Funnily enough mate my Father and I quite often end up yelling about certain things as far as form goes and funnily enough if I say something cannot win or will not win it so often does :(. Now I try not to say a horse can't win I just don't say anything or just shrug my shoulders and say what what would I know.

What I want to know is do you guys tend to follow horses at all even once they have won I have a couple of mates who use a particular system and have a stable of horses but once a horse wins that prep they remove it from the stable does this tend to make any of you shy away from a horse just because they have won?

To give you a bit of an idea of what I usually do is I like for a horse who either looks like it is dropping in class or weight or both sticking around about the same distance range they have been running over and usually early enough in there prep that they wouldn't have peeked already.

My top 2 bets on the weekend were Doonan who I felt was a great run given that they walked in front and it seemed to lose it's position turning for home. The other one was Tui Song who never got clear till about the 250-200 metre mark and by that time the bird had flown still managed to get home well but it is becoming somewhat of a money slug to me. The one that hurt me the most last weekend was Doonan though had my biggest bet on it and just didn't quite get there.

It's an interesting question Raw Instinct. I think I like a horse to have won recently but not have won too many times in the recent past.

There is nothing worse than the perenial bridesmaid (ala My egyptian Raine) but the way I see it, no horse (or human for that matter) can keep on top forever. I think goes for a sportsperson or sports animals performance from preparation to preparation or over their whole career.

The trick is picking the up, the plateau, and the down.

depends how long the horse has taken in their prep to win and what ther likely target race was..,i try and work out what the trainer is trying to do..
some horses are working up to a certain race and win a few bonus lead up races it would be crazy to jump off ..especially if they are wining without reaching there peak fitness...
i have no trouble backing up on a winner if it still fills my criteria ...

i think alot of black bookers when watching the videos look for good runs behind the winner...but sometimes the winner is winning very well.and shouldnt be ignored..
Clearview on the weekend is a good example..

Spot on Mav,

I have no problem backing a horse after it has won for me, if it's next race is suitable.

Also agree on the comment about looking for a good run behind the winner, i am guilty of this myself and its even worse when there is a blatanly obvious unlucky runner. Everyone seems to be on them their next start and alot of the time i think they would have been paying more their next start if they actually had of won, e.g Taikun last year in that race Paptong won at Caulfield. In 95% of cases the run of the race has come from the winner but alot of people don't like following them because they feel they've missed the boat.

Privateer, thanks for your answers, just one more. Do you base your order of importance on SR or on Average Price? As a few factors you have left out may well be more important to SR but may be levelled out by the inflated odds you get from these factors occuring (or not). I ask because i don't see how barriers can be so uninfluential (if that's a word) in your selections, to me (in the right circumstances) they make a huge difference to a horses chance of winning, but this might be offset in your data by elevated prices due to these (bad) barriers.

To take this discussion a little further i pledge to anyone who has a database capable of discerning the % winners and there average prices of the half of the field which started from the inside barriers and the half that left from the outside barriers to grace us with this information. And why not a comparison between one of Privateer's crucial criterium, lets say if we do the same with the half of the field with the lowest API (is that right) as opposed to the half with the highest API. I am very interested as i'm sure many others are, even a small sample size would be great.

Just reitterating i'm not having a go at anyone just genuinely interested.

Cheers ED

Let me start by clearing something up, "winners" as in first over the line, are not that important to me. I am happy to make a profit from a horse running second or third and if they do run the place then I ALWAYS win on the race. I suppose that is why I (and the stats supported me) don't place much emphasis on barrier positions as plenty of horses run 2 or 3 from wide gates.

I reckon we, as punters, are too often looking to find the ultimate winner of the race rather than simply looking for a horse who MAY win the race but wil most likely run a place. The name of the game (if you are serious) is making a profit. How many times at the end of a race day on which you have backed several winners, you find that when you check your wallet you have in fact lost or don't have as much money as you thought?

