I agree KV, but what is illogical about changing the weight rule down from 58kgs to 57kgs? It really doesn't matter what rules you have of this nature the line in sand has to be drawn somewhere.

Also what is a logical rule and what isn't, can you answer that simple question for me please?

Well, it seems to me that this is one of two sorts of systems often seen on this forum. One sort is where people have picked a set of parameters out of the air more or less because over a set number of races they have shown some advantage. As an extreme example, "Over the last month a lot of horses starting with A have won so I'll start a system which bets on horses starting with A". This is a rule having no particular logical basis that I can see.
The other sort is one where a rule might be "I'll bet horses which are down in class and weight". I can see some logic in this, if a horses is carrying less weight and racing against weaker horses it might do well.
This thread starts, as do many, with a set of rules and no explanation as to what they are based on. So, I did what I do usually and that's try to see if there is any logic behind the rules or if it is some backfitted nonsense to be put on my threads not to bother with list.
All the other rules if stretch my imagination I can find some logic for. Tab 1-7, horse possibly one of the better horses in the field (tenuous). Career starts 8 - 21 and Win strike rate combined mean horse has proved some ability and isn't worn out, etc., etc. But weight 54.5 to 57Kg, I'm sorry, I can't find any logic there. I thought perhaps it was something I hadn't thought of so, ever seeking enlightenment, I thought I'd ask.

KV

Fair enough KV, I can understand where you are coming from. But given that weight is a major factor in handicap races and given that the more weight a horse is handicapped the less chance it has of winning (at least in theory), then I would have thought that a rule with an upper limit on how much a horse has to carry would be logical.

What makes 58kgs such a critical point in determining the cut-off? Unless that has been explained, which as you pointed out it wasn't, then it is not a magic number, it could well be 59kgs or 60kgs, or for that matter 56kgs or 57kgs.

IMO, I see nothing illogical about this particular piece of tweaking.

OK an upper limit is fair but a range of weights? It has to carry a weight within a 2.5KG range? Still my missus thinks she can feel a pea underneath the mattress so I guess anything's possible. :-)


KV

Interesting banter about logical rules guys.

57kg. is a fair upper limit. I was recently informed 27% of all Sat. metro winners carried 57kg or more [probably a lot lower for non. metro and especially during the week]. However, I think most of that 27% would have carried 57kg only. I don't have the figures but it would be interesting to know[?]. Can't see the logic in 54 1/2kg. lower limit [why not just 54kg?], but as the rules were a 'tweaked' version of the original the weight at least has perspective as the rules[naturally] had to be b...f.... to be tweaked.

Within reason b...f..... is no big deal and does supply pointers to the right direction when seeking to fine tune a system or even create one. However, when they are tweaked to include a few long shots, that's when the exercise goes into la la land. I don't think this was the case here though Kenny.

I don't know the WA result, but a bomb out for the rest of the selections
yesterday for the system.

I agree with you Crash, KV has raised an interesting point about logical rules & I guess we all have them, even if they are not formalized into a system as such.

For instance anyone who compiles their own ratings works to a set of rules of some description, even if those rules are only loosely adhered to.

KV fails to see the logic in having a lower limit weight, and while I'm not sure what Panther had in mind when he started this thread, having a lower weight limit appears to be quite logical for mine.

As an example, at Ascot on Saturday of the 78 starters, 29 of them were limit weight horses, of which only one (City of Ruins) won, so while the limit weight horses represented 37.2% of all runners, they represented only 12.5% of winners.

Now I know that this is just a one off example, and certainly not unique in nature as this is a very common outcome re limit weight horses, certainly in Perth, but any rule that can eliminate so many no-hopers is IMO quite logical.

BTW, for those interested in analysing Perth races, the handicapper provides a very useful tool with the publication of their ratings in the racebook.

La Mer, if its not to late, i am interested in the different criteria, thanks

Unfortunately, I've ditched the alternative criteria out of my database, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days.

Has anyone got the results for this system since Jan 1st?

i did enjoy good success with this last saturday.