A bad day for lowest tabbed last start winners. Off to a reasonably good start with a win, Al Megdam, followed by two placegetters at Randwick. Casual Story at Grafton. But Flemington - wipe out. Worse as the day went on.

If you ventured to Cheltenham, though, you might have picked up Diver Dave in R2 ($4.50 the win, $2 the place) and San Sonata in R4, $3.30 win, $1.40 p. And a second, Miss Revic, $1.80. which might have ameliorated some of the damage at other venues.

Vis-a-vis last Sat. I'm personally $1.10 up. Outlayed $34 on this today. Return = $14.80. Miserable. Saturday and today illustrate the good and bad of this method.

Back to the filters, although no filters would have helped today. Yes, EI I'm finding a price filter tend to impact too much as you say.

A days-since-last-start filter has definite merit. The idea is to snare horses at peak or just dropping off. How long ago they won that last start is obviously relevant, and over past races I am finding it so. A last start filter of 18 or so days will certainly help tip the scales towards profit and eliminate bad bets.

Always happy for contributions to this thread...

Hermes

Hey Hermes,

How's that database coming along? I thought it might be good for all of us to continue our research from the same place. If I can help I will. These computer thingies are my job so I have some facility with the annoying things. :smile:

Been very busy. Will talk about the database soon the Duck. Coming along.

Today:

Some strong qualifers in the lowest tabbed last start winners. With some judious betting you should be able to squeeze a profit from placegetters, but I'd expect a couple of winners from this lot too. A few favourites there. Again, my ratings from zero to 4 on their prospects to place. Zero = no bet.

ROSEHILL

R1 - #2 Thorn Park - 1
R2 - #1 Cariboo - 3
R4 -#4 Coablo - 1
R5 # 2 Interbank - 1
R6 - #11 Eartear - 1
R8 - #2 Dashiki - 3 (scratched)

CAULFIELD

R1 - #1 Chowpie - 2
R2 - #1 Romantic Sea - 2 (a question about barrier)
R3 - #1 Palais - 1 (a question about barrier)
R4 - #4 Quatyman - no bet
R5 - #2 Rubitano - 3
R6 - #2 Mr Gold Flyer - 2
R8 - #1 Out of Options - 2

DOOMBEN

R1 - #3 Centona - no bet
R2 - #2 Kymessa - 1 (scratched)
R3 - #2 Craiglea Bells - 1
R4 - #2 All That Glitter - 1 (a question about barrier)
R5 - #3 Linea - 2
R6 - #7 Gonzo - 1
R7 - #2 Jillina Blue - 2
R8 - #9 Icy Grip - no bet

CHELTENHAM

R1 - #4 Just Vic - no bet
R2 - #2 Terminus Prince - 2
R4 - #5 Kastabon - 1
R6 - #3 Shocks - 2
R7 - #1 To Pay Up - no bet
R8 - #6 Addition - no bet

Try This

The first last start winner you come to between TAB 1-7
that is also starting between Barriers 1-7

Most races have 14 & less runners ,we are covering at least half of the inside field in the majority of cases.
We are assuming the out side half has a less of a chance of getting up.

Stats show Barriers 1-7 win 55.2%
1-8 61%
1-9 66.7%
1-10 71.7%
1-11 76.9%
1-12 83.2%
1-13 88.5%

Go over your past results & see if barrier has any impact on the overall figure.

Bhagwan: There are lies,damned lies and statistics. Most winners come from barriers 1-10 say because there are fewer races with larger fields. The influence of the barrier depends on the length of the race and the shape of the course. Barrier 14 in a field of 14 over 1400m at Caufield is very different from Barrier 14 in field of 14 over 1200m or 2400m at Flemington. This is one of the disadvantages of using a mechanical system. The appropriate statistic is the strike rate (%wins from starts)for a particular barrier over a given distance at a particular course. Of course with luck in running anything is possible. Remember Gurner's Lane?

Good point about statistics. There was one where it was proven with statistics that an increase in churches resulted in more crime. The real point was there was an increase in population that resulted in more churches and crime. Percentage-wise, everything was the same.

I am curious about this database as I would love to run a statistical method called 'factor analysis' over it. What this does is statistically determines which factors appear to most affect the variable(s) being analyzed. Since this is a (more) mechanical approach then we'll let the mechanics tell us what we should be looking at -- from a mathematical standpoint anyway. We then switch that around and find out what ranges and combinations of factors (clusters) present the best opportunity.