My method regularly throws up placegetters at big odds. I've had double figure placegetters many times and too many to count between $3 & $5. Mind you, I've also had very good priced winners but not as many as I've had placegetters. I suppose what I am saying is learn to be happy with regular, smaller profits rather than occasional good wins. For me, a winner is a bonus but placegetters are gold.

NOTE FOR MAVERICK: you asked me about multi type bets, one I omitted to mention that I occasionally have a lash at is an all up for a place. I upset a Sydney bookie at Xmas by taking $31 k from him with a relatively small outlay. Not a happy man at all. I suppose I shouldn't have said "thanks Santa" when I collected.

To answer other questions: Once a horse has run its race, wherever it finishes, it is out. I do not follow them for a couple of reasons. 1. My method relies on horses meeting all of my criteria which they may do one start but not the next. 2. I don't see the point in following up horses if they have made me money. I've done my job (selecting and supporting them) they have done their job (winning or placing). Why risk it again based on the fact that it won/ran well or was unlucky? No room for emotion in punting. Yes, I've had horses come out and win after I've supported them previously without success but not that often and to me it doesn't matter anyway.

A specific PLACE strike rate is one of my criteria but average price isn't. My selection has to be within a certain price range in the newspaper market to qualify. The average price rates #4 and the SR rates #7 in "order of importance".

Cheers

Privateer

Excuse ignoranc but what do you mean by 'average price'? And also what is this 'API' everyone alludes to, is this average prize income or something?


Thanks.

I thought it was Average Prizemoney Index, i.e a horses entire life earnings; or you can break it down to say last 12 months, divided by the number of starts in that time frame e.g a horse has won $50,000 from 10 races his API is $5000. Average Price would have to be all a horses starting odds added together then divided by number of starts, e.g 2.00 + 3.00 + 4.00 = 9/3 =average price $3.00 or 2/1 in the old.

I think you had me mistaken b4 though Privatee, when i asked about SR or Average Price i meant what do you focus on achieving as a whole a greater SR or a greater average price (i suspect Ave Price). I did not mean the previous history of a racehorse that may become a selection.

Privateer, couldn't agree more on the slow stream of consistent profits, i too was a big place bettor. Always felt like i was banging my head against a brick wall though when horses showing $4 would only be paying $1.50 the drum, and with no best tote on place betting (i wonder why) i found that much better value could be found betting to win. As a mathematician do you find the chances of your selections running a place are 3x greater or more as opposed to winning? My results said nearly exactly 4x greater SR hitting placegetters to winners but the odds i could receive outweighed this advantage, but this might not be the case with your selections as mine were generally well in the market.

One (alright three) more, you know you wanna. Does every race throw up a selection or multiple selections? Do all your 17 main criteria need to be filled for a selection to be made? Also does you "order of importance" make any difference to making selections within this top 17 factors or is the "order of importance" only functional for determining which factors you actually will look at?

And if your wondering no, i'm not a cop, nor do i work at the ATO.

Cheers ED

Raw Instinct Forget the term "average price" My selection has to be within a certain price range in the newspaper market to qualify. Where will you be on Saturday? Members? Public stand?

My "average prizemoney" criteria is assessed by looking at the total prizemoney won and dividing it by the number of starts it has had.

"As a mathematician do you find the chances of your selections running a place are 3x greater or more as opposed to winning?" Mathematician eh? LOL You're closer to the truth in the last line of your post! Don't know about the mthematical percentages but I like the idea of having 3 chances to collect money instead of only one. Each way all day!

Nope, not every race throws up a selection. On average I end up with a total of between 6 and 12 selections across 4 meetings on a Saturday and less when the tracks are rain affected as I don't bet on wet tracks. Further, I don't rate every race i.e. jumps, some 2 y.o's, city maidens, rubbishy Saturday fields in Adelaide, those with less than 8 runners etc.

I only use 9 criteria. Number 17 is where "barrier importance" rated on my final evaluation list after doing the research.

