Crash, your last post could use another edit - the first word looks a bit dodgy

The first word?

I might be getting slow, I don't understand your post.

You seem to have chrome and bhagwan confused, wesmip (that'll confuse you even more crash)

Randwick
R3 Top of the Top 1.60
R5 Primus 2.80 1.40
R7 Courts in Session 5.10 2.10
R8 Montmello 1.90
R9 Diego Garcia 2.40

Moonee Valley
R1 Rulan Ruby unplaced
R7 Spielmeister 1.90 1.20

Doomben
R4 Stepping unplaced
R6 Fleeting Echo 1.20
R7 Rassmussen 2.10 1.30


Break even. Good run by Courts in Session

OK. I get it [thanks]. Sorry Bagman, I had a seniors moment and was confusing names.

Im interested. But I've got no idea what this sign language and abbreviations like ROT means. Does bar mean barrier?

ROT = Return on turnover = POT+100%



Could be.

I ran my test over my ~1,000,000 run database.

Furthermore there have been lots of posts about noting that wide barriers are over-penalised by the market hence often good value.

So Bhagwan's conclusions are once more a bit of a worry.

Hehe I seem to cop it even when I don't post anything and am not here, a bit like my relationships ;)

Dear Chrome Prince,

Dont feel Paranoid.

They realy are talking about you.

Cheers.

jfc,

You are talking about ROT. Try looking at it from strike rate. I believe there is a bias to horses winning more often from the inside barriers but at reduced odds.

As the barrier goes up the strike rate goes down but the ROT goes up.

In my database (only 451,000 runs) it shows a direct bias to the first 6 barriers which scored a strike rate above 10% for win (above 30% for place).

To determine the bias you divide the number of wins (or places) by the number of runs in the barrier.

I think this is what Bhagwan was steering towards.

I do argee a high strike rate does not make a good system. I take the higher ROT anytime.

Good Luck

Actually I do compute that ratio (= "fair share" for argument's sake) in all my tests. It is obviously more meaningful than Strike Rate.

Consider these tests based on my original sample comparing barriers 1&2 (inner) versus 9+ (wide):

Constant Field Size of 10, Any Price:

10.7% Inner S/R
9.4% Wide S/R

Or as Fair Share: 107% versus 94%.

Suggesting the wide have a negative bias:


But with Constant SP of precisely 2/1 and any Field Size:

27.1% Inner S/R
29.7% Outer S/R

Or as Fair Share: 186% versus a whopping 342%.


Damning evidence that for favourites the Market overpenalises wide barriers.