven't looked at the beaten by a certain distance rule much in the past, but I'd guess it has some merit.

3. I don't think the weight carried has too much bearing on the races nowadays. I think it did in the past when the weights seemed to be more extreme. A good horse can win at almost weight nowadays.

4. I don't really care if my horse has a senior or apprentice jockey on board. Jockeys haven't had any influence on my selections and results thus far, though a lot of punters here do seem to have their favourite jockeys.

5. In general, I ignore the barrier draw. A good horse can win from any barrier, so just make sure your selections have good form.

6. Personally, I've never liked rules that focus on the first x number of favourites, because it seems you risk filtering out a good horse just because the other punters haven't backed it. In my mind, who cares what the totes' prices suggest. That said, I understand the majority of winners are found in the first 4 favourites, so I can see some logic in it, but then again what's the point if there's no value?

6a. If there's 2 selections in one race, wouldn't it be better to back the one at longer odds, instead of shorter? Again, this comes back to my stance of who cares what the other punters have backed. If there's better value on offer on one of your selections than another, I'd back for value anyday. Maybe you could establish a minimum price to qualify rule in order to get some value. Just a suggestion.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth. Good luck in your punting adventures, and I hope you find a winner or two.

class beats ar*e
 

the higher the class the better as far as I'm concerned - more exposed form and performance patterns!!

...and point 2 - beaten less than 2 lens much more important than actual finishing position.

Seems to me some sound feedback so far westwinners.

Would just like to add if you have to keep rule 6 make it the first 6 favourites instead of 4. Might seem inconsequential but what a difference just widening the window of opportunity just that little bit more can make to the bank balance.

Must have finished 2 lengths or less from the winner last start but must NOT have run a place, would certainly fix the price problem this system will encounter.

Absolutely agreed. Finishing place is irrelevant.

Stats. do not bear out this hard line that beaten margin is far superior to last start placed finish.

56% of winners were beaten less than two lengths last start.
The stats are much the same for last start placegetters.
In addition 72% horses that win have been placed at least one of their last two starts.

I agree with the logic that a close up unplaced run can be superior to a well beaten placed run, but I think just saying one is far superior to the other is not backed up by history.

Good Punting

Top Rank,
My point was about the effects of finishing position on odds next start, not finishing position stats.
Generally speaking, a win or place last start will have more effect on a runners next start odds than say running 7th., but within 2 lengths of the winner in the blanket finishes that are so common now.

HOW ABOUT.
 

Weight RISE no more than 3 kg (taken from limit weight )

On pace runner.

Cheers.
darky.

Crash


Understand that was your point but am not sure that was the point of other posters.

Gotcha and no worries Top. Thanks for the clarification.

The stats you provided dont prove a thing.

The question we need to ask is how many horses finished within 2 lengths compared to how many were placed last start.

Only once you break down the two approaches into % of winners to actual runners can one approach be declared superior.

My money is on within 2 lengths being a clearly superior method.

As with EVERYTHING in racing (and life) there is no simple answer. Neither is "Right" and the other "Wrong" as a tool of analysis.

For example, if a horse runs 2nd beaten 8 lengths, is his run the same as a horse beaten 8 lengths into 13th place, with the same weight in the same class? Clearly, the 2nd place is superior.

If a horse runs 12th beaten 2.5 lengths, is that run the same as a horse beaten 25 lengths into 12th place? Clearly not.

There's no right, no wrong. There's both.

Duritz,

Why is running 2nd by 8L different to running 13th by 8L?

What if the 2nd was in a class 1 race and the 13th was in a Group 1.

Even allowing for everything to be the same, class, weight etc...they both are equal.

If i had a foot race with you and beat you by 8 L...whether you finished 2nd in the race or 13th..i would be 8 lengths better than you!

Yes. There is a difference though. The horse that finished 2nd by 8 lengths will start shorter next run than the horse that ran 13th by 8 lengths.

8 lengths is a long way back though, I don't think I would back either. But as far as value goes, I would take the 13th every time.

There are a few points that I would consider.

1. The pattern of the race, did the horse weaken to finish 13th because it led all the way on a breakneck speed battle for the front. Or did it not give a yelp at all - at the tail of the field and never made ground.

2. Was the horse that won far far superior, therefore magnifying the margin.

3. How fit was the horse, did it go around over suitable distance.

If a horse ran 8 lengths behind the leader and finished last, this is a far poorer performance than finishing 2nd 8 lengths behind, one has to consider the class of the opposition, but in one scenario the horse beat maybe 10 other horses, in the other scenario, they all beat him.

