Hermes,

'becareful' is on the right track with prices. You may want to look a lttle further into pre-race prices. It's a very good filter.

My own analysis over the last two years highlights that only 3% of winners have had a pre-race price (Friday paper) greater than $20.

Luckyboy

Try this.
WIN BETTING ONLY
Approach No.1
Have a betting bank of $150 for every $1.00 win bet.Level stakes

Only bet on the critters showing $5.00+ in the paper.
Only bet on the Mules with TAB Nos. 1-10
(1-10 have a strike rate of 90%)

PLACE BETTING ONLY
Approach No.2
Try this staking plan from Eqestrean Investor
Bet sequence 1-2-6-18=$28 then stop & start again if you dont have a strike on that sequence.
You could have 6 banks of $28=$168

You said you have a place strike rate of 50%+
Test it on past results.

Leave out races with 7 & less runners.
Selections TAB No.1-10 only
No bet on selections paying less than $3.30 in the paper.
It should show a profit.

Then let us all know your findings.

That Equestian Publishing system that was based on last start winners, was based on starting at the bottom of the list of horses & betting on the first one you come to paying $11.00 or less in the newspaper.

They claimed it made a profit ,after testing it over 350 races ,it was all fabrication.With very long runs of outs.
You would have lost a motsa with buckleys of recovering .

It makes far more sence to start at the top & work down.
With some qualifing rules.
E.G.1-10 TAB Nos. win 90% of races so why would you start at the bottom 10%. It dont add up,it just dont add up.

Bhagwan,

This device - start at the top and look down for the first LSW - has merit it seems. Much more than starting at the bottom. Now I just need to find the ways it will pay.

A numerical cut-off for a start. The results a cut off at #7 will snare the vast majority of both placegetters and winners. Or rather seven is where the money stops. You miss some biggies beyond #6 or #7 but it can't be profitable to chase them race after race. In terms of just the volume of strike numbers you could cut off at #3! That will snare the vast majority of them, but only the lower priced ones. It is worth going down to #6 or #7 to snare the better priced winners.

The distribution of placegetters is noteworthy. Very few outside of saddlecloths 1, 2 3. Over 90% of them have saddlecloths 1, 2 or 3. The distribution of winners is more diverse. No exact figure but I'd say if your lowest numbered last start winner is 1, 2 or 3 there is a solid statistical chance it will place.

And here's something: most placegetters ran second! Very few thirds. I hadn't noticed this before. A proportion of nearly 8/2. A great method of selecting your second placer in quinellas??

I know this is looking like it will pay on win only but I am worried about a statistical fact: fewer last start winners win races than you'd expect. But, more last start winners place than you'd expect. That's why I was chasing placegetters with this method.

Last start winners who win are therefore horses that win two in a row. The stats are against that. The stats say that horses that win a race are more likely to run a place next race than they are to win. Doesn't the stat go:

35% of winners are last start winners. BUT
only 25% of last start winners are next time winners.


In this case we've found a method of locating a high proportion of seconds. In my samples the win strike is healthy, but that defies the stats, doesn't it? In the long term I expect the stat that says last start winners are more likely to place than to win will prevail. Despite my sample.

Maybe we have a quinella system in the making. Something like:

Take the last start winner with lowest saddlecloth number. Selection 1. (Likely to run second).

Selections 2 and 3. Of the four horses with adjacent numbers, take the two with the best last start and/or highest prixewinnings (or placegetter percentage or whatever way you want to distinguish between them).

We do this because, as a general observation, the other placegetters *follow the last start winner* who places. That is, if a last start winner with saddlecloth #1 wins or places, then the other placegetters will have saddlecloth numbers not far away. Usually there is at least one other placegetter one or two numbers away above or below. It is less likely that you get a placegetting last start winner with a low saddlecloth and the other placegetters are 7 and 8 or even 5 or 6. More likely combinations like 1, 2, 3 or 1, 2, 4. or 2, 3 and 5. etc. The bias towards the lower numbers/higher weights.

On the other hand if your placegetting last start winner is in the higher numbers 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. Then so too will be the other placegetters. More often than not.

Of course you get some very diverse distributions, but I note this as a general pattern. Very often one of the horses adjacent to the placegetting last start winner will place too. I colour them in in the form guides with a green marker. You can see the blocks of green. Looked interesting so I did a quick count. Only about 3 in 10 deviate from the pattern. Will need to do more stats obviously.

But maybe when betting quinellas use the lowest numbered last start winner to find the centre of the action. Take it as your centre and look at the numbers around it. To put it another way:

You don't get many placegetting last start winners that stick out like a sore thumb. You find them within a nest of other placegetters. You should be able to find a quinella strategy to take advantage of this.

Anyone find ways to make this pay?

The quest for a viable system (and steady stats) goes on.

Hermes

Twenty-five eligible races on the card tommorow. There's some good bets among the selections. Some days good, some ordinary, some bad. On paper, could be a good one.

