Would it be a fair assumption if...
 

Crash - my rule referring to "5 race starts" simply means the horse must
have had five races - not five races THIS PREP...
Its form line could be x161 or 411 or whatever...it may have had
20 or 30 races in its lifetime...so long as it has had at least five.

Would it be a fair assumption if....
 

Gday Silver and Sand

Will attempt to answer some of those points you raised....

31 winners from 85 selections
Average price per winner (return divided by 31) is 4/1
Highest priced winners 11.30 - 9.80 - 9.30
NSW just doesnt stack up - dont know why
Wetter tracks dont seem to affect the stats - some runners
win - some dont
Deleting l/s winner rule is a thought - although - I have always
preferred l/s winners to backing something with a form
line of 110 - but there could be a cut off line say l/s beaten no
more than 4 lengths or something like that - Ill check that out
Distance rule - horse more consistent over shorter course -
Tried it up to 1400m results dropped off
No 2yo races - thats an idea - Ill check that out

Just to confirm we are on the same page these are the selections for March
2008
2/3 Sshine Coast R6 Crystal Sentinel u/p
4/3 Port Lincoln R5 Cumquat 2nd
4/3 Port Lincoln R3 Peruvian 1st 9.80
6/3 Port Lincoln R5 Export Power1st 3.80
9/3 Stoney Creek R9 King Hoaks 1st 4.30
23/3 Sshine Coast R8 Slick Trick u/p

Cheers and good luck to all

s k :cool:

Fair enough, but you still have the problem of low price and more weight and expectations of a 3rd. win during a current prep. How these penalties leads to returns of an 80% POT seems a mystery to me.

Hi Sundance
Thanks for sharing your findings.

One my care to check this idea out, it can work well on its day.

RULES
1000-1200m
Winner Last start or Second last start.

5+career runs
16%+ WinSR
Field size 14 & less.
2/1-10/1 at 1 min till jump.

Must have placed twice in last 3 runs (but not have placed 3 times in a row including spells).
Must not have won twice in a row in its most recent 2 starts.

No resumers.

Cheers.

Would it be a fairassumption..
 

Hi Bhagwan -

Good to hear from you - I appreciate your input and will follow up
on your suggestions - I think when punters get their heads together
it can only be beneficial to all -

Cheers mate

s k :cool:

Sundance

Are your results from actual bets or back data? If they're from actual bets why would you change anything? :confused:

Hi all

Could someone explain what this ARCHIE calc is and how do you apply it?

Cheers
Ubetido

would it be a fair assumption
 

Hi Sundance,
a little confused, your post (6) claimed Tribal Warrior and Cafe Bar as a profitable weekend (prior to your listing rules at post 8).
WA tracks were not included (is this an oversight)
Tribal Warrior ran at Ascot (WA) Not LSW,(122), Distance ran was 1400?
Cafe Bar Not LSW, (133), Not won 2 this preparation?
I tend to agree with crash and others, there is little scope to expand when
expecting a THIRD WIN in current preparation. Silver&Sands idea of expanding to other distances (maybe 1300-1400) would give you a wider scope (maybe a reduction in POT%) and a greater selection process. Which in the long term may increase return.
Good luck

Hi Sundance

Forumites will mostly knock anything that touts high win returns. This maybe from there own experience and have a conservative and cautious outllook. Nothing wrong with that mind you as things can go belly up just when you thought you had found that delicate balance of filters to give you good returns.

I would just follow what you are doing and if it is 80% keep going and keep profiting while you can and keep looking for a second income stream from perhaps a different set of rules which also produces success.

For example you currently operate on 1000m-1200m races

Well how do the 1400m-1600m races look perhaps different or similar filters may produce good results.

Cheers
Ubetido

From a posting of mine on another forum.

===

The Punters Chi-Square Test.

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisperin What is a Chi Test? I've seen this expression before but do not know what it measures

In simple terms it's a test used by statisticians to determine the probability that a set of observed results were obtained by chance. I'm not a statistician, and simple is always good for me

For punting it can be used like this. I'll use Peanuts numbers for the example.

1) Determine the OBSERVED number of winners and losers. In this example Peanuts tells us there has been 9 winners from 49 selections, therefore 9 winners and 40 losers.

2) Determine the EXPECTED number of winners and losers. This is a bit more complicated, and I'm assuming that the SP is an accurate indication of the selections chance. Peanuts tells us that the average divi is $2.99. I'm assuming this is for all selections, not just the winners. We need to convert this to a percentage.

1/2.99 = 0.3344

Next we need to "normalise" that percentage to a 100% market. I'm guessing that the original market was around 115%.

0.3344/1.15 = 0.2907

There where 49 selections so we multiply 49 by 0.2907 to give us the EXPECTED number of WINNERS

49*0.2907 = 14.24 winners

From there we simply subtract 14.24 from 49 to give us the EXPECTED LOSERS.

49-14.24 = 34.76 losers

Ok. So now we have the following

OBSERVED WINNERS = 9
OBSERVED LOSERS = 40
EXPECTED WINNERS = 14.24
EXPECTED LOSERS = 34.76

3) Let's put these figures into Excel and use the built in CHITEST function to work out whether the tipster is any good. Enter the following into the listed cells without the quotes.

Cell A1: "9"
Cell B1: "40"
Cell A2: "14.24"
Cell B2: "34.76"

4) In a blank cell enter the following.

=CHITEST(A1:B1,A2:B2)

You should get 0.099215 returned. This is the likelihood expressed as a percentage (9.92%) of the observed results being due to luck. From this we can determine that if the selections are losing, and there is a greater than 90% chance of this being due to something else besides luck, then it's probably time to get a new tipster.

This is the quick and dirty method, but is good enough for punting purposes. The result will jump around alot until you get a fair few observed results in there.