OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums

OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/index.php)

- Horse Race Betting Systems (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - The Paretto Principle (http://forums.ozmium.com.au/showthread.php?t=24511)

Seems everyone is a Winner on this Forum , but not a single one member has posted a winning selection :)
EXCEPT ME.
I'm posting Lots of Winners , but I'm still Losing.

This Forum is rapidly turning into FantasyLand if it wasn't already.

Mooee,
You obviously havent been reading the threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeee

As I've suggested to you before moeee, you cannot continue to do the same thing and expect different results. You complain a lot about losing yet you don't seem to be receptive to change.

You seem to know quite a lot about racing but it looks to me that your stuck in the traditional method of selecting winners, which is fine.

But you're swimming with the lemmings and whilst the S/R might be OK the return has to be shared among too many lemmings for you to make a profit.

You need to do more research and less complaining. Hope this helps!

I'll put money on another being field size. Probably 8 +

I've looked at field size, especially with a system that is based on Win% and it only showed a POT when the field size was less than 12. To me this wasn't logical, and it took a while for the penny to drop! There are multiple selections in the bigger fields, especially during the Spring Carnival.

I have a system to cull multiple selections down to one which include selecting horses from QLD, WA SA or NZ and culling the locals, purely based on the premise the "outsiders will be better than fair value.

I just don't see field size restrictions as a logical filter, although many do, esp bhagwan.

Hi Barny,

Have noticed that the Exacta comes into its own,
With fields of 11-12 runners by taking your top pick,
Plus remaining runners in top 6-7 Pre-post.

Cheers LG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barny

Exactly as I thought mattio, for as long as I could remember. I've been searching for systems for decades and having a link between the filters seems to be the way to go, and it is too (yup a cointradiction), BUT I have 6 filters (one is price ..... whoopee $4.00 to $30.00 - big deal eh ?) and the others can be used on any system and improve the POT - which you believe will cause more harm than good - fair enough too. I would have argued till I was blue in the face about the same thing, BUT I now believe it's wrong.

I pump in some logical filters and continue to test each of these 6 filters, and it keeps improving the POT, or reducing a LOT.

The one name I couldn't remember last night was punter57, who hosted the longshot system. There's a wealth of information in there including a few standout arguments for and reasoning for going against what nearly all punters have as "non-negotiables".

Go against the "non-negotiables", and all things being equal (ie; they all have four legs), your POT has to improve, coz' no one has their money parked there !!!!

Barny the filters I refer to are things like "47-64 days since 3rd last start" or something like that where there is no logic to it and the only reason it is there is because a database says it made a higher profit. These are the types of filters that will lead to failure.

What do you determine as "non-negotiables"? I'd like to see whare your thought pattern is going with this.

From reading many of the posts and investing some big hours into different rating strategies I've come up with a few things to consider

1. Determine your base value for a horse - How can one measure the success of a horse in a race without consideration to this. For example last start win has no bearing what so ever unless you can adjust his base to the current race day conditions. This adjustment to the race day needs to include throughts around

Barrier Trials- When reviewing the replays, look at the run in 200m or 400m or 600m sections. Trainers have a tendency to send the runner out to do a specific piece of work and then will ease down, the trial will show it finishes 7th but in fact very happy with the run.

Trackwork - Generally light work in the early parts of hte week and then increasing around Thursday. Look for horses around 12 sec per 200m or better. They are fit.

Develop a good Par Times theory - All tracks are different and variations need to apply through condition and rail changes. Just a simple example. Over a 1400m race at Kembla Grange on a good I have seen a Par value time of 82.12. Bunbury same distance and condition is 84.78
So if horse A runs 82.50 at Kembla vs 84.20 at Bunbury which is better??? Of course things need adjusting

Velocity ratings - Comparing sectionals from the early marks through the 600 / 400 / 200 can give a clue on how quick the pace was and how good the backrunners really were.

Position in Running - Need to calculate which horses have early pace based on the distance today.

Strength of the Race - Different classes different days need to be considered.

Price - The big factor.

Once you have a base rating and then can make the adjustments to the horses rating by these factors

Happy days!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barny

hey beton, you posted this after I asked for help on the Pre-Post thread !!

"Barny
The rules are simple and they are all here. GaryF has gone to a lot of time and trouble to post. Please respect that and take the time and trouble to read. There are no easy sheets on this one, but it has been summarized several times. Beton"

What goes around comes around eh ......... at least I've given you and idea that has been spawned from 1,000's of hours research and 100's hours of testing. Probs more than you'd give me eh ??

Barny
Best advice that I could give you or anybody. The basic rules are in the first post. This anyone could read quicker than writing a post to ask what it is about. If you are serious about punting then you must read the entire thread which is a tutorial on how to punt. Nobody could summarize it and do it justice. Read it and then judge my post. GaryF took the time and effort to contribute something that is worth reading in its entirity. AND TO GET FULL VALUE ONE SHOULD READ AND STUDY IT IN IT"S ENTIRITY. To give you a summary would be shortchanging you, GaryF and every other contributor. I offer my thanks to GaryF again because he showed what the forum is about
Learning and giving back. Beton

I'm with Beton.

Barny , you have made all sorts of claims , but all you have provided is hot air.