Thanks Barny.

My mistake.

100=Top.
99=0.25
98=0.5
97=0.75
96=1.0
95=1.25
94=1.5
93=1.75
92=2.0
91=2.25
90=2.5
89=2.75
88=3.0.

Basically every 4 points from the top down = 1.0 lengths.
That's the scale i have always used with them others may be different.

These are for Skyform ratings i have never used,
100 pointers on Unitab as to many horses are rated,
On the same rating sometimes and way to close together,
For me to make heads or tails of, others may have a formula for them.

Cheers.
Garyf.

As i was in the process of entering Race=6 at MT-gambier onto,
My spreadsheet now i will use that as an example.

R6
TATTS SKY
1= 100 95
2=90 85.
3=95 100.
4=93 92.
5=90 72.
6=96 83
7=96 80.
8=80 62.
9=89 65.
10=85 73

The winner was 3 $4.0 best tote.

If you look at horses within 3.0 lengths of the top rated on Tattsbet,
Down to 88 points there are 9 horses because they are so tightly marked.

If you look at Skyform there are realistically 3 chances only (3-1-4)

As i said i just used this as i am on this race now.

Cheers.
Gary.

Hi garyf,

Based on the Skyform ratings how do you work out a price for each horse?

Do you use Don Scott methods?

Using the Mt Gambier race 6 as an example #3 was the 100 pointer and the winner, what price would you allocate it?

I have found pricing the most difficult aspect to come to grips with when working with ratings (sorry Barny!).

Garyf - you're advice would be most appreciated.

All depends what you want to do with the ratings once you get them,
For example over the years with these ratings i have found these factors,
To have the most influence on them.

lAST START FINISHING POSITION
T/RATING COLUMN
STRIKE RATE
PRIZEMONEY(AVERAGE)
POINTS IN THE CONSENSUS PANEL.

Most of these are already taken into account before they are produced,
Just i found they have the most influence on the raw ratings themselves.

Mt-Gambier R=6.

1=5.0
2=8.5
3=4.2
4=6.5
5=31.0
6=9.0
7=15.0
8=81.0
9=51.0
10=21.0

Hope this helps don't really want to go into the pricing side of it,
You will just have to experiment a bit.

Don't be to concerned with pricing and betting to overlays all the time,
If you can't price them while this is the preferred option just set a minimum,
Price on a horse until you get better at it.

With the right selection technique you can still win money at the races,
Without having to price them.

Try experimenting with different filters to improve strike rates and profits.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
Garyf.

The Tattsbet/Unitab rankings have been mentioned in this thread.

I use them in a Laying the Field method where all runners for a qualifying race must have a minimum of three starts, and it also depends on the price of the fave. The liability for each horse is calculated exclusively on Unitab's rankings and am currently showing a profit on 74 for every 100 races.

If a winning horse is under the odds as per Unitab's ratings there is more often than not another horse over the odds that compensates for it and consequently provides a profit on the race.

I don't know if this is important to anyone but it has got me currently thinking about betting the field as per Unitab's ratings. Maybe someone might also consider Unitab's ratings?

Don't apologize Try Try Again, I've got no idea how you could possibly price a horse from Ratings !

A simple task with notionally backing every runner from Saturday for it's last five (or less if it hasn't had 5 runs !) starts. First column is Race number, second column is the Win S/R% and the third column is the POT. Obviously the negative comments on this scenario is that to "follow them for 5 starts", in some cases where they've only had a handful of runs, you'd have to know they were City Class in advance ?!. The other side of that argument is that there's some seasoned horses running that are being specifically set for The Melbourne Cup and are probs not expected to win ?!

Take it as you will, but I recall Shaun posting that if you back a horse that's won at Metro for it's next 5 runs it will win again in 70% of cases. So assuming the price is OK, in 70% of cases you'll finish square / in front ??, and in some cases well ahead because of the odds or multiple wins.

Is it easier to find a decent horse and follow it rather than try and rate a field ??

R1 .. 22 .. 24
R2 .. 17 .. (21)
R3 .. 20 .. 49
R4 .. 41 .. 53
R5 .. 13 .. (44)
R6 .. 29 .. 40
R7 .. 26 .. 81
R8 .. 31 .. 119
R9 .. 16 .. 76

What are you doing to me norisk ??! ;) Bring back the punt before computers / scientific modelling came in to being !!

Live & learn Barny;)

Seriously though, I have found the pricing technique described in that link very useful.

You're using a scientific approach to finding the 'true' odds of a horse using information that's available to everyone, and your edge is in your consistent approach ? I think I get it, just cannot put it on to paper ..... now where's my abacus gone ? ;)

I have never done any real stats on this most has been from observations but i still believe that following runners is the best option.

There has always been 2 issues stopping me from doing this.

1) Finding the right horses to follow, although this is less of a problem if we use the old placed at group level idea.

2) The amount of money out compared to money returned, this type of bet would be regarded as a floating bet because you would be adding funds every time a horse ran and the funds returned when it won.

The best option for this is to set some type of time period or runners in the stable, if we continually add runners then we would always be in a negative return.

You have to decide if you are happy with bets spaced over weeks rather than days, you could decide to run with a stable of 20 horses and only adding to that stable once you were down to 5 horses, you also need to decide if you are only going to follow them until they win or continue to follow them.

I still believe that over a lifetime the top grade performers would be in profit, but could you only follow some horses for maybe 7 years of racing, maybe a few but hard to do for all your punting, this would be a long term investment like stocks, but like stocks if you find the right horse it could return some nice profits.