It's more involved than that but the poor suckers (ok, like myself) who are into this will understand the approach. We could then test it and see if it actually works.

Who said math isn't fun (besides my kids!)?

-Duck

The hold up with the database The Duck is my learning curve. You may be distressed to know I'm working on a Mac. A G3. The software I'm using is Filemaker Pro. On most things Mac you can now get the standard MS software, eg. MS Exel for spreadsheets etc. but I'm told Filemaker Pro is the native Mac database builder. Not too hard to learn but then I'm making it quite complex. This is the third attempt at starting from scratch. Think I've got it right this time. Just a mattrer of adding more data. It will be flash when its done.

Any assistance or advice appreciated. I'm very much a novice with this sort of software. Usually work with images, not numbers and code.

Hermes

WEDNESDAY SELECTIONS

Last Wednesdays races were bad for this system. On paper tommorow's won't be much chop either. Not a strong group of runners in this category for Wednesday 24th July 2002. I anticipate a wipe out at Sandown with big fields and little talent among the lowest tabbed last start winners. So I've tightened the parameters of my ratings, especially for runners in large fields. (Will probably cut out some good returns in doing so.)

Both Pro Gold and Hulavie are borderline selections at Sandown. Won't be surprised if neither run a place, or if we get nothing from Sandown at all. Only La Banca in R8 at is a confident bet.

By my ratings Clarendon's Curse is an outstanding prospect to run a place. If either La Banca or Clarendon's Curse is at a good price, worth a win bet.

CANTERBURY

R1 #2 Vital Agreement - 1
R2 #1 Patch Adams - 1
R4 #1 Secret Gift - 2
R5 #3 Midnight Sports - 1
R6 #1 Melissa Mel - no bet
R7 #5 No Integrity - no bet

SANDOWN

R1 #5 Miss Megari - no bet
R2 #1 C'este Le Reve - 1
R3 #3 Pro Gold - 1
R4 #1 Hulavie - 1
R5 #8 Meet the Stars - no bet
R6 #4 Allez Jane - no bet
R7 #4 Prime Target - no bet
R8 #2 La Banca - 3

DOOMBEN

R3 #2 Scooters - 1
R6 #4 Disco Girl - no bet
R7 #2 Just Devine - 2
R8 #7 Rubys Jester - 1


BALAKLAVA

R2 #7 Upmarket Star - 1
R6 #4 So Late - 2
R8 #2 Claredons Curse - 5

----------------------------------------------
TOTAL = 23 units

Over three race days now this system - filtered lowest tabbed last start winners - is a whisker ahead. Outlay $97, return $98.50.

Ah, a Mac. Yes, excellent and popular graphics platform. However, I'm a number cruncher and use 'the other kind'.

Send whatever whenever in any old format and I'll figure it out. I can even send it back to you in whatever format you're looking for.

But there's no rush. I was just offering to help with the crunching and analysis. I was also curious to see how similar or different Australia racing is from Canuck and Yankee racing. It's interesting when the DRF has horses from the other side of the planet. Some sleepers clean up, some really strong entries have to be dragged across the finish line by their tails! It seems your ponies are just as finicky as ours.

-Duck

TheDuck, how healthy is "Yankee and Canuck" racing at the moment? In Australia it is really flourishing with prizemoney being increased each year. The only problem is attendance figures on non feature race days has fallen away.

I was wondering if it is the same overseas, as I have heard that racing is not doing so well in the States, but doing well in the U.K. and Pacific Rim.

Try This

Only back last start winners TAB 1-7
With a 25% career win strike rate.

Test it over past 150+ races & see if this has any overall positive impact on the stats.

Hi EI,

I must say that U.S. tracks in general aren't looking very sharp with a few traditional ones still holding their ground.

The one near Toronto that I go to is doing quite well, however (Woodbine). It is a first class facility and has recognized that it's a business that needs to attract customers. They have slot machines now which brings in a few more stragglers and helps with the upkeep. I can't believe how full the parking lot gets on a Wednesday compared to 10 years ago when those areas weren't even parking lots!

Those institutions who recognize they are there for entertainment based in tradition -- I think -- are stronger than ever. If you were at the track at Woodbine you would be impressed. Everbody (including the many that come as whole families) is having a good time with very little 'scared' expressions revealing that the punter has gone beyond his means. We also have a group of Jamaican regulars that are absolutely hysterical.

