Thanks for that Kenny. Do you have any thoughts on whether the actual neurals points or a ranked order of points would prove a more accurate method?
For example a horse with say 80 cp points would probably not have a 20 times better strike rate with thoise on say 4 points? If you get my drift.

Dr Ron,

This is not exactly what you asked for but might be useful. In the attached file is the average neural rating of all winners at different distance ranges. The actual values are irrelevant because they have been adjusted relative to the highest rater being 100. You can see the importance of DLR as distance increases.

Very interesting Chinbok, and I notice a couple of the others move in the opposite direction as distance increases.

Very interesting results Chinbok, in the system I'm currently working on based on the percentages provided by you and Kenny, I had completely shelved the DLR figures, but after seeing your table will have to work them in starting at 1350 m .

Hi Dr Ron,

From the questions you have asked me I see you work in a very different way to what I do but from my observations (and they are a bit limited I admit) the neural factors really can't be taken in isolation. It's like trying to handicap a horse by saying "Yes, it's won at this distance 3 times out of 4 so there is a 75% chance of it winning this time", when it hasn't had a run for 12 months, has never won in the wet and it's starting from barrier 27. Personally I think the DLR is a factor of great importance, used much as MichaelG uses it. If the horse has a certain minimum in this column it probably means it's ready for its next run.
A nice balance of some of the other factors which feel good and logical together (bit of current form, good jockey, whatever) is possibly the way to build up a winning system.
Not really trying to criticise you here Dr Ron, more saying that my table of single neural returns is not a lot of use on its own. Chinbok's looks to have more value.
KV

I realised this morning, while in the shower, that the average ratings of winners I gave previously could be misleading.

Nearly all horses start their preparations over the shorter distances. These runners will have low scores for CF, Tim and DLR which will bring the average of all winners down. So I've added the average ratings for all runners at each distance range so this can be compared to the winners.

Now it appears as there is no correlation between DLR and distance.

It's like the statistic that (about) 75% of winners have run in the last 21 days when 75% of all runners have run in the last 21 days.

Hey guys, I tried to download some neurals from previous meetings so that I wouldn't have to pester you for info using the method mentioned by someone on another thread, (might have been wesmip1 from memory) but kept getting a message about some sort of script error. Would anyone be able to help? thanks

Very interesting stats.
Does any one have any stats on the results for the std. factory setting.

Cheers.

The script error is probably because the whole site link (including the long form of the venue and date) aren't there and it confuses the server. If you hit the neurals button over to the left though I think you'll find it finds the right data.
KV

Over about 12 months. All courses, all track condt. ca 15000 bets
Win:...24.25% Sr, 88.1% ROI
Place:.53.6% Sr, 92.3% ROI
KV