Lets just look at the winners last Saturday in Melbourne.


B2P = bet to prices
Race 1 8 Starts 2 Wins B2P 116.8%
Race 2 18 Starts 8 Wins B2P 53.3%
Race 3 5 Starts 2 Wins B2P 130.9%
Race 4 4 Starts 3 Wins B2P 78.4%
Race 5 33 Starts 10 Wins B2P 112.4%
Race 6 15 Starts 3 Wins B2P 86.4%
Race 7 9 Starts 4 Wins B2P 304.8%
Race 8 11 Starts 4 Wins B2P 176.7%
Race 9 14 Starts 8 Wins B2P 78.8%

I know this seams very random but you could do this any Saturday as this shows over a lifetime good horses make a profit.

Shaun, there was also a poster on here who only looked at Group Placed horses. Can't recall who the poster was but I'll look for it later.

This poster allocated points for a Win or Placing in a Group event. That is he / she Rated them. The better the race, the more points allocated for the Win / Place ..... ? So these horses had a Rating based soely on Group level performance. He / She gave examples of backing a horse that hadn't won for yonks but was the Top Rated horse in this particular race based on it's Rating. The logic was that even a good horse out of form for a while would come back and win sometime, somewhere. I think the one example was for a horse racing in Tassie which won at good odds. It was backed because it was the only "Rated" horse in the race.

This system didn't invlove backing these horses all the time, it Rated the horses based on how they'd performed at Group level.

I also recall the comments about Adelaide Oaks winner / placings earning less Ratings points that a Qld event. My memory's a bit vague, but essentially this poster did not assume every Group 1 event for example, should have the same amount of points allocated. He / She actually rated the Group events and allocated points accordingly.

Sounds like a cracking idea to me.

Remember Tears I cry ? Fluked a Group 1, then didn't win for almost 20 years, then strung together 3 wins in a row ?? Now I would think is an extreme case, not the norm, but you'd still get a result because when it put together a few wins it was down very much in class and I doubt there would have been any other Group horses in those races.

Riches await ..... YeeeeeHaaaaa ;)

not exactly, but what the hey, that's close enough especially the bit about 'consistency' - without that we are doomed, whatever our pursuit.

Can somone help me please.


As we all know ratings as a way of identifying the best chances,
In a race doesn't work so can someone tell me this.

'WHY DO RACE CLUBS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD EMPLOY
Handicappers who use ratings to assess the best horses,
Getting more weight than the lesser performed horses.

Can somone tell me the method we need to adopt in racing,
As 'RATINGS" don't work.

Have now lost all respect for Lloyd Williams as an owner,
As he employed Jim Bowler chief handicapper for the V.R.C.
To come and work for him using "Ratings" as a way of assessing,
His horses and the lead up races to which races he should set,
His horses for.

Obviously Lloyd has got it wrong.

Aside from that i want the process the clubs race handicappers now,
Need to adopt to assess horses (not ratings) the melbourne cup for example please.

Cheers.
Gary.

Hi Garyf,

I found this:

VRC HANDICAPPING GUIDE

Hi T.S.

Thanks for that i fully understand this have used,
That plus more.

What i want to know is this.

If Ratings as a process don't work in assessing horses,
Why then do race clubs employ handicappers throughout,
The world to use ratings when clearly we have been told,
They don't work.

I am not saying Don Scott unitab skyform etc backing all,
The top rated every race every day lose of course they will.

Name me 1 stat that only has 1 selection in every race that,
You can bet on every day in Australia that does.

What i want to know is the process we need to adopt,
That accurately weighs up what weight each horse should,
Be allocated (BUT NOT RATINGS AS THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK)

I myself use ratings as a method of selection then play around a bit,
With the main chances apply some prices, filters, and away i go.

But as ratings don't work i need to know what process me and,
The club handicappers need to change to.

Remembering t.a.b. 1 wins more races than 2 morethan 3 etc.
Done by the clubs handicapper using ratings but how can this be right,
As ratings don't work?.

Cheers.

hmm, well they do work, just not for everybody;)

Glad you've come out from the Dark side garyf. In answer to your question about what system we should adopt ..... I'm of the opinion that we should allocate say 59kgs to all horses, because weight doesn't matter at all either.

The only reason number 1 wins so often is that it's the best horse in the race, it's that simple.

I seriously don't know whay you people like to confuse things.

Doesn't really answer the question (process to adopt) but thanks for trying anyway.

Cheers.

Let me add this i certainly want you on the forum Barny at,
Least you have a go and stimulate debate whether i or anyone,
Agrees or disagrees is irrelevant it's that you post that matters.

I am in the corner that the barriers and lack of genuine speed,
Unlike last year, may bring about the defeat of Americain and Dunaden,
More so than the weight.

Cheers.
Garyf.

Yes it does garyf, the process would be to allocate 59kgs to every horse.

I also advocate a flat tax rate too. That will never happen because of the ability of Government's "sleight of hand" to screw it's citizens with so many taxes and such a complex system that no-one can ever come to grips with it ..... Hey !! ..... sounds a lot like the handicapping system to me.

I think your posts are equal to the best I've read on this site garyf :) It's only recently that I've read some of your posts in the General thread etc. Thanks for your input, I'm sure you've helped many members here, and probably made quite a lot realise that there's hard work to be done to make a quid.