So in summary, yes it has fallen off a bit. But I think that has made the others stronger. When our caller comes out in his pristine red outfit, lifts the higly polished horn, and plays a bit of 'Sesame Street' before the call to post you can see the crowd just loves it.

So how about Australia? And what's this about dog racing? You don't see much (if any?) of that in Canada.

-Duck

TheDuck, sounds like I'd love Woodbine.
Dirt track?

The trumpeter story made me laugh. We do have family days where the kids have face painting, pony rides, clowns etc. Basically though I would say that racing is more punter orientated.

Yes, we have Greyhound racing in every State of Australia. There are 8 greyhounds in each race (on average). They race over 340 metres to 728 metres, the most common distance being 511 metres, and chase a fake bunny (lure).
Sometimes it's hilarious when the electronics slow down the lure and the Greyhounds catch it. They call it a "no race." There's even a few hurdle races for the dogs and that's a great spectacle!


[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-25 02:36 ]

Hi Quacker: Ziemba, a professor of economics and mathematical guru spent a summer vacation trying to apply factor analysis to racetrack data in attempting to find the winner. Found that the more complex type of analysis did not work as well as simpler model with fewer variables. As far as I know he discontinued using factor analysis. Has written about another method he investigated in "Beat the Racetrack".

Hi guys,

Just dropped in for old time's sake and was immediately reminded of this story.

When I lived in Darwin I decided to go to the dogs for the very first time (and only time so far). It was Darwin Cup, biggest race of the year ($10,000!!).

There was no secret about the favourite, it was backed into about $1.40 from memory. Come race time, the lure broke down and the favourite, which was leading by about 6 lengths, caught the lure. The look of utter disappointment on the dogs face was priceless when it realised it had been conned for it's whole career. Scarred for life I'd say!

Good luck!

Placegetter

Placegetter,

Great to see you popping in to say hi.

Yes, catching the lure can actually spoil a greyhound for life, they are not as silly as one might think. They do learn that it isn't real if they catch it and sometimes remember. Some dogs have to be retrained again...in the bush (if you get my drift) to get back the impulse to chase!

Good to hear from you placegetter!----

Wednesday was an ordinary day. After scartchings, $21 on for $16.30 return. Running total now: outlay of $118 for a return of $114.80.

A full swag for tommorow.

Randwick

R1 #3 Inclusion = 3
R2 #1 Al Megdam = 2
R3 #2 Dashiki = 1
R4 #4 Play Mistress = 1
R5 #3 Conzeal = 1
R7 #6 Shantey = no bet
R8 #6 Just Imagine = no bet

Moonee Valley

R1 #2 Tycoon Ruler = 1
R2 #5 Dornach = 1
R3 #1 Steel King = 2
R4 #7 Sterling Knight = no bet
R5 #1 Bush Padre = 1
R6 #2 St Steven = 3
R7 #4 Green Pick = 2
R8 #2 My Lavina = 1

Eagle Farm

R1 #2 British Buska = no bet
R3 #1 Dancing On = 3
R4 #2 Sheer Devotion = no bet (barrier)
R6 #1 Smart Chariot = 2
R7 #1 Kenconcarne = 1
R8 #4 Bishop Bill = no bet (barrier)

Cheltenham

R1 #4 Social Glow = 3
R2 #1 Frenzel Rhomb = no bet
R3 #4 Shoppaholic = 1
R5 #2 Glenwest = no bet
R6 #2 Ikaros = 3
R7 #5 Onyx River = no bet
R8 #3 Lawful Poker = 2

Lots of action today and some good winners and placegetters again. Lowest tabbed last start winners were in the thick of it at all tracks bar Eagle Farm, one out of three. After scratchings, seventeen selections, eleven ran a place. Betting level stakes for places, a return of $22.50 for $17 outlay. Tycoon Ruler was the best result for the day.

**********************

I've watched this category of runners closely the last few weeks matching the live tests to past results. Live tests make past results much more useful. I'm happy that my ratings filter succesfully removes the dross. These are simple ratings based on the commonly considered factors like average prizewinnings, place percentage, days since last start. Nothing mysterious. If nothing else, they identify the no bets only missing the occasional strike.