A very important factor in my opinion.

Spot on....
But I am presuming that this is to be used as a purely mechanical system. Input the six rules and there is your selection.
Obviously video watching and studying the race would be much more beneficial.

Also my previous post was based on a situation where the winners of the 2 races were rated equally.
From a numbers aspect, I believe this would provide more value.

If anyone thinks a 13th beaten 8L is equal to a 2nd beaten 8L (given all else equal) then they should be in a different game.

Doriemus ran 2nd beaten 7.5 lengths to Might and Power in the 96 Caulfield Cup. In this years Caulfield Cup, Hollow Bullet ran 12th beaten 7 lengths. By that abundantly absurd reasoning, Hollow Bullet's run was better.

Whoever believes that, don't bet any more. Give your money to charity instead. You'll end up the same financially and at least some needy people will benefit.

you are assuming the quality of both cups was the same...and secondly ..imagine if all research was derived from one example..lol

lol a good point.

And of course they weren't both the same, M&P's was far stronger, but as an example it serves the point.

To put it another way:

Horse A runs 2nd in a class 1 at Bendigo, beaten 6 lengths.

Horse B, in a class 1 at Bendigo of exactly the same strength, runs 9th, beaten 6 lengths.

I would argue Horse A's run was better, others would disagree, but now what if this happens:

One metre before the line, in Horse A's race, the horse who was leading by 6 dumps the rider, meaning Horse A wins.....

In Horse B's race, Horse B is still beaten 6 lengths into 9th place.

So, are those two runs still of the same strength?

(And if you go back in time and shoot your Grandfather, do you cease to exist?)

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Ah yes, good old uncle susan. How is your uncle susan Kenchar?

I don't know about uncle susan but I had some samples taken today for prostate cancer and feel like auntie kenchar.

I would go further than this. I think we have to assume we are talking about the same horse winning the same race otherwise the whole argument is pretty meaningless but:
The horse that came second is likely to have been ridden fully out with the hope of getting a place and the horse which finished 13th may well have eased up towards the end realising there was no chance of a place. So we have a horse that tried real hard and finished 8L worse than our "standard horse" compared to a horse that cruised home and still finished 8L behind the "standard horse".

KV

BTW. I made the mistake of not viewing the forum for almost 48 hours and another thread has dissappeared. What happened with the 90% strike rate thing? Was the guy for real with the 90%? Why did it dissappear?

Or

The horse that ran second may have been eased up knowing he couldn't catch the winner and was well clear of the third horse, and the horse that ran 13th may have had it's ears scrubbed off trying to run 5th (there's a prize for 5th).

Too much speculation without seeing the race.

And if such a profoundly important factor as lengths from the winner is so open to interpretation it illustrates, I suppose, why almost all simple systems based on pure results data are doomed to failure in the long term.

KV

Yes, energy expended is not measureable unless one can view the footage.

E=MC2

The energy expended = the mass of the horse x (the speed of light) squared, providing the horse is expending it's full potential of energy.

But that can be measured if the horse wins and is pushed out hard and you know the mass of the horse.

It's easier just to watch ;)

Buy the Harley Chrome, with the matt black open face helmet and the wrap- around sunglasses and join the Ulysses Motorcycle Club [15,000 old fogies just like me] .... You'll be fine from then on:-)

No, you would exist as your sister, and thereby avoid being bald, which could be seen as a blessing

Tailwag (woof)...

Was that you crash roaring down the main street of Bairnsdale picking up your Fish and Chips?

I send the Handbrake for food and all other errands, what sort of 1%er do you think I am ?

Definitely the Handbrake on her Japo crotch-rocket you saw old son. She has the saddle-bags, not me :-)

whoah!

hey there crash
 

who skins all the eels then at your place,...cheers...gazman...

G'day all

Been reading with interest the debate of finishing position -v- margin from winner. To throw my 2 bob's worth into the ring, when I did my 2 years stats analysis I looked at both of these statistics.

I found that a horse that had run 2nd at its last start, regardless of distance from the winner, was so much more a better betting proposition than the "lengths from the winner" theory that I included it among my rules when establishing my successful method.

Cheers

Privateer

Hi Privateer,
I found a similar observation when looking at horses who had finished 2nd in exactly 7 days in races that were they are running in events that are exactly 1200m on the day.
The POT was greater than last start winners in a similar situation.

Cheers.