Here's some irrational or counter-intuitive rules that I try sometimes:

*Ran 0 last start
*Ran 6th or worse last start
*Middle barriers only
*Only horses with single names
*Horses rated below 90 on the TABQ
*Declining finishing positions over last three races
*Only horses with a 0 in one of last three races

If you take a really solid statistic - like the incidence of TABS 1-4 finishing in the money - and combine with one of these counter-intuitive rules you often have the basis for a productive system. I use a system daily that does OK (about 6% POT over 3 months, but consistent) and two of the rules are:

1. TABs 2,3,4 or 5 only.
2. The second lowest rated of these horses on the TABQ ratings.

Why the second lowest? Seems irrational. You'd get more winners if you tried the highest rated but you wouldn't make a profit. The second lowest rated places you in the band of runners that win less often but pay better. Rule 1. chases talent and rule 2. chases value. (There are other rules in that system too, not just those two).

Note also that Bahgwan posted a beauty a while back: small fields, selection ran 9th or worse last start. Seems irrational to single out poor performers but it pays in such races. With most systems the way I approach it is to try to find ways to gently reduce strike rate while increasing average return and to do that you can often resort to quite irrational rules (as long as your first rule is rational and gets a solid strike rate).

Hermes

hermes,

Sorry can't agree thats why I now place bet,CONSISTANCY with small divis over long runs of outs for big priced winners will do me, But as we say all to our own.

Cheers

...or you can go for strike rate.

My real money goes on a placegetter system, solid and consistent (although not lately). Systems with long runs of outs I bet tiny amounts or just monopoly money.

I strongly believe in running several systems of different types anyway. No system is consistent enough for me.

Psychologically strike-rate based systems have a big advantage. I agree. Cheers Kenchar.

Hermes

Hermes,

I like your idea of mixing overall good form indicators with current poor form. I'll have a tickle on PPP with this idea.

BTW do all your systems revolve around the TABQ ratings? If so, I doubt they'll perform any better than the ratings themselves do. Perhaps give something new a go?

~Lenny

PS: Has anyone ever rolled the dice or used a pin before, just for the heck of it, and won?

I find the TABQ ratings useful for these mini-systems. In the past I used the weight ratings in the Sportsman, which are excellent. I just found that if I sit down and spend hours doing form I come up with similiar results to these rating systems - so why not save myself time and effort?

My most succesful system (used daily) is based on inside and outside barriers with no reference to ratings.

I've never used a pin but one day when I was in a hurry I got races and horses mixed up (race 3 horse 4 instead of race 4 horse 3) and accidentally landed two $20+ winners. It would never happen again....

A friend has a system that involves selecting several runners per race and choosing one of them by going alphabetically. He claims it works. I doubt it. He's always broke.

Hermes

The best illogical system I've seen seems to be the preserve of ladies. I take my girlfriend to the track. She picks the one with the nice colours. Wins every time.

Hermes

lol....doesn't that drive you nuts...you do form and ratings...she picks colours and numbers and wins heaps....

On 2004-01-14 08:33, hermes wrote:
The best illogical system I've seen seems to be the preserve of ladies. I take my girlfriend to the track. She picks the one with the nice colours. Wins every time.

"One of the nice things about being a guy is that you only need to know the names of 4 colors"
- unknown

You mean there are MORE than four??? :lol:

Let's face it, if it wasn't for John Hawkes and the Ingham brothers, how many blokes would actually know what CERISE looked like? And if they did, would they admit it??? :grin:


[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2004-01-14 14:56 ]

I don't know how they do it. My girlfriend approaches a race as a fashion contest. Looks for grooming and pleasing silks. Sure enough her selection jumps from the gate and wins in a romp.

Has anyone ever bet on something just because it looked good in the mounting yard? The form says no way but you just liked the look of it? In late races (after a few beers and the formguide is getting hard to read) I've tried hanging around the mounting yard and picking one on looks alone. I have no idea what I'm looking for - the big brown one with the pretty handler? - but I have fluked a few winners over time. A truly irrational system. Doesn't work if sober.

Hermes