With this no bet filter applied to the lowest tabbed last start winners the overall results on level stakes are quite OK for placebetting over a fair sample. I have full prices on 360 races:

360 races
192 place strikes = 53.3%
Return on places = $372
Average return = $1.94
POT = 3.33% for places

For win bets it shows just under break even:

76 win strikes = 21%
Return on wins = $357.60

This is not very exciting - except that getting anything to show POT on places over 360 races is a victory for me - BUT my rating system has revealed a way to improve on this dramatically. It happens that the runners I rate as 2, 3 or 4 - the better prospects to place - have a good strike rate but a very poor average return that is draining potential profit. Thus:

Rated 2, 3 or 4.

160 races
92 place strikes
40 win strikes
Return on places = $153.60
Average Return = $1.67
Return on wins = $120.40

This is why I've been having trouble squeezing out a profit from a good strike rate. In this sub-group we have an excellent strike rate but a loss on turnover. Too many lowest tabbed last start winners pay too little. The problem with this overall category of runners I realise is that it includes too many favourites - there is too much poor value in the category as a whole.

But the figures for those runners I rate as marginal - the rating 1s - show very good results in terms of value and here I think I have at last pinpointed the runners that attracted me to lowest numbered LSWs in the first place. I've isolated the action. Look at these figures:

Rated 1

200 races
100 place strikes = 50%
36 win strikes = 18%
Return on places = $218.40
Average place return = $2.10
POT on places = 9.20%

Return on wins = $237.20
Average win return = $6.58

Here are the value runners in this category! The marginal prospects - as opposed to the more certain bets - have about a 50% place strike rate, and a low win strike rate, but give healthy average returns and a good POT. An extraordinary average win return. I had to check it again. Comes to $6.58. Mostly $7 plus winners. Tycoon Ruler was today's example at $11. Eartear on 20th July = $7.80. Jestica - $8.40. Sly Rambler - $10.30. Final Shuffle - $14.40. Not many of them - 18% strike for wins in this sub-group - but this band pays well when they come home. And they come home often enough to give a return. Over 200 recent races.

So to extract value from this group you have to eliminate the dross, ignore the sure things and exploit the middle band. I know this is what various people on this forum have been telling me in different ways, but now I've worked it out for myself.

Who are the rated 1 runners? Conzeal was a good example today. Rated down because its last start win was more than 14 days ago and was not among the top three prizewinners, amongst other things against it. But not dross. Started fourth favourite. Paid $4 for the place. Tycoon Ruler is a perfect example too. St. Steven was an example of rated 2,3 or 4. Nothing against it on paper. A dead cert but not worth it. Shantey R7 Randwick today is an example of a horse with too much against it to be worth the bet. Started about 7th or 8th favourite, 26/1. No bet.

You can obviously achieve much the same filtering by observing the market. The rated 1 runners are usually your lowest tabbed LSWs starting at third or fourth favourite, or if second or first then usually at a good price.

But I'm happy that my ratings work without recourse to the market. Except of course that my ratings are exactly wrong. Don't bet by my ratings. Bet the opposite. If its only rated 1, back it!

In conclusion:

On further analysis, there are three types of runner in the category lowest tabbed last start winner and success or failure depends upon distinguishing between them.

1. Dross. Not likely to place at all. The category includes quite a few cases where the fact a horse is the lowest numbered LSW is meaningless in the context of the race - the Gungadin factor. They have very little chance. Often TAB numbers higher than 5. (Of course, sometimes these will win. Oh well.)

2. Marginal prospects. A fifty/fifty chance of placing and much less of winning but at a good price. Not standout selections and often borderline with the dross category. Or often strong on paper but with a black mark like poor prizewinning average. Not usually TABS 1, 2 or 3.

3. Heavily backed good prospects. A strong chance of placing and a good chance of winning, but at no value. There is a high proportion of heavily backed favourites among the lowest tabbed LSWs. Everyone likes a winner. This drains the value out of the category. Often TABs 1, 2, 3.

Might not be news to experienced punters, but its all news to me.

Maybe there are these three types of runners in whatever category of horse we look at . Anyway target the middle band. The shortcoming of the middle band will be more and longer runs of outs, not broken up by the sure things, and long waits between drinks for winners. But it should give POT.