Two selections are eliminated. We'll save our money on Warwick Farm R3, #10 Absolute Lure, and even more so Ipswich R5 #9 Tryst. So that's twenty three bets.

For the record they are:

Warwick Farm R1 #2 King of Soul, R2 #3 Lucky Gwen, R4 #4 Dare Du Ciel, R5 #3 Exotikos, R6 #3 Don't Come Yet, R7 #7 Venere, R8 #1 Kurrajong Mist.

Sandown R1 #1 War Abandoned, R2 #1 Stolen Crown, R3 #1 Sacred Hill, R4 #6 Fine & Dapper, R5 #7 Zedati, R6 #5 Power in Motion, R7 #5 Century Gal, R8 #4 Our Target.

Ipswich R6 #4 Graces Roses, R7 #2 Norwhal, R8 #2 Hellie Missed.

Gawler R3 #2 Delete Me Not, R5 #2 Claredon Curse, R6 #1 Kurt, R7 #4 Dutton, R8 #1 Manilow.

We'll try it on paper win only - $5 on the nose. That's 23 x 5 = $115.
Also calculate as per Bhagwan's suggestion - $1 win, $3 place = $92.

And I'd like to try this. Numbers 1, 2, 3 only. $5 to place. That's 14 races = $70.
And let's see if it bends the other way: Numbers 4,5 and 6 only. $5 to win. That's seven races = $35.

Hermes

Some quinella combinations.

Try simple adjacent horses. The two adjacent to the lowest numbered last start winner. Eg. Warwick Farm R1. Selection is #2 King of Soul. So box 3 quinella becomes 1, 2, 3. Race 7 Warwick Farm. Selection is #7 Venere. Quinella becomes 6, 7, 8. Trying to catch the adjacent horse phenomenon.

A more complex possibility:

Take the lowest numbered last start winner. Then the lowest numbered last start second placegetter, then third. If no second, then third, then fourth. And so on.

Now, where this yields horses adjacent to the lowest numbered last start winner: box 3 quinella.

The selections tommorow become:

Warwick.

R1 - 1, 2, 4.
R2 - 1, 2, 3.
R6 - 1, 2, 3.

Sandown

R5 - 4, 6, 7.
R8 - 4, 5, 6.


Ipswich

R6 - 2, 3, 4.
R7 - 2, 3, 6.
R8 - 2,3, 6.

Gawler

R3 - 1, 2, 5.
R5 - 1, 2, 9.
R6 - 1, 2, 3.
R8 - 1, 2, 8.

An extension of the idea.

Hermes

Bhagwan wrote:

Then let us all know your findings.

Will try it that way too, Bhagwan. Many thanks for your insights. Will report the findings.

Two punters went to the races today armed with a wad of cash. One to Warwick Farm. One to Sandown. Both had a new selection strategy they heard from a mate who heard from a mate who read it on the Net. Simple system: select the lowest numbered last start winner.

The guy at Warwick farm had a beauty. Six placegetters in seven. Went home a believer.
The guy at Sandown crashed. Two places in eight races. Blamed the heavy track. Went home and kicked the dog.

(Another guy at Ispwich scored two places out of three and another guy at Gawler scored two out of four. Both went home happy but not convinced.)

Total today in twenty two races (one scratching from 23) = twelve placegetters. 54%. Few winners, but King of Soul at $5.80 (Vic TAB) was a nice start to the day.

Warwick Farm

R1 #2 King of Soul - $5.80/$2.60
R2 #3 Lucky Gwen $1.70
R5 #3 Exotikos - $2.60
R6 #3 Don't Come Yet - $4.40
R7 #7 Venere - $4.00
R8 - #1 Kurrajong Mist - $2.00

Sandown

R1 #1 War Abandoned - $1.60
R5 #7 Zedatzi - $1.90

Ipswich

R7 #2 Narwhal - #2.80
R8 #2 Hellie Missed - $1.80

Gawler

R5 #2 Claredon Curse - $1.90
R6 #1 Kurt - #3.90/$2.00


Have to check to see which staking stragegy worked best, but still enough action in this system to keep me interested.

Hermes

The level stakes return for the place were sensational.

Return $29.30
Outlay $22.00
Profit $7.30 =33% POT

If you could do that on win betting you would be brilliant , but on place betting thats sesational, for the day that is .

You were saying its level stakes profit for the place was ordinary, what would be interesting, is to find out the profit possability at level stakes on the past 150+ results with the various filters added.
That had previously mentioned.
E.G. TAB 1,2,3 OR TAB 1-7 etc.

Isolating the TABs 1,2,3.

122 races. 67 placegetters. 54%.

But we're collecting too many low payers.

Average return on that sample = $1.87.

$1.87 at 54% won't go.

Raw figures only and so no money filter.

Bhagwan, the immutability of your morning price $3.30 rule has dawned on me.

Hermes