The order of importance is not really relevant to how I make the final selection but simply provided me with a guide on which to establish a betting method (and also which punting traps not to fall into ever again)

Lastly Ed, if you backed a horse paying $4 Win & $1.50 for the place on a 1 x 3 ratio and it ran 2nd or 3rd, you still win money! Better than seeing your entire win bet stay in the TAB/Bookies bags. Even if you up to a 1 x 4 ratio and it pays $1.30 you still don't lose. Then again, I reckon I can count on two hands how many times I've done that.

Cheers

Privateer

Privateer and others,
Thank you for being open regarding your respective thoughts on how you approach a race and ideas on ratings systems etc...it has been most invaluable and I have taken a lot of what has been said and from this base I will obviously have to look at my personal criteria weightings and those additional (intuitve?) factors that might come into assessing races.

A small question for Privateer...might sound silly but when you say '60% or better' for placing ratio - do you add the win % to the place for the 60% or is it just placings only...

Great discussion and thoughts one and all and thanks again for your contributions Privateer.

Only consider the place % which should be at 60 or better Desi and you're welcome mate. Just hope you can put it to good use and win a few dollars.

Good thread lads and an interesting chat. I am going to put my 0.5cents worth, because what I am going to say is not even worth 2cents.

Privateer, some excellent points but to just a minor thing. To say that place strike rate is "a much better" indicator than winning strike rate is a bit of a misnomer.
I only comment because this is one stat I have studied closely over the years also.
Place strike has an edge, approx. 1-2% over winning strike rate if you are taking the top placegetter over the top winner. It is up to you whether you believe 1-2% is significant or not and that is over a long period of time.
But if you looking at win v place over say the top 5-6 horses there is no difference at all.

Just a small thing, good luck to you all.

Might as well grab some more info off you guys while I can...Is it worthwhile betting on races for 2 year olds, fields of 7 or less and the cup meetings at non metro courses?

Choosing winners/ placegetters in races where there are large fields (esp 2 yr olds) seem like a lottery to me...Having no 3rd place dividend might cut down your opportunity for a place bet (have been caught out so many times before that I decided to keep to betting on 8 or more) and I have found some value bets in the non metro courses' cup days...

Or does it depend on just whether you criteria produces standout (potential) winners...thank you...
Cheers...

For me at least betting each way, I found that overall, the chance of a horse finishing 1, 2 or 3 was greatly enhanced if it had a place strike rate of more than 60% and that overall, the place percentage was a better guide to a first three placing than its respective winning percentage. Hope that is a little clearer.

Sorry Desi, we were on at the same time, I'll just edit this one...

I don't bet on 2 year olds unless all of the runners have had at least 3 starts.

I don't entertain fields of 7 or less as I bet each way.

Cup meetings at non-metro courses? I wouldn't as I only like metro races BUT races like the Cranbourne Cup, Geelong Cup, Newcastle Cup etc often have very good fields usually of metro standard so probably worth a go.

For me, I'm a bit ruthless and simply stick to my method. That's why I don't go to the races often for fear of lashing out on something simply for an interest. (I'll have to give the missus my cash on Saturday!) What I have found is that the better the class of the field, the better my method seems to work plus I live for huge fields!


Cheers

Privateer,

Did you find signifigant drops or increases in distance as a statistically signifigant facotor?

Thanks,
Matt

g'day Privateer, you seem to be pretty popular => & i confess after reading your posts im going to approach the punt differently ! just a quik question , on your 60% place rule , how many starts before a horse will enter your system ? eg you tipped tick by i think on the w'end , seemed to be a fair ask for the horse , big step up in grade etc , cheers

milbre

Matt

That was not something I even considered to be truthful. It probably does not occur on a regular enough basis to justify consideration as a valid selection criteria. It could have some merit but it would want to be supported by something a little stronger such as the horse/trainer has done this successfully before or it is a known front runner on a wet track perhaps? Very subjective but if you want to have a look at it I'd be interested in knowing how it goes.

Cheers

Privateer

Milbre

As long as a horse has had 3 runs in its life it is eligible for my method.

Re Tick By, every horse in the race was up in grade all tackling their first group 1. Freedman has a very high opinion of the horse and it ran well although immaturely. Will be a good horse come Spring time.