In any case, should my figures once again level out over larger samples as promising figures have a tendency to do, I'm quietly confident that if I concentrate on those I rank as the marginal prospects it is near enough to profit at level stakes to warrant a staking plan. Lowest tabbed LSWs are a rich category of runner. Intelligent selection can isolate the band of value. Then intelligent staking can turn over profit. Open to suggestions as always.

Bhagwan, you wrote many posts back of betting 1,2,6,18. With six banks of $28? Can you explain further?

Hermes

That 1-2-6-18 places staking plan came from E.I.
1st. bet 1
2nd. bet 2
3rd. bet 6
4th. bet 18
Total 28
You stop, then start again as soon as you strike a place getter.
You should have 6 banks of 28=168 .

You will win on some runs & loose on others. But that does`nt matter, its the overall profit we are after , this is called sequence betting.

Have you thought about ignoring TAB No.1 all together & starting at TAB No.2 & down.
Quite often No.1 is at low value, if ever they get up .Its rare that they pay well therefore poor value & best ignored all together.
You will probably find that you have missed some very good payers because your selection was No.1 in that race & the other got up instead.

Hermes,

Congratulations on sticking with it and coming up with some useful filters. You seem to have come to a similar conclusion as me (although by a different route and using different selection criteria).

There is rarely value in the short priced horses simply because they are too obvious and everyone can see they are a good chance of winning - they do have a good strike rate but the poor dividends are not enough to make a profit on. The true longshots ($20 and up) generally deserve their status and rarely manage to win - you can occassionally get some great priced winners from this group but it is generally not worth spending time analysing them all. The real value is in the mid-ground - those horses that have the class to win the race but are out of favour with the punters for one reason or another. If you can successfully pick your winners from this group then you have a much better chance of developing a profitable system.

Anyway keep up the good work and best of luck.

Still laughing over the dog racing stories! I had a dog that chased birds for 11 years then finally caught one. Just about scared him half to death.

To answer EI, Woodbine is dirt and turf. It's claim to fame is it's the only track in North America that runs thoroughbred and harness (standardbred) racing in the same day.

To respond to thevig, thanks for the lead. I only expect to use factor analysis to determine useful factors, not continue with that each race. I also want to do an analysis on 'soft facts' such as comments. One of my favourite books is Marketing Analysis: Methodological Foundations (a big, heavy statistics book -- isn't that sad?). It has some great stuff I have used successfully in other projects (this stuff is my day job too, isn't that even MORE sad?).

Then I expect to do some clustering to create deterministic functions that I can turn into rules -- or whatever. And if it all doesn't work I'll try something else. I enjoy the journey as much as the outcome.

If you come across anything else like this I would certainly look forward to those leads as well. Thanks!

Duck

Absolutely cannot agree MORE!

Sometimes your selection may be the favourite or the outsider, but the guts of then should be somewhat midrange to ensure your not chasing your tail on shortpriced losers. The correct mix of winners is very important...eg strike rate / average dividend.

Some solid results in this category last Sat. Master Pom $5.80 the win, Pedro Girl $5.10, Sammuka $5.60. And the usual spray of placegetters.

Tommorow, Wednesday, 7th Aug. among the lowest tabbed last start winners we have (with placegetter ratings on scale zero to four):

Canterbury

R4 #4 Delightful Success - 1
R5 #7 Ramadee - 0 - no bet
R6 #6 Back in Style - 1
R8 #2 Covina - 3
R9 #1 Blazing Arch - 1

Sandown

R1 #1 Living End - 3
R2 #2 Tarcoola Diamond - 1
R3 #1 Step Ahead - 2
R4 #2 My Lavinia - 2
R5 #4 Smoking Barrel - 1
R6 #11 Vocals - 0 - no bet
R7 #2 Skewiff - 3
R8 #1 Piermont - 4

Doomben

R1 #3 I'm Fighting - 1
R4 #1 Victory Ranger - 4
R5 #2 Carissma - 2
R6 #3 Foxmore - 3
R7 #2 Nattie - 2
R8 #5 Huey - 1

Gawler

R5 #1 So Say All of Us - 4
R6 #2 San Sonata - 4
R7 #3 Cullen Bay - 2

Skip Ramadee and Vocals.

I anticipate quite a few placegetters in this lot but probably not much value. Should be quite a few faves and second faves among them. Too many.

Bet level stakes to place on all but the zeros or on rated 1 and 2 only, or as you wish. Rated 4s have good strike rate but poor returns. Rated 1s a lower strike but for a better proportion of return.

In another bank bet each way $1/$4 on the rated 1s to set and forget or better still on those showing $5+ with a few minutes to jump.

Happy punting

Hermes

A typical performance today. After scratchings $18 outlay at level stakes, $15.30 return. But again the value was in my rated 1s: outlay at $1 win, $4 place on the rated 1s = $35, return = $42.90. As per my research, if you concentrate on the middle band of runners in the category, you'll win. Today, three winners and a placegetter out of seven. Today's best: Back In Style: $7.70 win. $3.50 place.

Hope you're ahead

Hermes

1. Take the lowest numbered last start winner, all races, any races.
2. Eliminate any rank outsiders but leave long shots with even a slim chance.
3. Eliminate all TAB number 1's.
4. Bet level stakes to win.

Strike rate 21%
POT = 6%

Places gets to break even.

Better still, eliminate all TAB numbers 1, 2, 3. Lower strike rate, less action, better POT. Also shows small but steady POT on places.

Or, bet to win by TAB number, so $4 for TAB 4 etc. Assumes that the lower the TAB the better the return, on average. (Actually i added the wrong columns in the spread sheet to find....) Yields 13% POT.

But everything depends on rule 2. distinguishing between a no-hoper and a slim chance.

Hermes

Otherwise:

Take all the lowest tabbed last start winners. Bet level stakes to win on any showing between $5 and $18 to win a minute to jump. You'll come out ahead. Works on place bets also but POT is much better on wins.

Hermes

Also, in your sample there, when you say eliminate the TAB 1's, if you have a 1 and an 11 say in a race, do you then back the 11, or throw out the race altogether?

Nice work, keep it up.

Couple of other quick questions - out of interest what is the POT for all last start winners?

How about those that ran recently if you have that?

Thanks,

BT

Speaking of favourites...

We have heard that 30% of favourites finish first. Does anyone know what the morning line looked like for the 30% and the 70%? What the final odds looked like? Quartiles or a box plot would be perfect -- or asking too much, sometimes hard to tell the difference. :smile:

Blue Tyson wrote:

Also, in your sample there, when you say eliminate the TAB 1's, if you have a 1 and an 11 say in a race,
do you then back the 11, or throw out the race altogether?


Just to clarify. In this method only consider the last start winner with the lowest TAB number. If that is TAB 1, eliminate and move on to next race. You don't then go down to the next last start winner in the same race, if any. Although you could. I haven't tried it.

Lowest tabbed last start winners yield lots of placeghetters and a good volume of winners too but the category as a whole needs further filtering to make it pay.Too many pay too little. You can locate the band that does pay in several ways. Removing TABs 1,2 and 3 helps, for instance, coz the poor payers tend to be those numbers (and usually favourites). You get much the same effect by looking at a market filter: eliminate anything under $5.

But it so happens, as I found by accident, that yes if you bet $3 on a qualifier carrying saddlecloth 3, $4 on 4, $5 on 5 etc. you get much the same effect - slightly better! Especially if number 11s like Upmarket Star win for 16/1. Just an idea.

Hermes

Hermes;

You might like to try the 8 Bet Place Staking Plan as mentioned in in the systems site.

Check it out,I think you will find it will perform like a train on your past selections.

Let us know what your percentage on turnover works out to be .Based on past results workout.

TheDuck,
I lived in Toronto for 13 months in 1989. While there I went to a couple of race meetings at Woodbine and also Greenwood (I think that was the name). Anyway I believe the Greenwood track is closed. It was the first racetrack where I had seen night racing although it was not the best racetrack around.
I also spend a number of nights at the skydome watching the Bluejays and at Maple Leaf Gardens watching the Maple Leafs.
I lived in East York which you would know is not far from the city centre.

Haven't encountered a card like tommorow's before. Last start winners everywhere and most of them will be short priced. So its really a day to watch the market, but on paper:

rosehill

R1 #3 Takas
R4 #1 Go Errol
R7 #2 Master Pom
R8 #5 Skiddaw

Moonee V.

R1 #8 American Graffiti
R2 #4 Titanic Jack
R5 #2 Marstic

Eagle F,

R2 #2 Laurenil Impulse
R7 #10 Fairyman
R8 #3 Booboo

Vic Park

R7 #8 Cullen Bay
R1 #2 Miss Revic

Good punting

Hermes